

# The Anti-Soapbox

Collected Essays

by

Aaron Garrison

©2014 Aaron Garrison

Smashwords Edition
This eBook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

#  Table of Contents

Preface

I. P.R.I.M.O.: Five Terms to Know

II. Give Opinion a Second Chance

III. Blurring the Line: Fantasy or Reality?

IV. Help?: How I Learned to Do Nothing

V. Stay Calm

VI. Don't Forget the "Why"

VII. Defying Appearances

VIII. Exploring the Illogical

IX. Semantics Revisited

X. Take the Silent-Mind Challenge

XI. Windows to Nothing: The Eyes Lie

XII. The Dangers of Expectation

XIII. On Property

XIV. The New Science

XV. The Nameless Experience

XVI. On Freedom

XVII. Our Progress Thus Far

XVIII. On Transactions

XIX. Ten Thousand Voices Saying Nothing

XX. Three Sides to Every Story: A Primer in Multidimensional Thinking

XXI. The Miracle of Choice

#  PREFACE

"So much the worse for him who took the comedy seriously, who only saw what happened on the stage, and not the machinery behind it."

—Arthur Koestler, _Darkness at Noon_

It's been said that, in the confusion and shadow-play of this life, one either shines a light or becomes the darkness. This book is my attempt to do the former and avoid the latter.

I'm no guru, certainly, nor do I hope to pass as one. Why am I publishing some 40,000 words of my views and advice, then? For me, these collected essays are less a sermon than a guidepost, my way of sharing some of the everyday wisdom I've learned along this roughshod path of ours. When I feel strongly enough about something to essay on it, I do so out of meaningful experience that's proved somehow helpful to me on a practical level. Also, many of my essays have resulted from observing a general need in my fellow man. I see myself (and my past mistakes) in so many others; it would be callous of me to hoard the knowledge that has, in my case at least, spared me some suffering.

Consider these writings a friendly comparing of notes, if you will.

Yes, everyone has an opinion, and in these days of super-massive media and super-accessible self-publishing, everyone's opinion is out there and available. This ubiquity of the written word is, of course, double-edged, as the same wide-open media has removed what few gatekeepers of fidelity and accuracy were previously in place, giving way to as much distortion as communication (a topic explored in one of the upcoming essays, as it so happens). Why pay attention to my writings, then, over the thousands and thousands at your disposal? Only you, the reader, can decide that. Again, I certainly don't regard my perceptions as special or superior; I hold them dear, to be sure, but only because of the depth of my convictions.

I am not you. Results may vary. The views expressed in this book stand alongside many.

Right off the bat, know that this book is not an academic discourse, or at all formal; you won't find a single reference made or fact cited. Some selections are, in fact, more instructional in composition, reading like how-to articles rather than proper essays. Though, a casual treatment is not necessarily a negative, for informality should not, I believe, be equated with invalidity. What's more, some topics come off _better_ when described informally, as to grant a bottom-up perspective that might be hindered by a more rigorous approach. It also bears mentioning that nearly all these essays give their lofty subjects a rather condensed treatment, by necessity of format; though, I do not believe them to be _over-condensed_ , to the point of becoming distorted or losing focus. That said, just keep in mind that, as these vast subjects are squeezed into tiny essays, there is much omitted from these pages.

Likewise, these essays were not written for the scholar. That is, their subject matter might appear rudimentary, perhaps outright obvious, maybe even a little naive. That's not an unreasonable perception; however, understand that, obvious or not, these ideas are not universally understood. Because our educational systems are often dysfunctional (institutional and social alike), not everyone learns these rudiments of living, however basic and necessary. In fact, I suspect that for every person who was blessed with these truths at an early age, there is someone who wasn't. For evidence of this theory, look no further than a newspaper.

As it so happens, I was one such unlearned person, well into "adulthood." Growing up, I was spared many of life's most valuable lessons by all major influences in my development—family, school, TV, society at large. As a result, I was blunted at a deep, fundamental level of my psychology, left without the faculty to understand these vital lessons even were I somehow exposed to them—left unable to _learn how to learn_ , as it were. I have suffered because of my ignorance, and I would prefer not to see others suffer similarly. Thus, I have compiled this book of essays, in informal, no-nonsense language, as a synthesis of my belated adolescence. I see this text as a kind of playbook for life, rather than anything artistic, entertaining, or at all elegant. In many areas, these essays parallel and overlap a self-help book I wrote, _Learn Yourself: A Manual for the Mind_ ; in fact, some have been circulated, in altered form, in support of that book.

All in all, these essays are my light. Some might perceive them as such; others, as the very darkness I hope to forestall. Either way, I must shine, for better or worse.

There is, no doubt, something of the liberator in my intentions. When asking myself how I might affect some type of real, lasting change in the world, that which would help prevent the mind-numbing non-education that characterized my upbringing, the answer was to write and inform, to the best of my ability. Naturally, this answer was inconvenient, but it was, also, what I knew in my heart to be right, at least in regards to my current station in life. After all, change is supposed to be _visible_ , and _dynamic_ , and _instantly gratifying_ , perhaps with some fame and money thrown in the mix—not a collection of self-published books and other small-circulation writings, the equivalent of the proverbial drop in the ocean. Yet my humble writings are, I believe, the only truly effective action that is within my power to enact. It's a soft approach, of course; but in my experience, idealistically trying to force change rarely sees lasting results, and often just adds to the problem.

So, yes, this book is a drop in the ocean. Then again, without the individual drops, no ocean would exist.

* * *

One final note.

This book's title is meant to be a statement in itself. I attached the "anti-" because typical soapbox oratory has strings attached: an agenda to be pushed, an ego to be stroked, a donation box to be filled. Also, it tends to be rather contentious and inflammatory. Today's soapboxes—be they lecterns, pulpits, microphone-studded podiums, or actual crate-board crowning a street corner—are more like violent weapons, instead of founts for goodwill and ideas.

This book, on the other hand, attempts to fulfill the soapbox's original ideal. It is presented as humbly, candidly, and transparently as I know how, without stake in its approval. Consider everything in it open to debate. Take it or leave it, accept it or reject it, love or hate or indifference—it's all the same to me. I offer these views in the spirit of casting bread on the waters, and I would hope my reader approaches them with a similar detachment. Feel free to close this book at any time.

#  I. P.R.I.M.O.: FIVE TERMS TO KNOW

Greetings, fellow citizen of Earth. Did you know there's a perpetual war for your mind, waged in clever and invisible ways?

In much of the world today, we are constantly bombarded with a flurry of information, symbols, and images; and, unfortunately, a significant percentage of this flow originates from unscrupulous sources seeking to influence your thinking. So powerful is this influence, it can alter your perception of yourself, those around you, and even the very reality in which you live and breathe. That is to say, this influence allows highly questionable people to "get in your head."

To keep this as an essay rather than a book, I will not address the great many individual forms of this influence, those various lies and misconceptions that flow through our society's psychological underbelly. Instead, I will familiarize you with five vital terms, to imbue you with the scrutiny necessary to independently identify such influence _yourself_ —so much teaching fishing, rather than distributing fish.

Term number one: _platitude_ , defined as "a flat, dull, or trite remark, especially one uttered as if it were fresh or profound."

Ask yourself: How many times have you been forced to consider a given piece of information purely because it was offered in a loud, imperious manner? And, how many times have such empty remarks been used as substitutes for _real_ substance, such as evidence and objective debate?

All too often, we are blasted with platitudes from the likes of media personalities and other attention-seekers, usually as persuasively loud sound-bites being substituted for strong, substantial argument. To amplify the effect, platitudes are often supplemented by heartwarming music or cued fits of applause (think political campaign speeches). If the speaker is a bit more rough-and-tumble, the platitudes might include manipulative tactics such as psychologically punishing rhetoric, designed to inflict the greatest sentimental impact and exert the fullest amount of control. The platitude is, thus, a good friend of sociopaths and manipulators, used as a psychological weapon.

Suffer enough platitudes, day in and day out, and one runs the risk of being _conditioned_ by them. At such a saturation point, we can be affected and influenced despite conscious effort not to, even when aware of what's at play. Such is the nature of the subconscious mind, vulnerable to the attrition of simple, brute-force repetition (see term number three).

To defend oneself against the dastardly platitude, train the mind to respond only to clear, understandable, and demonstrable ideas, not to thin tripe that sounds good but, in reality, is all show and no substance (if not an outright manipulative attack).

Now, term number two: _ridiculous_ , defined as "worthy of ridicule or derision."

"Ridiculous" has a broad range of meaning in today's lexicon, but here I use it in the literal sense, as "something or someone that should be ridiculed." Why is this term included in this little guidebook for mental warfare? Because ridicule is a potent weapon in that war; namely, as it relates to social control. With public disapproval being one of modern man's utmost phobias, ridicule gains use as a manipulator's tool, leveraged against others as a quiet, yet highly effective, measure of control. It's why some people fear public speaking more than death.

The psychology behind the fear of ridicule is a book or two on its own, but it can be summed up as a powerful subconscious complex. When activated, the complex will, generally, distort one's self-perception and other psychological parameters, resulting in a potent, paralyzing sort of mental pain, as to dictate one's behavior to a degree where other control schemes fall short. In a culture rife with social neuroses rooted in disapproval, fear of ridicule has gone viral, almost to the point of ubiquity; thus, the fear of being labeled "ridiculous" is, in many circles, the equivalent of social excommunication, nothing less than a scarlet letter. Whether deserved or not, the effect has its impact (if one lets it); and therein lies the source of ridicule's power, which is immense enough for public speaking to sometimes rate worse than death.

Defending against control-by-ridicule can be either very hard or very easy, depending on the individual. With this particular fear depending so much on a need for the approval of one's peers, then the solution is, naturally, to rid oneself of that need (which is not a need at all, but merely an acquired condition—completely reversible, in other words). Of course, when it comes to kicking mankind's approval-addiction, there's no better case of "easier said than done," for approval is threaded quite deeply in many societies and, thus, the bedrock of our psychology. Regardless, the world's manipulators will hold power over anyone who clings to this "need."

Defend against ridicule by withstanding disapproval, as to prevent any reaction on your part, thus derailing the whole control scheme.

Term number three: _inculcation_ , defined as "to cause or influence someone to accept an idea or feeling through repetition."

Inculcation and psychological conditioning are not foreign concepts to most people, yet the two are commonly disregarded as unimportant. Ironically, one of the reasons for this unconcern is conditioning _itself_ : through daily exposure to the manipulative inculcation of media and one another, the mind can be conditioned into believing that it isn't being conditioned. _I'm not here_ , says the inculcation, and, after enough repetition, that statement just might start feeling true, against all logic and self-evidence. It all goes back to the tried-and-true concept of The Big Lie: repeat something often enough, loud enough, and punishingly enough, and society is prone to accept it. After all, screeching microphone feedback can still get a response, despite saying nothing.

Another question to ask yourself: How many times has something seemed true purely because it has appeared in multiple media outlets? We see here another quality of inculcation: serving as a substitute for truth and evidence, much like the platitude. Repeat a fact or image in enough separate, reputable-seeming TV shows and newspapers, and a sense of consensus is formed in the viewer's subconscious mind, with it an illusion of truth. It's the same principle that makes something feel right because enough other people are seen doing it (damn the old adage about jumping off a bridge).

To defend against inculcation and conditioning, train the mind to judge truth based strictly on fact, actuality, and merit, instead of how many folks on TV echo the latest piece of glorified gossip.

Term number four: _misdirection_ , defined as "a wrong or incorrect direction, guidance, or instruction."

How often do you hear a news headline stating one thing, but come away with impressions about another subject entirely? Furthermore, how long does it take you to _realize_ this discrepancy and its effect on your mind?

"BREAKING NEWS: BIG EVIL FOREIGN DICTATOR THAT NEEDS DEALING WITH BUYS PACK OF CIGARETTES FROM LOCAL VENDOR."

Dissect that fictitious headline. Is it about a head of state buying some smokes, or are we receiving some covert political indoctrination (about a crummy piece-of-garbage dictator we should nuke to hell _right now_ )? We see here an example of linguistic assault, where key terms and wording combine to exert a profound psychological effect, much like that of a sociopath's incisive platitude. This is the essence of misdirection.

When it comes to misdirection, it is as often of the unintentional variety as the intentional. After all, the media people producing this stuff aren't immune to the manipulative mind-war at hand, the way we all breathe the same air. Some misdirection is as blatant and laughable as the mock headline above; other instances can be subtler and less-obvious, if not downright stealthy (such as simple condensation of the news, or ignoring something entirely). In any case, unless one is readily on guard and looking for it, misdirection will misdirect, often subconsciously, under the radar of one's conscious, topside thoughts. Then, the result is mental "programming," which can lie dormant and unsuspected for long periods of time—until suddenly, when the original subject comes up in conversation, that programming is triggered, and certain thoughts and feelings emerge. "Why does that big foreign dictator appear so _evil_ as he buys his cigarettes? And how do we deal with him ...?"

To defend against misdirection, train the mind to see and hear what is really seen and heard, not what you're _supposed_ to see and hear.

Term number five: _omission_ , defined as "something left out, not done, or neglected."

One more question (last one, I swear): How often have you witnessed a fact or news item being dismissed only because it originated outside the sphere of popular media? Additionally, have you ever tried convincing someone that such rogue information is true and valid? How long were you hoarse afterward?

Believe it or not, much happens on Earth that is not reported and documented. Similarly, much _is_ reported that is not available on television or other popular media forefronts. In other words, _we don't know everything_. For many folks, this concept is largely alien, since, after all, anything newsworthy must find its way into popular media, as a sort of natural law. However, this assumption is not so, and it conspires with the widespread notion that if something _is_ on television, it must be true. Thus, operating on this logic, if something is _not_ on television, it must be _false_. A most dangerous conclusion, indeed, and one which governs the psychology and behavior of far more people than is comfortable. We see here the tightrope of omission, and all the illusion and fallacy it brings with it.

To defend against the almighty omission, train the mind to think according to firmly established fact and the possibility of unknowns, not what is merely available or presented to you.

In conclusion, I wish to quote an age-old Sunday-school song, "Oh Be Careful Little Ears":

"Oh, be careful little ears, what you hear...

Oh, be careful little eyes, what you see...

Oh, be careful little mouth, what you say...

Oh, be careful little hands, what you do...

Oh, be careful little feet, where you go...

Oh, be careful little mind, what you think...

Oh, be careful little heart, what you love."

There's a war for your mind, friend, and everyone is fighting it, whether they know it or not. Ponder this essay's abridged dictionary, and take heed, for the spoils of this war extend to your very soul.

#  II. GIVE OPINION A SECOND CHANCE

We hold such a low opinion of opinion, these days. But is that fair?

For as long as I've been alive, the opinion has been equated with a certain bodily orifice, in that "everyone has one and they all stink." I won't contend that most of the time, this comparison holds true, for we are indeed a people fond of opinion, and more than a few of those opinions "stink," in that they are hasty, ill-thought, and none too constructive. Yet, does that reflect on the opinion itself, or just how poorly we're _constructing_ them?

The answer, I believe, is the latter.

As it were, there is hope for the opinion yet. Just because it's gained a "stinky" reputation, doesn't mean that reputation has to be _fulfilled_. If only we could be a little more thoughtful and accountable in our opinion craft, we might see the opinion becoming a valid vehicle of communication and self-expression. But, so long as we keep recklessly churning out "stinky" ones, the opinion will never move up the linguistic ladder.

The problem isn't so much with our opinions, but the thoughts _behind_ them. Narrow, shortsighted thinking is wont to forge a likeminded opinion, which is usually of the "stinky" variety, these conveying little relevant information other than its author's small-mindedness. Plus, there is the matter of bias. All too often, opinions are either zealously adhered to or bitterly dismissed, yet both responses are equally shallow and invalid, since neither considers the actual _merit_ of the opinion or the opined-upon (instead favoring appearances, vested interest, and knee-jerk emotional response). These sort of empty opinions are, in radio terms, all noise and no signal—a condition which, as it stands, describes much of our entire "marketplace of ideas," where substance and reality have little importance over surface appeal.

Conversely, a well-thought, broad-thinking opinion strictly avoids bias and other distortions, instead striving for objectivity. Furthermore, it will not only convey relevant, impartial information, but communicate it accurately, for how an opinion is communicated is just as important as what it communicates. And, of course, the better opinion will actually _observe what is being opined on_ , taking into account facts and substance instead of just appearances and feelings.

It's the difference between "That's good," and "That's good _for me_ , now, at this present place and in these present circumstances and in this present mood."

Notice the rich set of parameters in the second, broad-thinking opinion. Not only do these convey more information, but they do so in a way which forbids assumptions, bias, and restriction. The importance of such precision is twofold, for it not only provides more raw information, but does so in a way which respects the big picture, as to create a solid linguistic and semantic framework, which is ultimately more functional than its stripped-down counterpart. For this reason, a broad, well-crafted opinion will exert a fundamentally different psychological effect on its listener, as to wholly avoid the dysfunction presented by its narrow opposite.

To be sure, good opinions are heard differently than bad ones.

Here, we enter the massive territory of linguistics and their effect on the mind and communication as a whole—that fancy-sounding field known formally as "neurolinguistics." These neurolinguistic effects go beyond typical psychological response (such as, say, formulating a reply to a question), instead extending deep into the psychology of the communicants. Operating in that murky land of the subconscious, linguistic factors can bring about marked psychological effects, powerful enough to alter how we think, feel, and see ourselves and the outside world. That is, linguistics translate directly to our _perception_ , and that, my friend, is no small matter.

Consider, for instance, a statement that contains logical assumptions, as touched on earlier. The narrow, nondescript opinion of "That's good" is clogged with potential assumptions—that that thing is good for everyone, without exception; that there's no way that thing could be bad; that there is, perhaps, something wrong with you if you don't think it's good; that it will be forever good, everywhere, in every way. Etcetera. Once expressed, these assumptions are then imposed on the listener, consciously or subconsciously; and though the listener's actual response hinges on their perception and other factors (including their _own_ assumptions), the essential distortions are there, thus crippling communication. How might one feel after hearing a simple "That's good" in regard to something that they have, in their experience, determined to be _not_ so good? What might that person read into the opinion and its assumptions, and how might they respond? Continue this line of reasoning in light of the complex and delicate psychological interplay which underlies any human contact, and it illustrates the significance of seemingly small things such as word choice, broadness, phrasing, and other linguistic fineries. Without taking these factors into account, our opinions can actually inflict real psychological damage, in refute to the old wisdom of "sticks and stones."

We see here the origins of a truly "stinky" opinion, and its equally foul-smelling effects.

Yet, I retain my vision of a better, functional opinion. Again, the opinion's negatives are a result of bad authorship rather than a bad medium, and so can be avoided. By simply taking logical and linguistic factors into account, we may shape our opinions accordingly, as to be sound, objective, and respectable—far better-smelling, as it were. As a rule of thumb, try your own opinions out on yourself and observe your response (or, even better, try out your opinion's _opposite_ ). With some conscientiousness and a little work, we can, I believe, reform our collective opinion-craft into something a bit less linguistically destructive, as to upgrade it from its present-day "stinky" status.

So, really, maybe the opinion has gotten a bad wrap. Maybe we should give the old scoundrel a second chance, to rehabilitate it, restore its utility in life. With some refinement, broadening, and sophistication, the opinion can be reinvented as something useful instead of repugnant. History is rife with such turnarounds, and I personally am willing to give the opinion a second chance.

#  III. BLURRING THE LINE: FANTASY OR REALITY?

Today, we face a psychological epidemic: of confusion between fantasy and reality. This is not a new concept; however, we presently face a new, specific variant of it, one that is uniquely dangerous.

Entertainment plays a central role in this confusion.

Namely, entertainment affects our _minds_ , in ways we might not suspect. Of the many ways entertainment does so, most important is its depiction of reality, which brings with it distortions that might then be adopted by the entertainment's consumer. Most entertainment includes some form of story and plot, and, usually, these stories are not realistic. As it stands, it is this element of unreality which has saturated modern-day minds and laid the groundwork for our state of confusion.

Today's entertainment is somewhat unique, since we have never before had such ready access to such a broad array of content. Also, there is a _qualitive_ distinction to today's entertainment, which, directly or indirectly, distorts its depiction of reality even further. This is due to, among other factors, our worldwide shortage of time. Besides the compromises present in any sort of fictional narrative, which lessen realism in certain key ways, modern entertainment bears the additional burden of its consumer requiring more and more substance in less and less elapsed time. Constrained by a busy people's shortened attention span, today's entertainment puts time at a premium, which, naturally, translates to its depiction of reality.

Specifically, the depicted reality is _condensed_ , as to omit the great many elements which constitute real-life events and, thus, create spurious fictional versions. For instance, in the realm of entertainment, things just _happen_ , with objects and characters simply presented rather than explained. And, miraculously, the story's actors accept this fully, regarding the hasty, illogical narrative of events as wholly sensible, as if there is nothing abnormal about spontaneous and impossible occurrence. Likewise, the viewer is compelled to accept these miracles at face value, including all the nonsensical thinking that goes with them. It works off the same principle of "monkey see, monkey do," except with profound effects on the mind.

Whether for the sake of time, simplicity, or brevity (or just laziness), this unrealistic, just-accept-it format dominates today's entertainment, from movies to TV shows to video games, even many books. Indeed, such presentations do succeed in quickly conveying an understandable, if absurd, narrative. However, this fast-food-style entertainment comes with a side effect: the psychological influence mentioned above, that which lends to the confusion gripping our society. Easy-reading books. Easy-watching TV. Easy-understanding news. Whatever it's called, it very often leads to easy _thinking_ , which is the first step to the deeply rooted psychological handicaps which are epidemic in today's world.

To understand the enormity of this effect, one must first understand the concept of conditioning.

When I say "conditioning," I speak of it in the classical, psychological sense, that of a mental response arising from a repeated trigger. That is, something happens so often, in the same manner, that one's mind begins to respond in a predictable way. Dr. Ivan Pavlov's dogs were, famously, conditioned to salivate at the sound of their meal bell—a predictable, repeatable cause giving way to a predictable, repeatable effect. However familiar the underlying concept, Pavlov's dogs demonstrate a profoundly important principle: living things can be conditioned into certain _behavior_ , humans included. Due to the nature of the mind, we are every bit as able to be conditioned in this fashion, which can affect us right down to our most basic choices, actions, and reasoning, and how we see ourselves and the world. Sure, we may not be total slaves to our conditioned responses, resisting the urge to slobber upon hearing the dinner bell, but that doesn't mean there aren't other, less-visible ways of being conditioned and controlled. This is because conditioning affects not only the conscious, topside mind, but the _subconscious_ , "invisible" mind, that which we might not even know we have.

One such means of conditioning is through entertainment.

It's no secret that media and entertainment have a wide array of psychological influence, nor that much of this influence is unhealthy. Lesser known, however, is how it can potentially shape our most basic thoughts and feelings, including that of how we perceive reality. Specifically, it is the condensed, distorted depictions of reality which affect us in this manner, for when we are exposed to such unreality on a regular enough basis, it begins conditioning us as described earlier. After repeated exposure to false reality, we run the risk of confusing actual reality with that depicted endlessly in media and entertainment. To complete the effect, one might then _project_ this storybook reality _outward_ , so that it is seen in the outside world, even though it's all in the mind. In addition to other consequences, the result is a condensed _mentality_ , where if something can't be understood in five minutes or less, it isn't worth understanding.

_This_ is how the line between fantasy and reality becomes blurred, when the subconscious mind is conditioned with distorted, make-believe perceptions of the outside world. And this condition lies at the heart of our epidemic confusion, leaving us seeing only what we've been _conditioned_ to, rather than what's really there, even when it's right in front of us. For many, actual reality is "hidden in plain sight," behind this perceptual veil of media-thinking and thirty-second commercials.

Furthermore, what might happen if others, being exposed to the same conditioning, _share_ this false reality between one another? Then, the effect is strengthened and reinforced, by way of agreement and repetition. In time, we are faced with a disturbing scenario, where this sort of thinking has gone largely unchallenged for _generations_ , allowing it to accumulate in the mass mind. In the end, we are left in a state of dense unreality, with distortion piled upon distortion until actual reality is far from the minds and thoughts of a large segment of the population, from the media-bred distortions conditioned into them from birth, then agreed upon and self-reinforced. Picture the layers of an onion, with clear thinking and actual reality lying deep in the center.

These are the ingredients of some serious confusion.

What are the consequences of multigenerational media conditioning and its attendant confusion? For one, the desperate situation we now find ourselves in, a world where the dangerous and illogical behavior depicted by entertainment is not only tolerated but regarded as _normal_ (and, perhaps, without alternative). Among other psychological symptoms, these widespread neuroses (and, sometimes, _psychoses_ ) that pass for normal behavior can be attributed, at least indirectly, to media conditioning. The same goes for violent crime and any number of deviant behaviors, all of which have exploded over the last several decades (coinciding with the increase in media penetration in the average household).

Don't get me wrong: media conditioning is far from being the lone culprit of the modern world's ills, for there are many other factors involved. Were we to somehow ban all media, I don't believe it would magically solve our problems. However, I will say this: our media-conditioned state is, at least, a _central player_ in this foul drama. Without our media-imposed confusion, I don't believe that things would have progressed to their present point, where society's confusion is so dense and widespread. Also, things are further complicated by the very nature of the confusion, which _obscures itself_ , like a self-erasing pencil. For this reason, our problems' true causes are kept largely invisible and unknown—because, being so confused, we don't _know_ we're confused. After all, how many folks nowadays would connect the psychological effects of entertainment with the armed robbery down the street (performed by someone subconsciously acting out the burlesqued robberies portrayed daily on TV)?

So, what does this all mean to the individual? The answer: that they are, potentially, very confused without knowing it, a state comparable to a drunk not knowing they're drunk.

Many day-to-day consequences result from a state of media-conditioned confusion, all stemming from seeing only what one has been conditioned to see. However, none are more important than this: that chronic confusion leaves one highly vulnerable to _manipulation, control, and exploitation_. When it comes to living in an imaginary reality, the possibilities for exploitation are endless, from being victimized by conmen and charlatans (because soft-spoken men in nice suits don't con people, as many media images suggest), to getting hit by a car while crossing the road (because in the movies, people can run recklessly across the street without getting hit), to accepting half-truths and outright lies (because on many TV programs, it's agreed that certain people never lie). Etcetera, etcetera. For one whose thoughts and perceptions are dictated by the condensed, distorted realities depicted in popular entertainment, there is no shortage of intelligent, beguiled people ready to exploit the slightest of confused thinking of this kind. Additionally, many of these predators _don't see themselves as predatory_ , or see anything wrong with what they're doing—because they, too, are commonly confused and conditioned, seeing their predatory actions as something else entirely. After all, if you prey only upon the Bad People, like on TV, then that makes it okay, right ...?

These dangers are not limited to the visible, where people are obviously hurt, for there are subtler, non-violent means of exploiting the vulnerabilities presented by a confused mind. For instance, manipulation by predatory organizations, such as illegitimate businesses or corrupt political groups. Such entities thrive on the confusion of their victims, as it is necessary to impose the predator's illusions. Often, the scheme functions much as the condensed, distorted narrative of a film: things are merely _presented_ rather than explained, with only the shallowest of facts and reasons given, if any at all. Yet, because these unexplained events are _regarded_ as legitimate, the victim is compelled to do so also, regardless of actual legitimacy. In the end, such illusionary ploys allow the thinnest, most absurd of ideas to be passed off as the exact opposite—as _valid, legitimate, and substantial_. In this way, whole illusions of legitimacy and "facts" are manufactured, just like in a film. So effective is this practice, one might accept the illusion even when actual, true reality is staring them back in the face, in plain sight—or, now, _hidden_ in plain sight, covered by the invisible distortions created by a confusion of fantasy and reality.

For the adequately confused victim, often all the predator must do is present their ploy in the proper way. In this case, that is a format compatible with popular media programming, for this will guarantee automatic acceptance from a disturbingly large number of people. Thanks to the victim's lifetime of media conditioning, a predator's quasi-fictional stories are not only accepted, but might very well go unquestioned at all, simply due to their familiarity, the way a round peg fits a round hole. If we aren't careful, this familiarity factor can penetrate the subconscious mind in a profound (and potentially unnoticeable) way, so that almost anything might be accepted and believed, however outlandish or baseless, simply because it fits the preconceived format accepted previously in endless TV shows and movie plots. These type of attacks are even more effective with the success of twenty-four-hour news channels, which utilize many of the same techniques as Hollywood filmmakers to quickly package and convey a storyline (condensing complex, intricate events into sound-bite-friendly versions, stripped of facts to the point that they no longer resemble reality). Then, the line between fantasy and reality is blurred even further, now to the point where the news and a TV show overlap almost to the point of being indistinguishable.

Keep in mind: just because this is common practice doesn't make it acceptable. Here, I'll invoke the proverbial saying: if it was common practice to jump off a bridge, would that make it okay?

But don't misconstrue: the problem is not so simple as a minority of "evil" people exploiting the public's confusion for personal gain. Instead, there are gray areas, such as the confused predators mentioned earlier, who believe they are doing one thing when really doing another (like the thief who justifies their theft because it's from the rich, Robin Hood-style). Another example of gray areas: because everyone's doing something, it must be okay—again just as in a movie, where appearances are meant to be taken at face value, thus opening the door to someone directly hurting another but thinking they aren't doing so, right down to their deep, subconscious perceptions of their actions. I repeat: This sort of low-level confusion is so widespread, and has been going on for so long, the offenders _themselves_ are afflicted by it, so that they are often unable to tell the difference between reality and their selfish, exploitive fantasies of how they want or need things to be—their lines blurred to the point of nonexistence, you could say. So, more often than not, today's crimes and scandals are far more complicated than a black-and-white struggle of good versus bad. In this strange drama, many of the offenders are as much victims, and vice-versa.

For the central problem addressed in this essay, solutions are neither obvious nor easy. In a perfect world, simple awareness of our confusion would see a fast, effective cure; but ours is not a perfect world. Furthermore, the very nature of the problem contradicts its solution, because, as mentioned earlier, the confused usually _don't know they're confused_. Also, there is the matter of possibilities; that is, the average person's sense of what's possible, which is far more relevant to daily life than is normally thought. For some people, the very premises of this essay—that media and entertainment are conditioning and confusing us—will be rejected as _impossible_ , sometimes for the sole reason that they've been conditioned to believe as much. In these cases, circular logic ensues: we've been conditioned to believe that no conditioning is occurring, and so it continues, a vicious cycle.

If we believe the problem cannot possibly exist, how will the problem ever get _solved_?

So, what _is_ the true solution? There is only one, and it, too, is not easy: we must become _self-aware_ , as to see through the mind-altering barrage of words and images which assaults us daily in popular media. Only by gaining awareness of our deepest psychological workings can we protect ourselves from the self-destructive confusion which can result from immersion in today's media-centric world. Then, one might closely scrutinize the ideas and information they receive, to determine if there is any true substance in that news story, or if the plot of that movie should be mimicked in real life, or if that war being sold is for good reason or just smoke-and-mirrors.

Only by self-awareness can we cease blurring the line between fantasy and reality. Until then, our minds will keep playing tricks on us, perhaps with deadly results.

#  IV. HELP?: HOW I LEARNED TO DO NOTHING

I told her "no," and it was the best help I could've given.

I'm neither a good person nor a bad one, for this depends on whom you ask, and when. When doing what is desired of me, I'm apt to be perceived as the good guy; when I don't comply, I'm as easily seen as the opposite, even if noncompliance is ultimately in the other party's best interest. So, which is the accurate perception? Something in between, for there have been times when I've "helped" someone by doing what they want, rather than what's best for them, and "hurt" someone by denying them in the moment for the greater good.

So far, I've never been thanked for the latter, nor scorned for the former. This says something about mankind, I think.

As it so happened, the woman in question was one of the people I've "hurt": because I refused to give her what she wanted. The woman wanted my "help," the euphemistic kind mentioned above; that is, she demanded my favor and support under threat of disapproval—under threat of _punishment_. In my experience, this sort of subtle duress is so common as to be ignored. The woman, who was disabled and poor, leveraged her disapproval as a weapon, holding it over the head of anyone who dare deny her wishes. But this, too, went ignored, by herself as much as those around her—and, initially, by me as well.

In time, that changed.

Sadly, my understanding came only after years of "helping" this woman. Errands, rides, small loans, chores, reluctant emotional support—these were her demands, and these I gave. Did I do so out of the kindness of my heart? Yes, sometimes, at least at first; but, more often than not, I did so out of a subconscious desire to avoid the woman's disapproval (and that which she would garner from other supporters in the event of refusal). There's a whole philosophical study here, but I'll refrain. Instead, I'll just say that I slowly became aware of the unhealthiness of this relationship, and the fact that, rather than helping, I was merely _enabling_.

My realizations came by degrees. Yes, the woman was unprivileged and chronically ill, but this was at her own hand—from the alcohol and other drugs she abused; from the abysmal diet which left her obese and poisoned; from the total lack of exercise or any attempt to rectify her self-destructive lifestyle; from the toxic emotional and mental state she created for herself. Initially, I was naive enough to point these things out to her, but that only introduced me to the extent of her silent punishments, and her eagerness to carry them out. To my surprise, I came to see that she was manipulating others similarly, in plain sight, yet as invisibly to them as it once was to me. Had I been so blind, to miss the control dramas playing out in front of my face?

Under the burden of these observations, the day came when I said "no."

I'd thought about it for some time, weighing the situation and its gravity. My endeavor was a bit more lofty than it might seem: Perhaps denying her was right in principle, and for her ultimate good, but in the meantime, she had needs to be met, which were not made easier by her delusions of victimization and helplessness. Maybe I'd be doing the right thing in the long run, but what about in the Now? Would she get to her doctor's appointments? Make her rent? Have food on the table? These concerns were complicated by my own sense of empathy, which has a double-edge: Could I be mistaken in my perception of the situation? Was I _really_ being used and exploited, doing a disservice to someone whom could help themselves? Such questions started out as a healthy self-doubt, but soon progressed to an unhealthy level, as I absorbed the narrow, distorted perceptions held by this woman in question, in which "good" and "bad" were defined purely on what satisfied her in the moment. In the end, however, I sided with my convictions.

There comes a time when one must show a healthy selfishness, to do what's best for others by way of what's best for oneself.

So the next time I was propositioned by this woman, I told her "no." And the next time, and the next. Each rejection, I suffered her quiet punishments—the insinuations, the passive-aggressive comments, the awkward pauses where I was supposed capitulate, the social pressure from other helpers. But I refused to be swayed. In time, I cut myself off from this unfortunate woman, because it was clear that she did not _want_ real, constructive help, or to so much as believe that it was available to her.

Then, I found myself challenged in another way: to avoid having the last word in the conflict. A part of me harbored a bitter denunciation of the woman and her fawn, a desire to condemn their poisonous delusions and then make a big, triumphant, childish exit—"I'm taking my toys and going _home_." But this, too, I successfully evaded, instead letting her have her beliefs and make her choices, that right to which we are all entitled, however self-destructive.

I had to do this, for it was the best possible help I could've given her. It was my love, you could say.

Perhaps the woman will come to see the logic of my decision and, through it, realize the options available to her. Perhaps she will remain antagonistic and condemning, seeing me as a coldhearted villain. Regardless, good has come from this ill-fated relationship, for I was helping _myself_ as much as the needy, manipulative woman I cut off, little did I know it at the time. Through this experience, I've been armed to deal with subsequent dramas of this nature, including those of a more obviously dangerous bent. Doing so has earned me shouts and curses, and sincere questions of how I could _do_ this—do I have no heart, am I so cold?—but I've gained a thick skin to such emotional attacks and the psychological distortions which lie behind them. And I have that original woman to thank, without whom I might have remained fair game for the world's less-apparent predators.

Is it "help" when it brings short-term approval but facilitates long-term entropy? Am I a "bad" person for acknowledging one's self-destructive lifestyle and denying them my resources? Again, it depends on whom you ask and what I've done for them lately, but actual, objective reality is indifferent to our opinions, no matter how loudly they are shouted or how often they are repeated.

It is said that to master life, one must balance compassion and wisdom. I believe I have begun that process, thanks to the unlikely allies who have forced me to make hard decisions. I have experienced many such people, those who want to be cared for rather than caring for themselves, often without knowing it (and not _wanting_ to know). For these, I've learned that the only true help I can offer is to inform them of their contradictions in the most compassionate and respectful way I know how. If that doesn't work, I do nothing at all, in hopes that they might learn and grow through my refusal.

#  V. STAY CALM

Would you decide to feel pain, had you the choice? What if this power was, indeed, in your hands?

As it were, we make just such a decision daily, in how we _react to life_ , for our reactions can cause us to hurt ourselves by way of mental pain and suffering. And when it comes to reactions, the most powerful we possess is that to remain calm.

Nowadays, staying calm isn't always easy. There are the obvious hindrances, chiefly the epidemic of chronic stress, which sours the leisure time awarded us by our conveniences. However, there exist other, subtler reasons for our collective uncalm, and these must be addressed if we are to react well and avoid self-inflicted pain.

Know this: the biggest obstacle to good, calm reaction is _ourselves_. We can hinder ourselves in many ways, but the most prominent is through our social customs and their attendant psychology. Presently, our society rewards bad, stressful reactions. Think of someone who loses a relative in a tragic accident—isn't the survivor _expected_ to be upset (if not hysterical)? And, if these expectations are satisfied, what sort of rewards are bestowed on this person? Sympathy? Attention? Financial support? It brings to mind the term "secondary gain."

Likewise, our society often _punishes good reaction_. If the accident victim's survivor _doesn't_ become expectantly upset upon hearing the news, what sort of quiet consequences might await such a response? Rumors? Judgments? Suspicions? The _denial_ of the secondary gain listed above? Through such widespread expectation of a bad reaction, _incentives_ are forged, both for a bad, upsetting reaction, and against a good, positive one. And, because society currently operates primarily on incentives (rather than what is truly beneficial, often times), this social system and its mentality will be acted upon by many people.

Make no mistake: _there is such a thing as a positive reaction to a difficult situation_. What if the accident victim's survivor had, simply, accepted accidents as a fact of life, and prepared for the possibility ahead of time? Then, might that person avoid becoming visibly upset? Indeed, that is a possible reaction to even the most disastrous of news, and a very healthy one, for by reacting well, further disasters can be _spared_. How many survivors later fall victim themselves, in the original event's aftermath, due to bad reactions and self-destructive choices? Yet, "the cards are stacked" against such a good reaction, because the current social code requires a certain measure of bad reaction, bringing with it incentives and punishments to this end—sometimes _fierce_ punishments, intense enough to grip the individual's mind and compel conformity (often on a subconscious level). Worse, we have ways of punishing even the _acknowledgement_ of this state of things. How often is a whistleblower _singled_ out instead of _heard_ out? Pointing out the brutal underbelly of the present social code is often met with mockery, finger-pointing, blame-shifting, or just plain dismissal.

Not only will the passengers react badly when the boat starts to sink, but they'll punish anyone who acknowledges the leak beforehand.

So, this is the first hurdle to be cleared before one can react well and choose not to self-inflict pain: realizing the system of social incentives that encourages bad reaction and discourages the good. And, as important is the fact that this system hinges on _the approval of one's peers_. Only by understanding this element of approval and disapproval, and letting it go, may this system be _thwarted_ and the doorway to good reaction opened. Otherwise, this self-destructive system continues, to be handed down to our children.

In my experience, successfully staying calm was not rewarded by those around me. Faced with overwhelming anxiety and other problems stemming from generalized bad reaction, I was forced to change, requiring years of inner work. However, upon mastering my reactions and then putting this knowledge into practice, I wasn't met with accolade or congratulation, but subtle punishment and resentment by others (often just because I wasn't falling into line and reacting badly with everyone else). I was also met with suspicion, and quiet accusation that there was something "wrong" with me—all because, in the face of a difficult situation, I chose to keep my cool instead of inflicting pain on myself by becoming upset. I don't believe my experience is rare, or at all uncommon. Luckily for me, I was able to resist the pressure to conform to this self-destructive social code, thanks to having shed my need for approval; but how many would go the other way, being deterred from good reaction in the face of such reprimand? Is it any surprise, then, that we find ourselves with the unhealthy mental habits that are so common today?

By and large, we would rather stay with the group and jump off the bridge than be singled out.

There is another barrier to good reaction, also rooted in ourselves: believing that _there is no option but to react badly_ , so there appears to be no choice. That is, we commonly believe that "bad" situations must make us _feel_ bad, and that only in "good" situations can we feel good. Logical, yes, but untrue, and very unhealthy. These ideas, too, are promoted and reinforced by the social factors described above, including that where the approval of others grants "permission" to be happy, this occurring only after we've satisfied the complex rituals and charades demanded by our culture. Consequently, we not only experience much unnecessary pain and suffering, but _deprive_ ourselves of as much _happiness_. Go ahead, folks: if you're happy, be happy. You don't have to depend on anyone else's say-so.

However, don't think I'm scapegoating society in this area, for good reaction is, once again, largely the responsibility of the individual.

The problem is, first, a matter of _awareness_ : we are, on the whole, just _unaware_ that we even have a choice in the matter of how we respond to life experience. As for why and how this occurs, it's complicated, as well as different from person to person; but generally speaking, it arises from simple omission. Grow up knowing only bad reaction, _surrounded by_ those who know only bad reaction, and a person is likely to conform to this quiet consensus (especially when impressed with the incentives and punishments mentioned earlier). Consider a fish and the ocean: being born in water, knowing only water, surrounded by other fish who know only water, the fish will be unaware of so much as the _concept_ of water, as to be ignorant of its very existence. It's the same with us: after being born and raised in an ocean of bad reaction, one is unlikely to be aware of any alternative, as to never know better. To them, bad reaction is, instead, just _reaction_.

The effects of this condition are enormous, especially on our psychology. Such an upbringing typically shapes the mind's most fundamental, subconscious thoughts, those which determine how we perceive ourselves and the world. Then, a person's moment-to-moment thoughts and feelings are dictated by social influence, so that the individual is honestly unmet with the bad, damaging reactions they choose daily. And, because their environment so _reinforces_ that skewed reality, the illusion of validity is completed, to the point that the individual might be unmet with the very possibility of the scenario proposed in this essay. For such a person, immersed in a social "ocean" of bad reaction (and the fears and stresses which usually accompany it), the very idea of internal reaction would be foreign to them.

To put the power of reaction in perspective, consider the effects of alcohol. When under its influence, one can experience great upheaval yet remain fully detached, impervious to what's happening around them. Why? Because the drug has distorted their awareness of reality, so that their situation fails to register for the most part. How interesting is this, that one can avoid the pain of something "bad" simply due to their _state of mind_? Actual, outside reality stays the same; the only difference is in the drinker's mind. Yet this difference is enough to spare them the very real pain that they might otherwise experience.

Of course, the drinker's avoidance of pain comes not by conscious choice, but by coin of obliterating their awareness and being sheltered from reality. All the same, it demonstrates the concept in question: _pain is mostly in our heads_ , and we can choose against it using sheer power of mind. The drinker's example shows just how much is in the mind and our reactions, rather than environment and circumstance. Here, I'm reminded of the old wisdom that life is "99% mental and 1% physical."

It begs the question: might there be a better way than alcohol and blunted awareness to escape mental pain? Can we somehow forego such inelegant gatekeepers that shelter one from reality, and instead avoid pain _directly_? The answer is yes, there is a way: good mental reaction, as to consciously choose not to self-inflict pain in response to "bad" things.

How does one go about this, you ask? Like so many things, good reaction is simple in concept but complicated in practice. Once again, it's all psychology. Mental reaction is an enormous subject, naturally, and one that does not condense well without losing meaning; but in short, the idea is to suspend all self-destructive reactions on a deep mental level—to choose, consciously, not to damage oneself by becoming needlessly upset or emotional. As easy as that sounds, the act itself requires a working knowledge of the self and the mind, as to make one aware of their deepest psychology. Otherwise, these reactions can remain subconscious, out of reach to one's topside, conscious thoughts and, hence, largely beyond correction. The attainment of such awareness and self-knowledge is no small undertaking, often requiring much time and experience.

However, the fact remains: good reaction _is_ possible, and it is _powerful_ , to the point of allowing a person to choose against hurting themselves.

#  VI. DON'T FORGET THE "WHY"

"Who," "what," and "why"—those three vital elements, of which most anything boils down to. For modern man, however, "what" holds greater import over its brethren, creating a silent imbalance that permeates much of civilization.

We are, no doubt, a "what"-dominated people.

From the ground up, the modern West is absorbed in the "whats" of life. "What's that made of?" "What's it compare to?" "What are its origins?" "What's the best way to make it?" "What's the best way to _destroy_ it?" These are the questions that naturally arise from "what"-centric thinking, where measurement, classification, and reduction define an object's existence. For the large majority of us, we don't feel we know something until we can hold it in our hands, run it through a gauntlet of experiments, and learn its many "whats." Only then do we as a people consider something real, right down to its very _possibility_. In fact, an insufficiency of known "whats" can completely revoke an object's reality, even if that object is sitting in plain sight. In our "what"-centered world, if something can't be classified and measured, it just doesn't exist.

Our "whats" hold great power these days, it would appear.

Today, many societies practice the "what"-centered way of life described above, in which reality is founded on the collective "whats" that are presently possessed, as to define the society's members on many levels. Once accepted, those "whats" then enter into the mass psyche, first filtering through experts and authorities and their interpretations, then flowing downward into the general populace. Eventually, in some shape or form, those original "whats" are gelled into something deserving that elastic, ever-changing designation of "real"; and from there, this "what"-defined reality will, more or less, shape society's deepest underpinnings, as seen in the psychology, behavior, and decision-making of vast numbers of people. Powerful indeed.

In this way, our "what"-centric information becomes who we are and how we live, including our most basic thoughts and feelings, and how we see ourselves and the world. As for whether this way of life is _appropriate_ , that's too big an issue to squeeze into one tidy little question; but, in a nut, the answer could go either way, all depending on the accuracy and broadness of those all-decisive "whats" (and, how accurate their _interpretation_ , which requires a lot of faith in the experts who play gatekeeper on what is deemed real). Just keep in mind: Once upon a time, a large number of people sincerely believed the world was flat and was orbited by the sun, all because their "whats" were incomplete, and badly interpreted by the "experts" of the day.

As it were, a "what"-centered society is only as sound as its "whats."

Never underestimate the power of information (and its interpretation) to dictate our lives and thoughts. This influence might be hard to conceive, since it's possible to lack a solid concept of those very lives and thoughts being influenced—the concept of a personal, inner _reality_ , which could be described as a way of perceiving what is or isn't real. By and large, we grow up under one orthodoxy of thought and reality, without the luxury of other realities to provide contrast. Thus, we are, collectively, deprived a sense of just what a personal reality _is_ , much less that we presently inhabit one; but, all the same, there are in fact many "realities" out there, each determined, at heart, by the "whats" that go into it, and how those "whats" are regarded by the individual. As outlined above, those "whats" can, and often do, undermine our thinking in significant ways, which in turn undermines our entire lives to some extent. For someone living in a flat-earth reality, would they ever get too far with their sciences or academics? Any science experiment founded on the assumption of a flat earth is doomed to be fundamentally flawed, in a reflection of its society of origin. All this from receiving bad information and then acting upon it, in the fashion of "Garbage in, garbage out."

For these reasons, it's important to know just which "whats" are at the helm of one's thoughts and perceptions, as to avoid falling into a modern-day version of flat-earth thinking. Yet, for all the "whats'" power, there is an even more important element that drives our lives: the " _why_."

When I refer to the "why," I mean it rather literally: a thing's _reason for being_. Whereas the "whats" are facts, measurements, and characteristics, the "why" is what can be _done_ with a thing and its various "whats"—obvious, yes, but easy to overlook, and with great consequences upon doing so. If we focus purely on the "what," our knowledge is incomplete, and therein lies potential dangers, for incomplete knowledge gives way to mental blind spots and misguided action. Not only does this tunnel vision render "what"-centered knowledge less accurate, but also less relevant, useful, and practical—and, less _fulfilling_. Consider someone with a whole lot of car parts, but no concept of a car; not only would that person be deprived transportation, but also the _thrill of driving_. There are, as it were, some very intelligent, learned people out there, possessing great masses of factual "whats," without knowing the " _why_ " behind them, or their underlying causes—thus denying these folks the _meaning_ of it all.

See knowledge as a triangle, with "who" and "what" forming the founding points, and "why" at the apex, the three forming a totality of truth and understanding. Without the "why," we just don't get the whole story, like a newspaper headline without an article.

"Why" is the difference between wisdom and mere information; between true, practical knowledge and empty data; between meaningful conversation and incoherent words; between a person and a picture of a person. To qualify as total understanding, a thing's "whats" must present all its angles and dimensions, since all hinge on one another to inform us on that thing's complete reality. Thus, ignoring even one small aspect of something can limit and distort one's understanding of it—to only know _of_ that thing, rather than truly knowing it. If you know of baseballs, but not the _game_ of baseball, then you won't really know baseballs. Only by understanding the " _why_ " of that baseball—the game it serves in, with the athleticism and competition, and ballparks and crowds and overpriced beer, and trading cards, and doping scandals—only then can one possess a truly accurate, working knowledge of a physical baseball. Divorced from that context of the game the ball is made for, one's basic perception of a baseball is sorely incomplete. A carpenter would see a hammer differently than would a stockbroker.

In this way, the "why" factors into our everyday thinking and perceptions, such that, with only the "whats" of the things and people we encounter, we are denied a vital element of everything we see and experience. A "why"-deprived mind will go through life seeing only baseballs, never the game of baseball (nor the joy of experiencing it). Such are the consequences of forgetting the "why."

And make no mistake: mankind has, on the whole, forgotten the "why."

As it stands, we presently possess an excess of "what" but a drought of "why." This imbalance is present high and low, from academia and the scientific establishment, to government and business, even to the realms of philosophy and the arts, as to seep into our institutions and our hearts and minds. Our systematic deficiency of "why" has many effects, but is best characterized by the type of thoughts and behavior they manifest in the general public. Much can be attributed to a "what"-centered mentality and its tunnel-visioned thinking, from "small" stuff like petty disputes, to large-scale social problems and wars. For instance, a lack of "why" often results in an ultra-legalistic outlook, which might appear intelligent and substantial on the surface, but is, upon closer inspection, rather flawed, in a "pennywise, pound-foolish" way. A society living in such a one-sided, devitalized reality might, say, build the world's tallest, most magnificent building, but only so people can feel better about themselves. In that world, a sunset is only about the Earth's rotation, and jokes are only for insulting people, and allegories and parables are taken literally, as to lose their metaphor.

For the "why"-starved, the answer to "Why is the Buddha laughing?" is "Because something is funny."

But that's just the start, for the "why's" effects are seen far and wide. A sense of "why" determines thinking; thinking determines action; action determines world events. So, in the end, a lack of "why" shapes the infrastructure of the seen world, in ways one might not immediately consider. Really, there's not a single thing that doesn't somehow hinge on our global grasp of the "whys" of life, for better or worse. Also, understanding the "why" can have other, secondary effects, including that of _redefining our "whats."_ Again consider the old fallacy of the Flat Earth: when it was proven and accepted that the world is round, not only did this lead to an explosion of new data and knowledge, but it required a complete review _of that already accumulated_. The same applies to the small-scale, where, for instance, a murder is seen differently once it's revealed to have been done in self-defense.

Such is the total, all-transforming power of a simple "why," from forcing us to reconsider the shape of the world beneath our feet, to changing a murder into a defense.

So far, I've been describing the "why's" importance in terms of principle and concept, rather than any sort of real-world, living terms. Therefore, I feel it necessary to list some real-life examples, due to the skin of substance added by sociological factors and the rest of daily life—the "why" in action, if you will. For starters, healthcare: In a society where the doctor's primary purpose is to prescribe drugs rather than cure disease—we have forgotten the "why." Work: When it's assumed that an employee requires incentives of self-advancement to be productive—we have forgotten the "why." Government: When an elected official's incentives are the same as any other employee, rather than fulfilling the civic duty of their office—we have forgotten the "why." When "right" is equated with "won't get caught" rather than "won't do harm"—we have forgotten the "why."

If you were confused by these examples, because they came off to you as wholly normal and acceptable behavior—then, chances are, you've fallen in line with a world turned on its head by shortsighted thinking, that which arises when we collectively lose touch with purpose and the big picture, and the worldwide consequences of our local, individual actions.

In the terms of the Hokey Pokey, we've forgotten what it's all about.

Inevitably, this line of inquiry leads to the ultimate "why": the meaning of life and the universe. Of course, to attempt this particular "why" is far beyond the scope of this essay, so I'll instead just question that "why's" implications. What effects might we expect from being unaware of life's meaning? If lacking a "why" results in distortion, confusion, and a general clumsiness of purpose, what might happen in a world disconnected from the biggest "why" of all? What illusions might result—of ill-will, of futility, of devalue, of a mechanical way of life? In that world, it would be unsurprising to find folks who don't take much joy in their "whats," however many they acquire. That's a world of baseballs without baseball, of pies without filling, of pain without purpose.

But, consider the converse: How _good_ might things be were that meaning _restored_? If we could just remember the "why" of our being, what might change within the most basic facets of life on Earth? What simple, nourishing joys might we be denying ourselves? What heartbreak might be rectified? How much harder are we making things, due to our "why"-deprived, flat-earth thinking? Might we be surrounded by abundance and beauty but blind to it, due to our focusing purely on the "whats" of the world? Think of it this way: when connected with the great "why" of life, no one would need an incentive to do the right thing, nor would it be necessary to punish the wrong one.

A revival of the ultimate "why" could, I believe, bring about such world-shaking changes. Those and more.

As best as I can tell, we have forgotten the "why" of things, big and small, and it has sucked away our very lifeblood, leaving many of us soulless and adrift as we trudge through an empty, "what"-oriented existence, endlessly seeking fulfillment from the unfulfilling and trying to sustain what cannot be sustained. However, all this could be changed by an adequate dosage of "why"—big improvements resulting from the seemingly smallest knowledge. Such a global sea-change could bring about whole new ways of life and thought, as to forge a new status quo, beginning with the heart of the common man.

Thus rejuvenated, perhaps we could properly answer the question of why the Buddha laughs.

#  VII. DEFYING APPEARANCES

No one judges books by their covers anymore, right? Hasn't this wisdom become conventional enough that it's no longer a concern?

Unfortunately, no. Appearances still hold sway, now as much as ever.

However well-known the dangers of cover-judging, many of us remain hung up on the obvious, the ostensible, and the seems-to-be. Furthermore, we are equally unreceptive to the deeper reality which lies behind these shallow exteriors. So steeped are we in appearances, our very psychology has come to reflect this hollow view of the world, as to shape even our deepest, most fundamental thoughts and perceptions. Worse, this mentality is so popular and inclusive, it seems _normal_ , simply because there is so rarely an alternative to contrast it. In a world where acting on appearances is the status quo, it's easy to get swept up in the illusion that this is healthy behavior.

The consequences are many—confusion, for starters. Being so entangled in appearance-centered thinking, we are at risk of believing that no such thinking is happening— _so long as it appears otherwise_. Ironic, no? It's a classic case of self-reinforcing behavior: if appearance is our guiding force, and it appears we aren't going on appearances, then we might really _believe_ we aren't going on appearances, and so the whole mess goes on. Maybe we know not to judge books by their covers, but only when it _appears_ that we're doing so. So long as appearances of sound judgment are maintained, the cover-judging continues.

Take note: this last point wasn't an exaggeration. It may sound absurd, that we could be so wrapped up in appearances that we'll believe we aren't wrapped up in appearances. After all, aren't we too civilized and educated to be so double-minded? Unfortunately, this is, once again, not the case, for intelligence, class, and education have little bearing on subscribing to appearances (a good example of appearance-centered thinking in itself). When it comes to being misled by appearances, even the best of us are at risk, because it's a basic flaw possessed by most everyone.

Why? Because it's all _perception_.

A friend of mine is fond of a saying: "Life is perception." I am inclined to agree, for perception is, I believe, the dominant force within all humanity. Defined as the unique way that someone sees the world, a person's perception is, really, the person themselves, being tailored from their environment, life experience, and anything else that might have bearing on their psychology. So, when one perceives the outside world, they are as much a part of that perception as the actual objects and people being perceived; for this reason, one's perception governs how they see themselves, along with all external and internal events. And, because no two perceptions are alike, we can bear witness to the exact same world yet see it differently, as to inhabit separate worlds entirely. Though, it must be understood: for the individual, their personal perception of the world _might not feel like a mere perception at all_ , but instead, simply, as reality—not _a_ world, but _the_ world. Which makes an important point: If we aren't careful, our subjective, personal perceptions can seem _objective and universal_ , due to the smoke-and-mirrors of the mind.

Sometimes a cigar just isn't a cigar, you could say.

In a word, perception is fallible. And that's why our thinking is so susceptible to appearances: because our thoughts are so _dependent_ on these fallible perceptions. Due to mental distortion, a perception of a thing does not require basis in the actual _reality_ of that thing, and that opens the door to many potential problems and discrepancies. What if a meaningless gesture is perceived as a vulgar insult? What if a stray compliment is perceived as a romantic signal? What if a red light is perceived as green? Or, what if acting upon appearances is perceived as _not_ acting upon appearances? Then, we can judge books by their covers while fully believing we aren't doing so, with complete confidence in this flawed perception. It's something along the lines of a mirror reflecting itself.

This scenario presents quite a problem, for so long as we remain trapped in the echo chamber of our subjective thoughts and perceptions, how could we ever realize our error? It's by token of this almost inescapable flaw that we can engage in appearance-based thinking without realizing we're doing so, made possible by the self-referencing nature of perception and the mind.

Yet, as easy and natural as such thinking is, it presents real-world consequences.

Operating on appearances can affect us daily, in ways one might not expect, right down to our most mundane affairs and choices. For instance: the conman who appears legitimate; the oncoming car that appears to be moving slower than it actually is; the deal that's too good to be true, but _appears_ true. These examples are easy enough to understand—the appearance is misleading, and conceals danger or shortcoming—but such transparency is not always present. Sometimes, an appearance may be far more difficult to penetrate, even with effort. Consider, for example, a predatory company that deceives even its own employees, so that all but the topmost partners are sincere in promoting its spurious products, creating onion-like layers that all appear legitimate until the corrupt core is reached. Or, how about an appearance that accords with common sense, reinforcing its sensibility? If everyone around you is behaving the same way, it can result in an appearance of legitimacy, even if that behavior is anything but legitimate (a phenomenon known as "social proof").

Also, there are even slipperier appearances, which can trip up even the wary.

One of these is the primacy of logic—that is, the appearance that the logical thing is always the _right_ thing. As attractive as this idea is, it's just not true, for there are times when perfectly logical appearances can be just as misleading as "fishy" ones. Take, for instance, past precedent. The sun has always come up in the morning, therefore the sun will come up tomorrow—a logical assumption, and one that will probably prove true. However, the same cannot be said of all things, even those which have recurred enough to be taken for granted. Consider the world's biggest corporations, those labeled as "too big to fail," due to their being central to whole industries and economies. Some of these companies have existed longer than their employees have been alive, if not longer than those employees' parents and _grandparents_ —how eternal might such a corporation appear to the general public, having existed for generations? One is tempted to think that such a cornerstone will always be there, which makes it a logical investment—yet that's a mere appearance, for no institution is forever, however constant it might appear. As we have witnessed time and again, an appearance of "too big to fail" is no guarantee against failure, as the many billions in recent government bailouts go to show. Such is one danger of subscribing to the appearances created by past precedent.

Similarly, we can fall prey to the unknown.

The unknown is man's greatest, and oldest, enemy. Since the dawn of civilization, we have always been at the mercy of our available knowledge. However, limited knowledge is, in itself, not an undermining problem—so long as one _knows_ their knowledge is limited, and acts accordingly. The true problems only arise when one believes that the presently known is _all there is to know_ —that there is no unknown to speak of and, thus, the known should be taken as gospel and then acted upon. Then, the problem is less the unknown, than succumbing to the _appearance that there is no unknown_. Once upon a time, we thought the sun orbited the Earth, because of the sun's appearing to "orbit" from horizon to horizon—and, because we _assumed there were no astronomical unknowns_ , we accepted this appearance and its illusion of orbit. Once upon a time, we thought the world was flat, also due to an appearance (of a "flat" horizon) and an assumption (that there were no unknown factors at play, such as the Earth's broad curvature creating an illusion of "flatness"). Once upon a time, not only were these ideas so widely accepted as to be unquestionable, they were _acted upon_ , as to form the foundation of popular thought at the time—a foundation which would eventually prove _wrong_ , pulling the rug out from under entire worldviews and scientific doctrines. And it all hinged on a mix of appearance-centered thinking and plain old arrogance. Only when appearances were scrutinized, and the possibility of _the unknown_ allowed into our reasoning, were these illusions destroyed.

However, we are far from being past dismissing the unknown in favor of superficial explanations of the world, and this practice remains a present-day danger, right down to the individual level. How might a business perform, were it founded on the assumption of a flat earth? Or, in modern terms, what if a business was founded on the premise that it was "too big to fail," due to the assumption that all was known? Today, to act against appearances, assumptions of the known, and past precedent is often mistaken as being "illogical" (or "crazy"); and though "illogical" might be technically true, in its literal sense, this does not make it automatically wrong. If one, say, possesses a _deeper knowledge of the situation_ —a knowledge which, though it defies the obvious, is accurate—then that changes things a bit. Might somebody acting against appearances and "common sense" just be operating on that deeper, privileged knowledge? Really, such a person would be wholly logical, just with a broader logic that might not be apparent to the outside observer. If someone offered you a million dollars to point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger, all appearances might compel you to refuse—but what if you knew for a fact that the gun wasn't loaded (that is, you possessed deeper, privileged information of the situation)?

It sheds some light on the concept of faith, I think.

Here, another appearance-related pitfall must be noted: complexity.

As tempting as it may be to take a situation at face value, most of us know to look beyond surface appearances. However, what if a situation is so complex that even its _deeper_ appearances are misleading? Occasionally, something can be so complicated, one might investigate it thoroughly without penetrating its appearances. For instance, chemotherapy. Imagine for a moment that you are an alien, entirely unmet by the concepts of cancer and chemotherapy treatment. Upon visiting Earth for the first time, you stumble upon some sick humans, only to find that other humans are _making them sicker_ , voluntarily. What could be the meaning of this? Sure, _we_ might understand chemotherapy perfectly, having grown up with the idea of poisoning cancerous tumors as a means of destroying them. But for the alien, ignorant of the many complex factors behind this practice, much education would be required to understand what is, to a native earthling, a commonly understood concept. The same could be said about visiting a foreign country and witnessing its customs and practices, which might appear bizarre but are wholly logical when placed in their cultural context. In this way, complexity can pose a true hindrance to seeing through a surface appearance.

As it were, the appearances posed by complexity obscure much in life, more than we might like to think about.

Generally, we're drawn to simplicity for the same reason we're drawn toward appearances: because they are _easy to accept_. There is not only the convenience factor, but that of comfort—of all things being right, in order, and understood. As a result, we will, if not careful, gravitate toward a simplistic view of reality, where deeper, actual causes are omitted or ignored in favor of the comfort offered by surface appearances. Think of this condensed reality as the "five-minute news spot" version of things, compared to the "book-length" version—how many people would rather hear something settled and concluded upon in five minutes, instead of having to read a whole book on it? Yet, to truly get the _full story_ on something (and see through its appearances), the "book" must be read, for there are very few subjects which can be adequately and realistically described in a five-minute blurb. The element of broadness is important, for if we ignore actual reality in favor of the condensed version, it can distort our very perceptions, as to "edit out" anything which doesn't conform to narrow appearances—that deadly phenomenon known as "selective perception."

I've saved the most dangerous (and alluring) of appearances for last: immediate consequences.

Push a button and visibly electrocute a man in a cage, and one might be deterred from pressing that button. Push a button and electrocute a man _at the other end of the building_ , out of sight, and one might not be so disinclined—because there appears to be no consequence. In fact, even if it's known that there's a man somewhere, getting electrical shocks, the button-pusher might still be tempted, because appearances are just that powerful (enough to affect one's subconscious, involuntary thoughts, in a way they might not even be aware of). It might be reassuring to think you would never push such a long-distance-shock button if you knew what it did, but do not underestimate those subconscious effects of a benign, inconsequential appearance, for these can influence one in profound ways (especially if pressing that button, say, _spared you from being shocked_ ).

There are endless real-world examples of problems caused by appearances of inconsequentiality. For instance, the appearance that throwing out just _one little piece_ of litter won't make any difference (though it will, as seen when it joins everyone else's little pieces to blanket the roadside). Or, doing something that only affects people overseas, where consequences are unseen and complaint is unheard. Etcetera. Delayed consequences are equally dangerous. Asbestos appeared to be a good, cheap insulator; it was only later on, after its particles had been inhaled and accumulated in the body, that the consequences of its use became apparent. Delayed, invisible, or silent—it doesn't matter. Consequences still exist, folks.

To complicate things further, there is the added factor of _incentives_. When certain rewards and punishments are in place, it can psychologically reinforce such appearances of inconsequentiality (and their attendant perceptions), especially those which favor instant gratification and focus purely on results, without regard to long-term effects. Beware the appearance-minded contractor installing your insulation, who might think _Where's the harm?_ when using an inferior asbestos-like product at a premium price. After all, everything appeared fine when he installed the stuff, with no alarms sounding or electrical shocks coming his way—so all is well, right?

Right?

Sadly, when we ignore what _is_ and side with what appears to be, all is _not_ well, for actual reality remains in place, regardless of what we think or believe (or how many of us think or believe it). However, we don't have to be held hostage to appearances and the distorted mentality they inspire, for we can choose to look beyond them to what is truly there. We can choose _not_ to have faith in "too big to fail" corporations and the fairytale of their permanence. We can choose _not_ to arrogantly dismiss the unknown, as to question that the world is flat and orbited by the sun. We can choose _not_ to surrender to the convenience and simplicity offered by appearances, or the comfort offered by ignoring consequences when not immediately apparent. And, most importantly, we have the choice to _become aware of ourselves and our minds_ , so that we avoid those psychological blind spots which can make skewed, appearance-centered perceptions appear valid.

We can choose to defy appearances, in pursuit of the actual reality lying beneath.

#  VIII. EXPLORING THE ILLOGICAL

These days, "illogical" is synonymous with "bad." I beg to differ.

Don't get me wrong: there is, certainly, a type of "illogical" consistent with the popular interpretation. It's just, there's also _another_ kind of illogical, that defined literally, and this one brings whole new meaning to the term. Thus, to equate illogic with invalidity or insanity is assumption, and a rather stark one.

To be sure, I'm a proponent of "normal" logic, and everything represented by its sober, foursquare way of doing things. However, there is more to life than the logical, for sanity and cohesion are in no way contingent on logic, as a destination is not the vehicle of its reaching. Illogical thinking and behavior is, really, just another modality, no more or less legitimate than others. Though, this raises the question: if illogic might not be inherently illegitimate, then how can it be codified? What defines the illogical intellect, and how does such an intelligence conduct itself? And, furthermore, how might the illogical be _expressed_?

Welcome to art.

Despite man's desires and insistences, reality is not logical. This is evidenced by: the vastness of consciousness; the feelings evoked by sunset; that moving poem hung on your refrigerator; that striking chord-change in your favorite song; the ineffable qualities present in any human gathering; the unknown, and the incredible possibilities posed by its existence. The illogical surrounds us, yet goes largely unseen, wrapped in its trappings of the logical and the ordinary, and further fenced-in by our restrictive preconceptions of what should and should not be (which, it bears noting, is not to be confused with what _can_ and _cannot_ be).

Two plus two always equals four, except when it doesn't.

A daring exercise: imagine, for one moment, a broader reality, one that stretches beyond the cage of words and gesture to which we so earnestly subscribe. Defying language, this reality is characterized by emotion and signifier and even subtler components, that formless ghost-babble of the mind. Here, we see a place removed from logic and its paralipsis reality—a place which can be terrifying or liberating, depending on the eye of the beholder. Its beauty is disarming, and surprisingly whimsical, for time and linearity cannot thrive in such a climate. _Limit_ is the one impossibility, and the expansiveness waxes infinite, big enough for God and spirit to dwell.

This is the realm of the illogical, where all is possible, and all is.

But, again, by what means can this rascally new animal be expressed? In the domain of logic, illogic can be described only in negatives, as the blind must sense the world. And this brings us to the medium in question: art. Take fictional literature, for example. For me, fiction is the means by which I give voice to the voiceless stirrings of my illogical side. Fiction is a marvelous invention, able to bridge the abyss between logic and its weird sister. When man learned to lie imaginatively via pen, the result was a valuable weapon in the war of expression, an avenue by which the illogical can be observed in a logical forum. Like all art, fiction possesses the miraculous ability to create something bigger than the sum of its parts, in defiance of the law of conservation of mass.

When fiction is outlawed, it will be for this reason.

However, just because art _can_ express the illogical, doesn't mean it _will_. It should be so simple. Before all else, the artist must first _connect_ with that otherworld of the illogical, a feat roughly equivalent to pulling oneself up by their bootstraps. (In Illogical Land, there are guides for bootstrap-pulling.) And then, as if this weren't tricky enough, the patrons _themselves_ must learn to shed the shackles of logic, to _see_ the art illogically—art's Achilles' heel, as it were. After all, art is only as functional as it is perceived to be, especially in this world of consensual reality and mental fiat.

To cross these bridges, I can only recommended the old koan: What's the sound of one hand clapping? (It sounds like pastry, to me.)

But this isn't about art, really, just as politics isn't about politics. The implications here are far-out and far-reaching: to validate the illogical is to admit it into the horizon of one's possibilities, and isn't _that_ a world-shaker. Many will resist the illogical for this reason alone, the way we do anything unfamiliar and inconvenient—a natural habit, sure, but so are violence and slavery. Yes, friends and neighbors, the illogical world can seem a frightening one, if only because its existence demands that reality cannot be evaluated by logic alone. However, this conundrum is double-edged, with a positive flipside: logic is no longer your safety net, but you don't _need_ a safety net, and never did. (The ground is made of down pillows, it turns out.) For example, again consider fiction of this persuasion: there need not be an arc of introduction-conflict-resolution, nor does the guy have to get the girl, nor does the girl have to have skin.

As Thomas Harris wrote in _The Silence of the Lambs_ , "'He kidnaps young women and rips their skins off. He puts on these skins and capers around in them. We don't want him to do that anymore.'" (Note the illogic of this quote's placement.)

Here, we come to the inevitable question: What does all this illogical business mean for the individual, in the real world? The answer: the real world _isn't logical_ , as it were, and things make so much more sense when this fact is taken into consideration.

Oh, we _think_ the world is logical. The prevailing attitude is that man is a creature of logic and sensibility, with the marvelous achievements to prove it; but that's just not the case, for we are, at heart, greatly illogical in thought and action. As is so often in life, it all boils down to psychology: at its deepest, most fundamental level, the mind runs on illogical stuff. Sure, it might be _capable_ of logic, as a finished product of that fuzzy, illogical thinking, the way Eve came from Adam's rib; but this is mostly incidental, for being capable of logic doesn't make one logical. Semantics, emotions, fallacious inferences, comparative thinking, perceiving as real that which has no actual reality, the magical shadow-play of appearances and the seems-to-be—these are the dominant players within the subconscious mind, and, for most everyone, they are the prime movers of our thoughts and actions. Symptoms of this condition lurk all around us: in the unlikely things we value, or don't; in the social charades we play, and the prices we'll pay to assimilate and belong; things selling better at a higher price because of illogical "value perception," and other manipulative advertising techniques; in our acting confidently on the most baseless of expectations and assumptions. And that's all just the top of the list.

Like it or not, logic is, at best, a secondary actor on the world stage, however high we might raise its banner above our goals and endeavors.

Now, we must ask the question: We are illogical at heart, but do we _know_ it? No, and that is, really, what enables our double-mindedness on the matter. Because of the illogical nature of our thoughts, we can sincerely believe that we are logical, even as we think and act upon our illogical drives. For this perverse duality, we can thank the divide between our conscious and subconscious minds, that which allows us to carry out illogical urges and desires in direct contradiction to logical, stated intent, while still wholly believing in our sensibilities—an illusion in every sense, carried out by the mind's ever-shifting perceptual voodoo. Yet, when few are aware of this phenomenon (or so much as the possibility of such a thing), illusions have a way of seeming quite real.

What's more, this type of illusionary thinking is amplified tenfold when other people _share_ it. The result is a resonation of sorts, which can lend substance to our illusions, sometimes to startling degrees. Nothing exemplifies this effect better than a trial by jury, and the complex psychological interplay which occurs during the hearings and deliberations—a rife breeding ground for confusion and perceptual illusions, our modern court system. I once served as a juror for a moderately lengthy trial, and I can tell you from experience: for all the logic and facts presented in the trial and then deliberated upon, the verdict that jury produced was anything but logical and factual. Instead, my fellow jurors clearly based their judgments almost totally on emotion, appearance, personal bias, and majority rule (not to mention the desire to reach a verdict and be freed from jury duty). And what's more, they probably did so without realizing it, so intoxicating were the illogical perceptual distortions circulating that deliberation room. So powerful was that psychological landscape, damned if I wasn't one step from joining my fellow jurors in their weird make-believe.

At this point, I must restate that "illogical" is not necessarily "bad," lest you come away with the wrong idea. Yes, illogical thinking can give way to the confusion and distortion of the jury example above, but that's only one manifestation of the illogical; that is, it could as easily go the other way, with the right application. For all its stigma, thinking illogically is, really, just another way of thinking, every bit as valid as logical thought. Rather than being a breed apart, logic and illogic are more like two sides of the same coin. Illogical thought has just gotten a bad wrap as of late, due to the linguistic attachments described earlier, where to be "illogical" is often equated with flat-out craziness. True as that may be in the colloquial sense, to be literally "illogical" is, simply, to act on illogical thought and reasoning in its various forms. That is to say, illogical thought can still bring about _productive, sensible behavior_ , and if these are our metrics for validity, then illogical thinking can satisfy them completely (so long as done soundly and responsibility, caveats which apply just as much to logical thought). Here, we run into the concept of "many roads to the same destination," where the same sound behavior can be reached illogically as much as logically (and sometimes even far easier, and more efficiently).

As an example, consider analog versus digital, which could be likened to illogical versus logical. Music, video, computer data, and other media can all be stored in either analog or digital formats, which vary in the method by which the information is encoded and transmitted, among other specifics. And though each respective format has its advantages and disadvantages (sometimes significant ones), they both can, in the end, convey the music, images, or data in question—accomplishing the same thing by drastically different means, as it were. It's the equivalent of communicating a message first with a high-tech digital cell phone, then by sending smoke signals, a thoroughly analog method. For better or worse, that message will still get across, despite arriving by fundamentally different means. In the end, the results often overlap to the point of being indistinguishable, and such is the difference between logical and illogical thought, where their disparate mechanics are sometimes so inconspicuous as to be evident only under a microscope.

Logic and illogic are not incompatible, it would seem (though the latter is more popular on YouTube).

All in all, this essay offers just a taste of what lies in Illogical Land, the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Spirituality, self-expression, causality, the abiding mystery of consciousness—these subjects lie in the territory of the illogical, and mammoth they are, unable to be faithfully addressed within the strictures of prose. And, let it be known: there are _treasures_ to be found in that place, tangible and intangible alike. In exploring the illogical and the intriguing possibilities in its orbit, I have explored myself by consequence, and I consider this the greatest treasure to be had. Also, a bit of advice: beware reading logic into illogical art, for you will become frustrated, and frustrated people write Amazon reviews.

Turn the telescope around, look through the big end, and then close your eyes entirely. There, understand?

#  IX. SEMANTICS REVISITED

We are not ruled by government, guns, or even the old villains, death and taxes. Rather, _semantics_ rule our world.

The study of semantics is a tricky one. Defined as a distinct symbol carried in the mind, the semantic sounds simple and one-dimensional; however, it would be off the mark to view "semantic" as a mere synonym for "symbol," for there is much more to the concept. When we think of symbols, visual designs are typically brought to mind, such as the arrow on a road sign, or the face of a national flag; but semantics, though symbolic, surpass the bare simplicity of the traditional symbol. As it were, semantics are _psychological_ , and therein lies their deep complexity, as psychology always brings to the table. Semantics could be considered the "blueprints" of all thought and action; or, if we want to be fancy, the semantic can be thought of as an "interpretive symbolic concept."

Psychologically, a semantic contains within it far more than the straightforward information conveyed by an ordinary visual symbol. A semantic consists not just of literal, logical information, but _layers_ of information, textured with associations, perception, and all sorts of other mental goodies, as to be innately richer in substance. Most of all, semantics are set apart from symbols in that they influence the _interpretation_ of information, lending an active, mechanical element lacking from the passive, inert symbol—a quality which defines the essence of the semantic. Semantically speaking, that road-sign arrow symbolizes not just the announcement of a turn, but the very _act_ of turning, along with anything that might be loosely associated with a turn—all represented by the underlying semantic of a pointed arrow, like a great amount of cargo crammed into a small truck. Depending on the person and their perception, some folks might even see finer things in that road sign, such as the word "turn" itself (or, perhaps, a _fear_ of turning, from some strange experience in the person's childhood).

Symbols say a little. Semantics say a lot.

Furthermore, all this information jam-packed into a semantic is _subjective_ , so that it changes from individual to individual. That is, one's personal semantics are, more of less, _unique_ , because everyone sees the world and its contents differently. Thus, people can hold vastly different semantics of even the very same ideas and concepts. For example, the semantic of the mother figure. One man's "mother" might involve the traditional sentiment: an older, matronly woman offering protection and affection. But, as easily, another man's "mother" semantic could be totally different, due to his own unique life experience and how it influenced his idea of what constitutes a mother—say, a skinny, young, distant woman instead of the loving matron, purely because that image describes the mother of the man in question. In a word, it's all relative. Neither of those "mother" semantics are "wrong," really, because each hinges on arbitrary psychological elements, one being no more valid than the other. When it comes to the "rightness" of semantics, they only qualify as right _for the individual whom possesses them_ , rather than universally, for others.

You say "po- _tay_ -to," I say "po- _tah_ -to"—and, from a semantic standpoint, both pronunciations are correct.

Semantics are, obviously, both highly personal and highly complicated. There are many implications of this complex nature, but the biggest is this: we are, for the most part, at the mercy of these fickle, subjective semantics. That is, the mind _operates_ on them, and we operate on our minds—hence, it's not _us_ in control, ultimately, but our semantics and their vagaries (if we _let_ them be, at least; more on that later). Psychologically, we float on a sea of semantic images and concepts, so that they comprise the very fabric of our thoughts and feelings. Semantics could be likened to the currency of the mind, like the ingredients of a cake—or, better yet, the ingredients of _the individual ingredients_ , the way atoms comprise the parts of a car. When someone asks to have the salt passed to them, the request is assembled from their semantics of "salt," intermixed with that of table etiquette and why that salt should rightfully be passed, along with however many offshoots of that central "salt" semantic, right down to the very concept of food.

Alter any one of those semantics, and that request to pass the salt might be radically changed.

In this way, the mind can be thought of as a blender of semantics, mixing with other psychological minutiae to create the phenomenon of perception and consciousness, including the seemingly mundane mental processes of day-to-day life. Thus, these mundane thoughts and actions, which we might not normally ascribe the least meaning to, in fact involve great amounts of conceptual meaning in the form of semantics, such as the passing of salt or the tying of shoelaces (and all the underlying concepts which contribute to _those_ ).

Also, semantics factor heavily into our _communications_. What if the two men mentioned above, holding starkly different semantics of "mother," tried to discuss mothers? Were both men unaware of their contrasting semantics of "mother" (which is easily possible, considering the subconscious origins of semantics), then they would, really, be describing two different things despite using the same word—that is, not communicating much at all. So powerful and defining are those personal semantics of "mother," they can individualize and redefine the very act of mothering itself, perhaps to be mothering in name only. This can be confusing enough, but what if, rather than mothering, the men were discussing something of even greater, more immediate import, such as the concept of "a good person" (or that of love, or proper childrearing)?

Needless to say, much of life's confusion can be attributed to semantic differences in our thoughts, actions, and communications.

There's more to semantics than just personal psychology, however, for the study of semantics isn't just about symbols, but the _meaning and interpretation_ of those symbols. And here's where things really get tricky, because the very mind which must interpret semantic meaning _is itself governed by semantics and their sentimental attachments_. We see here a problem of self-reference, something along the lines of, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" For example, what if two academics, seeking to study semantics, hold different semantics of _semantics_? How, then, could those people effectively study semantics, with the very phenomenon of semantics hindering their collaboration? If their personal semantic-semantics are disparate enough, then the semanticists would run into the same problem as the men conversing about mothers: one would be describing something entirely different than the other, since "semantics" would, in each respective mind, conjure entirely different thoughts and perceptions. As a result of just such a scenario, the study of semantics has been hampered to no end, so that we as a people hold a generally distorted concept of semantics (if familiar with the concept at all).

On top of that, let's not forget that semantics are, like much of the deep mind, also _illogical_ —that is, not needing any basis in actual reality to feel completely real for the person in question. This is because, generally speaking, the mind operates on coarse, illogical structures rather than true, realistic logic (however much we might like to believe otherwise). Thus, semantics are bound to that same fuzzy thinking, based on appearance and suggestion, that which makes $1.99 "feel" better than $2.00. The world's abyss of saved pennies attests to the illogical semantics at play behind our thoughts, where semantic concepts of value insist that that spared penny equates to significant savings. Returning to the differing "mothers" of the conversing men, we would see that each semantic would "feel" completely real and valid to their respective owners, despite having little to no concrete reality, existing purely in the men's heads. Nor do the "mothers" _need_ to be based in actual reality, because of the semantic's illogical in mechanism. If the men aren't careful in their thoughts, their respective "mothers" will feel, instead, like Mothers.

We now see why, taken as a whole, the subject of semantics is a complicated one, uniquely so, resulting in no small amount of confusion. And these same semantics are what presently rule our world.

Again, the means by which semantics exert their rule is through the mind. Just as semantics form the uttermost blueprints of our thoughts and feelings, so too do they craft the material world, crossing over by way of our actions. The utmost force behind world affairs is not money, power, or who has the biggest guns, but _human thought and belief_ , which shape those other things (and most else). As it were, the seen world is built not with earth or steel, but the thoughts which move those things.

_This_ is why semantics are so important, and this is why we should care about them. To be ignorant of semantics and their mechanics is to be ignorant of the forces ultimately responsible for the world in which we live.

"But," you might ask, "if semantics are so confusing, how could they control things so much?" After all, we wouldn't normally think of something so disorganized and vaguely defined as being so powerful. Typically, we equate power with conscious, organized action, and, typically, that might hold true; but that isn't always the case, and semantics demonstrate such an exception. It all stems from the semantic's illogical nature, and that of the mind in general: because the deep mind thinks in such a fuzzy, disorganized fashion, semantics, really, fit right in. Being largely subconscious and mysterious, our semantics, in fact, _gain_ power from the confusion they inflict (aided by the illogical mind's insistence that it is, in fact, logical). It draws from the same concept as "What we don't know can't hurt us"—except, such things _can and do_ hurt us. Additionally, such things can _control_ us, and do so more effectively when we remain unaware of them, so that their powerful confusion is allowed to thrive.

If only we could get wise to the illogical, semantic nature of our minds and thoughts, we might get a handle on this confusion and, perhaps, act a bit more conscientiously.

And so we see the problem: when life hinges on semantic thinking that is rarely known, much less understood, there results a generally confused state of things—a state which, I believe, currently grips our world. This worldwide condition's most devastating effect is seen all around us: confused behavior and decision-making, due to acting on the personal, subjective semantics that we hold, without _knowing_ they're personal and subjective. It's something like "the blind leading the blind," except on a mental level: the mind is running on personal, perhaps entirely baseless semantics, while believing that those semantics are, instead, fully real and concrete—a semantic-blind mind leading _itself_ , as it were.

It's called a " _po-tay-to_ ," darn it! "Po-tah-to" is totally _wrong_.

It returns us to the two men discussing mothers while possessing totally different semantics of "mother." For these hypothetical men, their communication is severely crippled, not just by the contrast of their personal, subjective semantics, but by their mutual _unawareness_ of this discrepancy. When people do not define and declare their semantics (and the perceptions which _spring_ from these semantics), there is simply no communication to speak of, so great is the distortion present. It's akin to the childhood game of Pass It Along, where a message is whispered down a line of children and, inevitably, butchered beyond all recognition. But then, that last child in line _knows only that butchered version of the message_. And what if that child were to _act_ on that distortion ...?

Inflate this "blind leading the blind" thinking to the world stage, and we begin to grasp the extent of the problem.

To frame our semantic conundrum in living terms, here's a real-world example: the phrase "Listen to your body," popular in certain healthcare circles. It's a good starting place, because semantics mingle closely with linguistics, combining to govern much of our thoughts and behavior, often in ways subtle enough to avoid detection. And it is from here that semantics' worldwide influence begins, starting in the seemingly smallest of ways.

"Listen to your body": I both do and do not agree with the statement, because its meaning is not singular or concrete—thanks to the statement's semantics, of course. I don't agree with it literally, as the language is simply is too narrow and imprecise to be of any real use. That is, "Listen to your body" does not contain enough intrinsic information to be properly interpreted—it doesn't _tell you much_ , a vagueness which is readily exploited by our semantic-driven perceptions, which "fill in the blanks," as it were. Recite these words to a hundred different people, and it will result in up to a hundred different interpretations—and, thus, a hundred different _reactions_. What disaster might come from advice that can be interpreted to mean something entirely different than intended? It again evokes kids playing Pass It Along, except now regarding self-diagnosis and the precious commodity that is good health.

To illustrate my point, know that I _do_ agree with "Listen to your body" in its expanded, defined form, that which is informative enough to withstand semantic distortion. My personal interpretation of "Listen to your body" is as follows:

"By intensive, objective observation of the body, one can infer facts and patterns which lead toward a greater self-knowledge. By observing oneself, then analyzing these observations to determine how they should be interpreted and what they imply, one may then synthesize this information and then conclude on what, exactly, is being observed—what is being 'heard from the body,' as it were."

(Note: This essential technique can be used to help determine the actual reality of just about any observed event.)

Now, my version differs hugely from the original "Listen to your body"—yet my version could still be _interpreted_ as "Listen to your body," in its condensed, abstract form. This process is what I refer to as "listening" to my body, and I consider it true, _but only because my personal semantic reflects that broader, expanded definition_. On the other hand, were I to say "Listen to your body" to someone _without_ that same, expanded definition, then I wouldn't really be communicating what I mean. There comes a point of restriction when true, informative meaning is destroyed, and by narrowing the above concept and its context into the inadequate "Listen to your body," I am, therefore, not conveying that concept at all.

Going further with this example, let's apply the narrowed semantic of "Listen to your body" to a real-life health condition: food intolerance, where certain foods variously offend the body. Ironically, food intolerance can produce a perverse _craving_ for the offending food; thus, were the person to hold a narrow semantic of "Listen to your body" (such as "Do what feels right"), such a food craving could easily be confused for doing what is healthy, even though, in reality, eating the offending food is anything but, however "right" it feels. Conversely, were someone operating on that _broader_ concept of "Listen to your body," as defined above, then they would be less likely to fall prey to the perverse food cravings generated by food intolerance, thanks to their ability to observe that, yes, they crave a certain food, but that craving _could be caused by a food intolerance_ , a possibility foreign to the narrow-minded thinking of the first person. In the end, the first person could wind up very sick for their semantic distortions. (An alternate example, along these same lines, is that of parasitic infection. Many parasites are known to influence the host's thinking and behavior by secreting certain biotoxins and other substances, which could, like a perverse craving for an offensive food, make it feel right to behave self-destructively, if it suits the parasites—strange but true.)

Ultimately, the point of the "Listen to your body" example is this: our semantic mode of thinking can often give way to _confusion_ , about ourselves and others both.

Let's broaden this concept to greater society and the world. What if the vast majority of us operate on faulty, narrowed personal semantics? And, worse, what if we _thought otherwise_? What if the subscribers of "Listen to your body" all _thought_ they were operating on the same concept, when they were really operating on a million different ones? Extend this principle even further: to politics, to religion, to our relationships and general interactions with others. Finally, apply this to our _very thinking and reasoning_ , all the way to our most fundamental, subconscious feelings and the automatic behavior they give way to. What if, due to the power our semantics hold over us, we think we're doing and saying and _being_ certain things, when the reality is that we are merely acting out personal (and possibly baseless) semantics?

What if this pervasive, low-level distortion described the general state of things? What consequences could be expected from such a mess?

The consequences would be many, but one would be prominent: _confusion_. Not just within ourselves and our relationships and our pursuits, but confusion _about our confusion itself_. That is, we could be so confused, _we don't know we're confused_ , being incapable of identifying the confusion. Such a condition can be uniquely dangerous, for it is both self-defeating and self-perpetuating. How can the lonely dog find company when it bites anyone who gets near?

By my reckoning, we are a people so confused by semantics and other mysterious psychological factors, we don't know we're confused.

What can be done (if something is to be done)? The answer is simple, though far from easy: _awareness_. We must become self-aware enough to grasp the semantic nature of our thoughts and perceptions. Only then can we dethrone the blind, often illogical perceptions that are the prime movers of our thoughts (and the world those thoughts create). Using self-awareness, we may replace our confusion with sound, sober thinking, free from the distortions wrought by the endless jumble of semantics that we hold. Optimally, this process begins individually, then expands outward, to eventually hit a tipping point at which widespread conscientious thought and action become possible, thus overthrowing the reckless, confused paradigm that presently governs most world affairs. Yes, this "plan" is hugely simplified, and more than a little idealistic; yet these adjectives do not invalidate the underlying truth of the matter.

A small undertaking? Certainly not. A worthwhile one? Certainly _so_. In fact, it could be argued that, as things stand, we don't have much of a choice. It's either a worldwide effort toward self-awareness and clear communication, or continue our confused, semantically-charged advance toward the cliff's edge.

#  X. TAKE THE SILENT-MIND CHALLENGE

Think that silencing the mind is a bad thing, or that there's nothing to gain from doing so? Think again.

It might not immediately make sense, but silencing the mind is a powerful technique for achieving mental health. Additionally, it is useful as a _defensive_ maneuver, to protect oneself against the world's many predatory people and forces. As for how something so simple as a silenced mind can accomplish these things, several principles must first be understood.

Foremost, the reader must realize that the average mind is not "quiet." Even when the mind appears to be at rest, there is usually still activity "under the surface"— _subconsciously_ , that is, those thoughts which might not be immediately accessible to one's conscious, topside mind. Just as calm seas can conceal a huge, bustling world of marine life below its surface, so can a supposedly resting mind conceal a storm of subconscious thoughts. What sort of thoughts? Anything, potentially, from what to have for dinner tonight, to that disagreement at work this morning, to tomorrow's weather, or even to things that happened years in the past— _anything_. The subconscious is a busybody, despite surface appearances.

Which brings us to the second thing to be understood: looping thoughts.

Thought-loops exist in that sea of subconscious thoughts described above. In short, a thought-loop is just that: any thought that repeats itself, creating a loop. Maybe it's the obsessive replay of a memory; maybe it's a belief ("I am good," "I am not good," "This place is good/not good"); maybe it's a distinct message ("I should be working harder," "The boss could come by anytime"). Whatever the actual thought, it repeats, echoing endlessly in the subconscious. Why is this important? Because such a subconscious thought-loop, for all its invisibility, can affect the conscious mind. And, likewise, the conscious mind can affect the whole person.

Why is this possible, that something as inconspicuous as a repeated thought can affect us so? Due to the next term: conditioning.

When one is "conditioned" in the psychological sense, it means, basically, that their mind is altered by some repeated influence. Just as a muscle is conditioned and strengthened by repeated use, such is the mind: repeat a thought enough, and it can brand itself upon the very framework of one's thinking, changing the mind in a semi-permanent way. Think of mental conditioning as a mold that presses itself upon the mind, shaping it subtly but effectively. Combine this concept of conditioning with that of a thought-loop, and we see how such a loop can affect the mind in significant ways. Also, considering that such loops are often _subconscious_ , as to be virtually undetectable, we see the potential for unhealthy influence.

What if one's subconscious thought-loops are negative in nature? What kind of damaging conditioning might this inflict?

Once again, the effects can vary hugely from person to person, but there is one in particular common to nearly any mental conditioning: seeing things differently. That is, seeing what's not there, or not seeing what _is_. Sound impossible, that mental influence alone can change how one sees the outside world? As unbelievable as it might seem, it is indeed possible to manipulate what someone sees or doesn't see, and this hinges on the phenomenon known as "perception." Put simply, one's perception is how they see themselves and the world. Were you to "step into another's shoes" and "see where someone is coming from," you would be experiencing their _perception_ of things, and because that perception is, more or less, unique, it could be drastically different than your own. To best understand the concept of perception, consider an art class where the artists all draw the same object but produce radically different drawings—perhaps _completely_ different, as to depict another object entirely. Why? Because the individual artists _perceive_ that object differently.

Now, going back to how thought-loops and conditioning can affect the mind, we see the means by which this happens: conditioning changes one's _perception_ , so that the conditioned might see what isn't there or ignore what _is_. In this manner, what one sees and thinks can be "filtered," distorting their final perception of the world, the same as a camera outfitted with a special lens.

Better yet, here's another example of perception and its effects on the whole person: hypnotism. Hypnotism is, really, just a means of controlling another person's subconscious mind and perception; this is the basic definition of "hypnotic suggestion." When a stage hypnotist hypnotizes a volunteer see the audience without clothes (which usually works, by the way), all that changes is the volunteer's _perception_ —in this case, to artificially strip the audience. Though, this isn't just a neat trick. If the hypnotized person reacts no differently than if the audience were really naked, then just how artificial _is_ that distorted perception? In their mind, there's nothing artificial about it, for so powerful is one's perception, it's _real_ , if only for the perceiver.

And _this_ is what looped thoughts and the like have the power to shape: the same perception that's strong enough to make someone see a nude audience.

At this point, a picture begins to emerge: what goes on in the subconscious mind is pretty important, and pretty delicate, too. So, what if the looped thoughts and hypnotic suggestions embedded there shape one's reasoning and perceptions _without the person realizing it_? How might that manipulate their behavior? And, what can be done to protect oneself?

This is where silencing the mind becomes useful.

Anyone is vulnerable to subconscious thought-loops and hypnotic suggestion (plus many other subconscious pitfalls not mentioned here). This vulnerability is not a flaw or defect, but the basic nature of the human mind, so that we can be thinking something subconsciously, without being aware of it, yet have our perception and behavior altered. Thought-loops are a natural side-effect of undertaking any mental activity, as are other influences such as hypnotic suggestion, and these things can come from any number of sources in any number of ways. A parent's influence can install a thought-loop in their child's subconscious, as to shape the child's development. A government's law can work similarly, as to be reflected in the behavior of society. The approval or disapproval of one's peers can affect psychology in this fashion. Also, consider the hypnotic effects of advertising and mass media, which actively attempt to manipulate thoughts and perceptions for reasons of profit. When these widespread influences are factored into the equation, we are faced with an endless potential of sources for such mental "programming"—all of which can alter the mind in profound ways, such as seeing what's not there or ignoring what _is_. And, since these influences can accumulate in the subconscious, unseen, we are faced with the disturbing possibility that one might be "infected" with all sorts of mind-altering influences, as to be perpetually under their perceptual influence.

But, if the mind is _silenced_ , what might happen to these subconscious influences? The answer: they will be suspended and lose their impact, thus "freeing" the mind from their grip—perhaps for the first time.

Here, a disturbing point bears mentioning: it's fully possible for one to be ensnared in conditioning from a very young age, so that they've never known anything else. This often results in a state of mental restriction and control, like a perceptual cage that keeps its prisoner at a remove from actual reality—being disconnected from the "Now," you could say. Though, one does not need to be conditioned from childhood to lose touch with reality and the Now, for that restricted state can be induced at any time, with enough influence. In fact, there are, I suspect, a great many adults living in such a conditioned daze, due to any number of various thought-loops and hypnotic suggestions, which ultimately lock the mind into that psycho-cage of unreality. Whether acquired from straight-up conditioning of some kind, or a traumatic experience, or even a personal obsession, the loops exert the same basic effect: distorting one's inner reality and perceptions, so that the person sees what's not there or ignores what _is_ —and, perhaps, never knows any better, because the daze never lifts. This is the polar opposite of "living in the Now," where, rather than seeing and experiencing what's actually there, one is caged within the illusionary reality constructed by whatever conditioned influences have accreted in their subconscious mind—a mental "static," so thick as to obscure the Now and its nourishment. For one barred from actual reality and the Now, it's cloudy even when the sun is out.

Thankfully, such mental cages are dismantled by mental silence, as to return one to the real-world Now.

As for actually silencing the mind, it's a case of "simple in premise, complex in practice," for we are not just silencing conscious, "visible" thoughts, but _subconscious_ thoughts, which can lie hidden in the mind, all but invisible to the person experiencing them. Depending on one's level of self-awareness, silencing conscious thought can be hard enough, but to truly still the _subconscious_ , we need a thorough, disciplined technique, for only then will all thought-loops and hypnotic effects be "turned off" and true equilibrium restored. For all their parallels, mind-silencing is not to be confused with meditation (though a silenced mind certainly facilitates meditation). Rather, what I describe here is, simply, a tool, to be used when appropriate, no different than using windshield wipers to clear away rain.

A simple premise, yes, but the actual deed can pose a problem, for _the mind must silence itself_. This can be tricky, for the same reason that one cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps: because silencing thought _requires_ thought, something akin to a microscope attempting to magnify itself. As for how much a problem this will pose, it again varies from person to person. Some can simply issue a straightforward conscious command to "stop thinking," and thinking will stop. Others might accomplish this direct method with the aid of a calm, relaxing environment. (For me, I go to a totally dark and quiet bedroom, lie down, and put a sleep mask on. Sometimes, this can alone can be enough to silence my mind of even deeply "hidden" thoughts.)

However, some people don't respond to these easy methods, a group which, I suspect, includes most of us in today's heavily conditioned world. For this unfortunate majority, any direct attempt to silence thought will likely just _trigger more thought_ , ad nauseum. But, luckily, there is a way to silence even the most stubborn mind: a _passive_ approach, tantamount to thinking without thinking. This type of method deals with runaway thought as one would a muscle cramp: by relaxing completely and letting it run its course, because any direct action would just make it worse.

One such passive method is visualization.

To visualize is to "see" something in the mind's eye—a fancy term for imagining how something might appear. But there is a bit more to visualization than just its imaginative quality, for it arises from a different source than traditional, logical thought. And it is this "illogical" quality which can be exploited to help the mind silence itself.

There is no one mind-silencing visualization. The visualization used is, also, up to the individual. The only requirement is that it _effectively silence the mind_. Thus, one could envision a volume dial being turned all way down to "0," after which all thought ceases. Or, visualize a pool of water going completely, placidly still. Keep in mind: the visualization itself isn't really important, just so long as it succeeds in silencing the mind. Experiment and find a visualization that's right for you, whatever that might be.

When visualizing to this end, it's helpful to make the image _react_ to your thoughts. That is, if you visualize a volume dial going down to "0" when your mind is totally silent, then make the dial go _the other way_ when thoughts occur. Such a reactive "feature" is useful in gauging thought levels and, therefore, reducing them. "Program" your visualization to this end. Personally, I visualize a horizontal line. When my mind is silent, the line is perfectly flat and straight; when I think at all, the line is upset into wild shapes. That way, if I focus on keeping that visualized line straight, my mind is forced to comply, and without any direct, logical thought that will itself upset the line—pulling myself up by my mental bootstraps, as it were. Aim to thwart not just all thought, but all _reaction_ to thought, mental and physical alike (such as moaning in answer to pain, or swatting at an insect bite, or anything else that sees an automatic, "preprogrammed" response). Such knee-jerk reactions are central to the hypnotic effect, triggering the chain reaction that keeps the mind in its cage of distorted thinking and perception. Defeat that initial reaction, and the rest of the programming is apt to fall apart.

Be persistent when learning to silence the mind. Whatever technique you choose (including those not listed here, perhaps of your own making), just remember: it will take practice. Like any skill, silencing the mind takes time and experience to master. If at first you don't succeed, keep trying. I promise: make a sincere choice to silence your mind, and you will find a way.

Did you discover any change in your thinking, after successfully silencing your mind? I suspect you did. Again: results will vary, but, depending the amount of active conditioning, silencing the mind could see a drastic change in oneself—a _good_ change, returning one to reality and the Now, as to pull back a "veil" of perceptual distortion and, thus, "see the world for the first time." For example: if daily conditioning has hypnotized someone into seeing a certain thing as "bad," then they might find themselves left with a thought-loop to that end, so that they'll unconsciously avoid that "bad" thing—even if it's not really bad. Worse, if that hypnotic programming is left to run on and on, endlessly informing the conscious mind of that thing's "badness," then the person might never see that thing _as it really is_ —until, that is, the thought-loop is _silenced_. Afterward, one might find themselves seeing things differently, as to discover what was "hidden in plain sight."

This is but one example of the big, far-reaching changes that could result from successfully silencing influences lodged in the subconscious. People, places, practices, possibilities—all could be seen anew, once the eyes are cleared of their mental "static." It could be likened to "seeing the world as a child," before we were conditioned with distorted perceptions that bar us from the Now and lock us into some make-believe past or future, thus making us see what's not there or ignore what _is_.

In a nut, mental influence is a form of control, and silencing the mind is a means of _breaking_ that control.

As a closing note, I should mention that there is much more to the subject of silencing the mind than discussed in this condensed treatment. Besides the underlying psychology at play here (and what it means in the scheme of things), there is also the fact that silencing the mind within the confines of a dark, quiet bedroom is far different than doing so in the outside world. To carry that clear-thinking, nonreactive state with you, as to be impervious to the world's many influences, is a true art, one which could fill a book (and perhaps a lifetime).

#  XI. WINDOWS TO NOTHING: THE EYES LIE

As conventional wisdom has it, the eyes are the proverbial "windows to the soul." Yet, that same taproot declares that "appearances can be deceiving," and "don't judge books by their covers." Contradiction ensues. Which side of this double-bind is right?

In my experience, the eyes can lie.

Growing up, I was a subscriber of "windows to the soul"—not that I was aware of this, exactly. I never gave it much thought, one way or another. Like most children (and some adults), I just went on how something made me _feel_ , and that was that. If a particular set of eyes rubbed me wrong, then their owner was, in my book, at best suspect, and at worst a Hollywood-movie villain. So, if only because of my shallow reasoning, I would've agreed with the "windows to the soul" angle, where some quick, cursory eye contact would reveal all pertinent information about a person. So _omniscient_ I was, like some Godly optometrist.

Only as an adult would I begin to question the eye's infallibility.

Oh, how a single experience can destroy a lifelong notion, where even the loudest shouting fails. I had my driver's license renewed, is what happened, and the picture came out badly. Whereas my original license, obtained the day after my eighteenth birthday, revealed a spry young lad with a calm, even gaze, my new license showed ... someone else. It wasn't that the twenty-something me in the updated license was older or less presentable; instead, it was in the _eyes_ : cold, glazed, faraway, they belonged to a madman or a jet-lagged traveler, staring off past the camera into a dark infinity. As it were, the eyes profiled in my new license were those of a Bad Guy plotting Bad Things, surely with a Bad Soul to match.

But _I_ wasn't bad. How could my eyes suggest such falsehoods?

The answer, like most in life, lay in the details—namely, the context of my visit to the Driver's License office for the renewal. First, it was late in the day and I was more than a little tired. Second, I was in a busy public place, under influence of the cruel, vacant trance such spaces tend to induce. Third, the gentleman processing my case had, for whatever reason, left me uncomfortable (perhaps he, too, had untrustworthy eyes). And lastly, the office was minutes from closing and I was the day's last client, a fact that my assigned worker had made clear, lending a sense of pressure and hurry to the encounter. In a word, I was _stressed_ , a condition which shone through those "windows" of my eyes once the new license picture was, finally, taken.

But did the stressed man depicted on my license really reflect my "soul," or so much as _anything_ worthwhile about me? The answer, in this case, is no, and upon opening my new license and seeing the horror of it, I would at last begin to doubt the eye's credibility.

A second experience cemented these doubts. This one also involved a photo of myself, but now to the other extreme: instead of a stressed madman, this photo showed a placid, easygoing fellow standing in a coolly lit room, gazing lovingly at the camera, a grandfatherly smile on his face—and serene, open eyes. Look into those eyes, and you'd trust me even if I held a bloody machete. However, as I studied this photo after the fact, it evoked that other adage I mentioned: "Appearances can be deceiving." As for this picture's context, it was taken just before bedtime on a night when I was under the influence of herbal sleep medicine. And _that_ was the "soul" in my eyes at the time: a whopping dose of melatonin and valerian root, enough to put a caffeinated ape to rest (I suffer from chronic insomnia). So, much like my license picture, my bedtime-self's "trustworthy" eyes were also misleading, now by dint of brain chemistry rather than the stress of a public institution.

Most importantly, the second photo provided _contrast_ , the destroyer of many an illusion. And that was all she wrote: the conflicting pictures demonstrated to me, firsthand, the emptiness of the "windows to the soul" doctrine, along with that of most conventional wisdom. Big truths lurk in the smallest of things, it would seem.

I would, of course, come to decipher the soul-window fallacy further, as life went on and I was provided more experiences on which to refine my budding wisdom. Though, that's not to say the phrase is _completely_ untrue; it's just simplified and clichéd to the point of distortion. Rather than being portholes into another's heart and thoughts, the eyes are just one element of a person's greater story, like a single chapter in a long book. Sure, maybe the eyes say _something_ , but what that is, exactly, is hard to determine, for so much can alter the character of one's eyes and face—what is seen in the "window," as it were. That is, what information the eyes provide must be _interpreted_ , no different than a language, and this is the key fact to be observed, lest we develop a false confidence in what we glimpse within one's eyes. Are we seeing something that's really there, or just projecting our own perceptual fictions?

Someone speaking a foreign language is saying something, too, but without knowing that language, you won't understand a word of it.

In short, our feelings and perceptions are not fully dependable. If we judge one another based on the scant, singular information broadcast by the eyes, then that judgment has been in haste, being far too shallow and rash to be anything close to accurate. By thinking that all one needs to know can be extracted from a good hard look in the eye, we run the risk of seeing what isn't there, positive or negative, as my respective photographs go to show.

The moral of the story: yes, the eyes can and do reveal something of what lies behind them, but without proper, well-grounded interpretation, such eye-gazing can give way to misunderstanding, perhaps grossly undeserved. So, really, it's the _observer's_ responsibility to avoid this perceptual pitfall, rather than falling on the eyes' owner, who probably has about as much control over their unconscious body language as a dog does its tail. It's yet another case of "black-and-white" versus "shades of grey." Sometimes, feelings and appearances can be accepted. Others, however, we'd do well to think twice, when we have the luxury.

So there you have it, folks: conventional wisdom— _gasp!_ —can be in error. However ubiquitous and well-circulated (and however believable it appears within TV and movies), an ancient cliché like "The eyes are the windows to the soul" can be so narrow and imprecise, it's one step from just plain wrong. Much of the time, this sort of hollow "knowledge" only distorts rather than reveals, such is its effect on one's thinking and reasoning. No such one-liner can be relied upon in real life, where most of a person's reality lies in circumstances, state of mind, and the other minutiae comprising the greater backdrop of their life. What's more, many of those things are so vague and ill-defined as to be scarcely known, even to the eyes' owner themselves, much less to an outside observer.

This complex reality, in which the unknown far exceeds the known, has bearing on each and every one of us. To see the world at all accurately, and avoid snap judgments and misunderstanding, we must fully realize life's complexity, however inconvenient and unsatisfying it might feel. The one-dimensional reality forged by appearances and feelings might be attractive, because few people want to be left with unknowns; however, rejected or accepted, those unknowns are still there (and can still come up and bite you in the behind). Once swept under the rug, the dirt does not vanish.

To sum up my essay, I'll frame it in the Golden Rule: Were you to be judged on the complicated, ill-defined appearance of your eyes, how would _you_ feel?

#  XII. THE DANGERS OF EXPECTATION

Once, I narrowly escaped two traffic accidents in as many seconds.

I was turning through an intersection, with the right-of-way, when an oncoming driver started to turn, also—directly toward me. I slammed on my brakes, after which I was beeped at—from _behind_ , the car that had nearly rear-ended me when I stopped short. I'd averted one accident, only to instigate a second.

Though, did I _really_ instigate the second accident? After all, the driver behind me should've been able to stop safely, _had they not been expecting me to complete my turn_.

The incident was a comedy of expectation: the first, turning driver expected me to stop and yield, while the second, beeping one expected me to follow through with my turn. Had they acted on actual reality rather than expectations, both accidents would've been avoided.

Such is life: expecting a given outcome interferes with reacting to the _actual_ outcome.

As it were, I was not surprised by these near-accidents, nor by the angry beeping-at I received from avoiding a head-on collision, for modern society is centered around expectation. So deeply entrenched is this way of life and thought, expecting a specific flow of traffic is just for starters. From government policy, to business practices, to college loans taken out in anticipation of a lucrative career, to endless statistical predictions, right down to our day-to-day assumptions of what will or will not be—we are a people saturated in expectation. It is, for many of us, the axis of our lives, and so pervasive as to go unquestioned. As a result, our expectations tend to be reflected in our deepest psychology and, thus, our actions. When the weather forecast calls for a sunny day, many people will dress for sunny weather. When a popular doctor recommends a certain lifestyle, many people will conform. Printed money is expected to retain its value, so it's exchanged for goods and services.

Except, expectations don't always pan out. Sometimes it rains despite the forecast, or the authoritative doctor is mistaken, or a currency collapses and becomes worthless. Thus we see the dangers of acting on expectations as if they are inevitable—such as when the driver behind me expected me to turn, then beeped angrily when I didn't, despite my having a very good reason for stopping.

Of course, no one wants to think of the worst-case scenario, or even the second-best; but then, that's the heart of the problem. By planning and executing our lives based on expectations, we tend to adopt a mentality of _aversion_ , in which, over time, one is apt to focus only on acceptable or desirable outcomes. Then, we are at risk of developing mental blind spots, perhaps until we forget there are any possible outcomes apart from out expectations. Once distanced from the many possibilities which constitute real life, we are prone to react with shock and outrage when faced with the unexpected, like when I was beeped at for avoiding a head-on collision. Sure, things might _usually_ go as planned—the weather being as forecast, the doctor-approved lifestyle showing the expected benefit, the turning car completing its turn. However, usually is not _always_ , and that fact must always be considered.

Unfortunately, we as a society have largely lost sight of reality in this regard.

Instead of remaining anchored in a broader, dynamic reality, great portions of the population have entered into the tunnel-visioned mentality described above, seeing only outcomes that are expected or routine (or desired). Worse, there are other factors that have distorted our thinking in this area. Agreement, for instance. It is common for large numbers of likeminded people to gather together and _agree_ that, more or less, an expected outcome is the only outcome, regardless of the actual possibilities. These fallacious agreements, and many other, similar influences, create an illusion of validity and reality, even if they are entirely without merit. Furthermore, they go on to merge with the other consensuses circulating in the media and elsewhere, creating a snowball effect. Such agreements hold great power, and often find their way into the reasoning and decision-making of the population at large, as to filter into the very infrastructure of our world. And so, in the end, we are left with massive social and economic structures crafted almost entirely on our agreed-upon expectations—when, all the while, there remain other possibilities entirely, which do not respect our agreements. However many of us agree that the sun orbits the earth, it is just not so.

Remember: it was widely agreed upon that the _Titanic_ was unsinkable.

What does this mean for the individual? That the ground under their feet is not quite as stable as they might've been led to believe. Presently, we live under a social standard that is founded more on expectation and agreement than substance, to a dangerous degree. I don't say this to alarm or frighten, but only to inform. After generations of weaving expectation into the fabric of daily life, we have confused what is expected with what actually _is_. The real-world consequences of this thinking are all around us, as to be seen in our institutions and in common behavior. I have witnessed pedestrians walk in front of fast-moving cars, purely because the crosswalk sign is green. I have witnessed people assume loans they cannot possibly pay back, purely because the bank liked their credit score. I have witnessed accredited, respected people make statements which are blatantly false, purely because they have ignored certain possibilities in favor of their expectations. Additionally, I have witnessed this same behavior enacted on the large-scale, in matters of government, or world health, or child welfare, all with equal abandon (and without acknowledgement of the flawed thinking at play).

The result: a textbook "house of cards" scenario, where one failed expectation can pull the rug out from the myriad others our society stands upon—the stuff of failed economies, burst market bubbles, and industrial disasters.

You might ask, how can this be? How could so many intelligent people operate in such a shortsighted manner, blind to anything beyond the expected? The answer: it's all psychology. Namely, that of perception.

The study of perception and its role in the mind is an essay in itself (or, rather, a whole book, if not several). But, essentially, one's perception can be considered the unique way they see the world—the "shoes" that are stepped into when we "walk a mile in another's shoes." Were we to switch between two people's perceptions of themselves and the outside world, it would be akin to changing the channels on a TV: same device, totally different programming. Thus, perception lies at the core of one's life experience, as to influence everything they think, do, and believe, without exception.

As it relates to expectation, there are two important qualities of perception. First, our perceptions can vary widely, even those of the exact same object or experience. Consider eye-witness accounts of a crime, in which people recall key details differently, sometimes to the point of changing the entire account. Second, perception is, for the most part, _arbitrary_. That is, an individual's perception of something can be "plucked from thin air," so to speak, based more on illogical elements such as feelings and interaction rather than concrete reality. If a person reminds you of a feared grade-school teacher, that person might be perceived as fearful, regardless of who they actually are. The same for a food: if it looks unappetizing in some way (say, being colored neon green), then some people might in fact perceive it as unappetizing and react accordingly, even if the food is really quite delicious. Perception is, in other words, largely an invention of the mind, rather than something truly, objectively real—real for _you_ , maybe, but not for me.

Yet, real or not, perception holds great power, for the simple fact that it is _believed_ to be real. In this fashion, perception is the mind's primary force, as to govern thoughts, feelings, and behavior. This understanding goes a long way in explaining how expectation-centered thinking has dominated our world. If perception is the mind's glue, and a perception requires nothing real or substantial to be formed, then what happens when expectation is added to the mix? The answer: _it becomes possible for us to confuse the expected with the actual_ , due to low-level perceptual distortions changing how we see ourselves and the world.

Consider also the power of expectation, which weighs so heavily on one's thinking because it weighs so heavily on _perception_ , that central hub of the mind and its deepest workings. Specifically, when operating under an expectant mentality, one's perception is _narrowed_ , so that the expected reality and its outcomes are, potentially, focused upon to the point of simply overshadowing other possibilities at all—that mental tunnel-vision described earlier, which can affect us right down to our moment-to-moment perceptions and experiences. Then, only the expected is seen—almost literally, so that a truly unexpected outcome might not at first register in the mind, as to not exist. Think of times you've had to do a double-take: before that second look, did you really see anything at all?

The consequences of such tunnel-vision-type thinking are grave, and many. After months, years, or a lifetime of this blindered state, it is not uncommon for one to forget that there is any other way to be. Then, the expected really _is_ all that can exist—to that person, at least, in their inner reality and subjective perceptions. Such a condition can be highly dangerous to oneself and others, for unexpected reality continues to exist regardless of our awareness or consent—such as when I was cut off at that intersection. Had I too been acting upon expectations, I would've run right into the illegally turning driver (because, after all, they _couldn't_ have been turning in front of me ...).

Deny the hurricane all you want. It will blow you down, all the same.

In short, a lifestyle of expectation can lead to bad mental hygiene, where one sees what they expect rather than what actually _is_. The ill effects of such thinking are limitless, with a fender-bender from an unforeseen stop only the tip of the iceberg. Mental and physical injury, lifelong trauma, death, the deaths of others—all these become possible when expectation rules one's reality, and they all stem from the same, seemingly benign cause: a distorted, limited perception of oneself and the outside world, as to see what isn't there or ignore what _is_.

Would you prefer your plane's pilot to maneuver according to actual weather conditions, or those that are expected?

Yet, for all the expectation making the rounds, there is hope. I propose a simple solution: act on what _is_ , so that one might open themselves to unyielding reality, that which exists despite all expectation and agreement. To conduct ourselves in any sort of responsible manner, we must first see things as they actually are, instead of what's expected or desired. This is an essential truth of life on Earth, and one scarcely in practice at this point in history, for all its necessity in our collective survival.

Are you seeing actual reality and its huge spectrum of possibilities? Or are you caught up in the web of expectation and its perceptual distortions?

#  XIII. ON PROPERTY

Private property and its practice: it's a big issue, and remains as relevant today as in ages past. However, before it can be addressed, we must first sort out some confusion _surrounding_ it, for this has muddied the waters and hindered resolution.

In my experience, there is a popular misunderstanding regarding private property and property rights, as to create a general confusion of the issue at hand, equal parts linguistic and semantic. As it were, the modern-day idea of "property" has been influenced by various cultural and ideological forces, to the point of having little to do with actual property, the same way politics has little to do with policy. Consequently, we are left arguing "property" when, in reality, we are arguing only our individual _semantics_ of property, trapped in a knot of misguided language, mixed metaphors, and confused concepts. This is so much chasing our own tails, and is unproductive, to say the least.

So, what _is_ being argued under the banner of "property" these days? Difficult to say. As with so many semantically-driven distortions, "property" has become individualized to the point of no longer having much bearing on reality, instead involving whatever personal associations and attachments the individual has placed on the issue. Being so heavily subjective, today's "property" can, theoretically, be _anything_ , from subjects only loosely related to property, such as real estate and municipal zoning, to those as wildly irrelevant as political and cultural rubs, things which have more to do with ego and social standing than the philosophy and implications of property. And though surely some folks are in touch with the true heart of the issue, others could, due to the confused concepts at play, perceive "property issues" as whatever their subconscious mind labels this as. And therein lies the crux of the problem: if one person's "property" involves the consequences of private holdings and delineation of land, and another's involves labor problems and socialist ideology, then how could these people ever communicate?

While perceptions of "property" vary, there is one which is common enough, and misguided enough, to be disruptive to progress on the issue: that private property is a question of materialism and class struggle.

The idea that private property is inherently wrong and unfair, though not without its merits, is misplaced as it relates to the issue in a practical, real-world sense. The wholesale condemnation of private property as a social evil is not unknown to most people living in this day and age. Rooted in the circa-1800's anarchist slogan "Property is theft," then further popularized by socialist and communist ideologies, the argument certainly means well, and possesses salient points; however, it ignores the greater reality at play, namely the fact that property _is not a political or ideological institution_. Rather, property is a _social_ convention, founded not on materialism or acquisition, but on the premise of _permission_. That is, property is not, by nature, a means of declaring ownership, but a means of setting _boundaries_ ; one can own a window screen simply to keep the bugs out, rather than a selfish desire for possession of a screen. And sure, property _can_ instigate the negative and dysfunctional types of ownership typically associated with private property and, tangentially, capitalism; but that is incidental, for it could just as easily go the other way. Indeed, a social system permitting private property can go so far as to result in a classical "haves and have-nots" scenario, complete with all the messiness outlined in a Marxist pamphlet; but that's a result of what is _done_ with that system, not an inherent flaw the system itself. It's the same principle as, "Guns don't kill people; _people_ kill people."

Property is as property does, you could say.

In this sense, private property is far more a social mechanic than a material or economic one, as to be an offshoot of the social contract—a tangible extension of respect, civic duty, and basic human cooperation. Say of these things what you will, but the fact remains _that the true issue is a social one_ , not the mislabeled "property" issues that have become conventional as of late. Which brings us back to this essay's premise, for it is far too often today that "property rights" refers to clashes between socialism and capitalism, or arguments against industry and materialism, or loyalty to a cherished political cause. These issues, though they do touch on the subject of property, are only distantly relevant, the way the price of plastic wrappers is relevant to the taste of the food that goes in those wrappers. Yet, these popular distortions have gained prominence over the actual, social issue at hand, such that the efforts to sort out matters of property have been redirected to things like materialism—not an invalid or unjust issue, by any means, but still a misdirected take on the real issue of property.

This is the heart of the confusion surrounding property today, and it is this which must first be resolved.

So, what's to be done about it? Unfortunately, a solution is beyond this essay's purpose. Here, my point is not to answer the massive question of property and the social contract, but instead to _clarify just what the practice of property entails_ , including the social and ethical concerns central to the greater issue. These details have become buried by our confused concepts and linguistic and semantic distortions, so that "property rights" conjures any number of things in the public consciousness, real and imagined.

And, really, is clearing the air in this regard not the first step toward answering the question of property? After all, you can't hit the target if you're facing the wrong way.

* * *

And on that note, what _about_ the popular, materialistic take on private property? I can't help but comment on the subject, as an adjunct to addressing the actual, social issue of property.

The materialistic "property" controversy is, I believe, valid in its own right, if mislabeled. However, I find issue with it, as well, for I contend that, while materialism does indeed exist (and can be as poisonous and destructive as some of its opponents insist), _it is not innate to having possessions_ , just as private ownership does not automatically imply inequality and abuse. Once again, we face a confusion of concepts, for materialism is primarily _psychological_ in origin, not political or ideological. As it were, the nature of a possession is highly subjective, being dependent on such factors as perception, intention, purpose, and one's personal semantics and ideals regarding possessions. For this reason, two people could have the exact same possessions but with such different personal meaning as to be different objects entirely. After all, most of life is how you see it.

A possession's nature is in the eye of the beholder, it would seem.

The subjectivity of possession is an important point, for when this added dimension is taken into consideration, the issue broadens considerably. Namely, it becomes possible to have things without being _attached_ to those things—to possess without _possessiveness_ , as it were. Make no mistake: your possessions do not have to define you, or entangle you, or entrench you in their perceived value. It's the same way you can eat without being a glutton, or take off your clothes without being a nudist. Here lies a common misconception of those who eschew possessions out of a dislike of liability or attachment—an understandable aversion, but one that operates on the assumption that attachment is an inevitable byproduct of possession. It's the difference between having a car to get from Point A to Point B, without emotional investment in that car or its value, and having one as a show of wealth and status.

These are possibilities which many have overlooked, due to narrow logic, and they are, thus, my injunction against the typical, materialistic take on "property issues."

For example, take property lines. When someone posts a "No Trespassing" sign on their property, it could mean any number of different things, rather than being restricted to outright possessiveness, as suggested by certain doctrines. One person could post such a sign to assert grandiosity or exert power over others, while someone else could do so simply to _communicate a practical boundary_ , perhaps a not-unfriendly one, to convey mutually beneficial information. Perhaps the sign is posted because you might be dangerous; then again, perhaps it's because something nearby is dangerous _to you_. Or, alternately, raising a fence: one could pitch such a boundary not in an offensive manner, but as a _defensive_ one, perhaps to keep the deer out of one's garden—reasons which, in any case, have little to do with possession, materialism, or manmade conventions of property lines. It's the same way one has a right to decline a sexual advance.

So no, property is _not_ theft—at least, not unless one's intentions and actions amount to as much. As easily, property can mean healthy cooperation and communication, all depending on how that property is regarded by society and the individual.

Which brings us full circle, back to the social qualities that constitute private property's true nature.

Perhaps I was premature in saying that this essay provides no answer to the question of private property, for is conscientious use of property and ownership not the beginnings of a solution? In a nut, I believe that property can be a responsible and supportable social institution—so long as the _society in question_ is itself responsible and supportable. Reduced to its root, the practice of private property boils down to such social matters, not tangible or ideological ones such as materialism. All else is incidental to the underlying issue, which, in and of itself, has little to do with possessions, political concerns, and emergent social problems such as class struggle, these being at most only distant corollaries.

And on that note, I rest my case.

#  XIV. THE NEW SCIENCE

Science is no longer science, in the proper sense of the word.

Today's "science" has abandoned its heritage, as to be undeserving of its namesake. In true science's place, we have a sort of devolved, mongrelized version, similar in form and appearance but a very different animal indeed. This change could be viewed as Science versus, just, science. The first fits the dictionary definition: as the classical Scientific Method, that used for objective classification, measurement, and interpretation of observed events. On the other hand, the latter, lesser "science" is a subjective and questionable knockoff, marred with bias and potential inaccuracy.

To be sure, we have all but abandoned real Science for its dysfunctional counterpart.

Please don't misunderstand: this essay is _not_ anti-science. Science is a marvelous tool, capable of elevating mankind to an apex of knowledge and ability. However, only _true_ science fits this bill—that competent, proper-noun Science referenced above. Unfortunately, the lackluster "science," so often practiced today, falls short of its big brother. No, today's science, being so hamstrung by selective perception and wishful thinking, rarely grants real knowledge or utility; instead, anything gleaned from modern science is, usually, provisional and restricted, limited to whatever fallacies and assumptions it operates under.

An insidious thing, the logical assumption—yet so easily _missed_ (or ignored). Found a scientific doctrine on the assumption that the world is flat, and that doctrine won't go too far on a practical level, however well-researched, well-intentioned, or otherwise ingenious. As it stands, such flat-earth thinking has systematically infiltrated our sciences, yet appearances are just enough to the contrary, with just enough bias and permissiveness thrown in the mix, that an illusion of round-earth legitimacy can be sustained. Thus we see the progressive devolvement of our Science into "science," entrapping many of our institutions in a modern-day version of the flat-earth paradigm, now just in new, valid-sounding wrappings. Except, the flat earth's modern incarnation is _worse_ , for our fallacies are even harder to detect than those of our Elizabethan and Victorian forefathers, thanks to our consensuses and their veil of quasi-legitimacy. Now, our fallacies deny their own existence, rendering them rather resilient.

In a bitter irony, we've come full circle to the same flawed, self-defeating mentality that rationalism and scientific thought were originally meant to dispel.

Unfortunately, this disconcerting reality is not so obvious, due to a great overlap between Science and science. This is, of course, why science has managed to subvert Science in the first place. As mentioned, true, legitimate Science is an open-ended, broad-thinking tool used for objectively describing reality. Here, Science is especially handy when confronting the unknown, and for creating an integrated, universal terminology used for _exploring_ that unknown—which, once again, does not characterize "science." Today, our sciences are, more often than not, confined to a limited set of parameters and assumptions, these usually defined by the scientist's desires and prejudices (or those of the source of funding).

Naturally, this restrictive institutional landscape results in the age-old conflict: the universe's stubborn refusal to bow to man's wants and insistences. Because objective reality does not observe whatever restrictions humanity places upon it, a delimited "science" is, thus, fundamentally flawed. For this reason, modern science is left at an inherent disadvantage, unable to describe actual, objective reality, whatever that may be—that is, _unable to perform sole, original task of scientific thought_ , from which there can be no deviation or compromise. Use science to pursue anything less than absolute reality, and its practice becomes irreversibly corrupted, so that all resultant data is likewise fouled.

However, that's not to say that "science" is useless. While inept at describing reality, a corrupted science is quite suited to less-scrupulous purposes, such as stroking egos, pursuing status, furthering agendas, and profiting financially or emotionally. I find this fact rather interesting, as well as very telling.

Though, don't think I'm out to smear and vilify the archetypal scientist. Yes, I do believe the castration of Science into science does, ultimately, fall on the shoulders of the individual scientist, that whom has chosen, knowingly or unknowingly, to sacrifice objectivity in favor of convenience or outright personal gain. After all, without the participation of the lone, in-the-trenches scientists of the world, how else could Science be demeaned into today's "science"? At the same time, however, I will not scapegoat, for I am far too in touch with the complex reality of the situation to simplify things to that point. As it were, the individual scientist is responsible for the situation facing us today, but not _solely_ responsible.

There is the factor of imperfect education, for instance.

The modern educational establishment is as much to blame for our unscientific science as our unscientific scientists. It is, of course, the schools which are producing these individuals, shaping their thinking into "science's" neo-flat-earth mold. I think most of us would agree that many of our grade- and high schools are variably dysfunctional, while the modern university system is built around paper-chasing and its socio-academic equivalents, rather than anything truly constructive. It's no secret that today's schools train workers for today's established industries, even if alternative industries might offer drastic improvements. Thus, textbooks reflect the status quo, as do curriculums and the professors who teach them, and the board members who _hire_ those professors (and determine who receives tenor) -- and so that status quo is perpetuated, including its flaws and blind spots. No, this broken paradigm is no secret—yet it _is_ secret, because it must not be spoken of. As it were, this is another reason why the devolution of Science has occurred (and gone mostly unremarked upon): because our shortsighted, industry-minded education system has gone unquestioned to the point of validity, as if it were inevitable and without alternative.

If the inmates take over the asylum, is it still an asylum?

So no, our science problem is not so simple as a few overambitious scientists fudging lab results in an attempt at self-advancement. Rather, the causes are much more complicated, and much more inconvenient. It's a compound problem. First, we have the harsh indoctrination present in today's education, heavily restricting many college grads in both thinking and function (not to mention in _imagination_ ). Next, factor in the many social elements at play, such as media influence, civic incentives and punishments, human limitation, and the mere necessity to put food on the table. Top it all off with the rampant psychological and perceptual blind spots circulating the modern world, and the result is what we see today: a fallacious, dysfunctional "science," one which is no less crippled for all its practice. Rather than a truly capable Science, we are left with a methodology unable to adapt to new information, or even to interpret known information in light of the _unknown_. In fact, today's science often times doesn't even _allow_ for an unknown, going on the outrageous idea that all is already known (or all the important things, anyway).

Back when folks believed in a flat earth, they, too, assumed that all was known, to the point of there simply being no question (or the burning at the stake of those who did question).

At this point, you might be thinking: "If our science isn't Science, what _is_ it, then?" Today, science is, largely, a vehicle: for business, for career-building, for promotion of agenda and politics, for inflation of the head, for obtaining reputation and peer congratulation—anything but the search to establish, without reservation, What Is. Rarely is the true Scientist seen in action; and, in those few instances that one emerges, they are at the mercy of the legions of "scientists," who are apt to set upon anyone who dare stray from the accepted. Little has changed since the days of old. Black-sheep Scientists are still brutally attacked and smeared and labeled in an effort to protect vested interests, however legitimate or meaningful the poor Scientist's work might actually be. In much of international academia, to be a scientist has become synonymous with a shallow, shoddy intellectualism. Somewhere along the way, the archetypal scientist has become confused with Hollywood's empty perceptions of such, so that wearing a white smock and possessing a large vocabulary is the metric used to judge merit, rather than one's understanding and application of the Scientific Method in the search for objective reality.

Yet, I am again hesitant to point fingers and simplify the issue, for I can understand our "science's" collective dysfunction. As it were, I can empathize with those who constitute and uphold this shambles of a "science," including their resistance to the ideas expressed in this essay. Putting myself in the shoes of today's average student, who has grown up knowing only the institutionalized narrowness which has undermined so many of our social- and educational systems, I can see how the very _concept_ of a broken science would appear foreign, if not entirely impossible. After all, our "science" has been the norm for _generations_ , so that the student's professors and other superiors are infected by the same germ, along with _their_ superiors, and those preceding, ad nauseum. For the modern student, surrounded by this non-science (and the consensual agreement that it is, really, _true_ science), it is all too easy to fall prey to this global omission, to be sucked into the same vortex that has claimed their teachers and peers and parents alike. After decades of an ever-shrinking cage of non-science, any idea of an objective, unbiased, freethinking Science would likely be forgotten.

These days, true Science is so far removed from that which is merely known as science, it requires a new word.

What is that word? I can offer no suggestion other than appending quotation marks on its opposite. Likewise, I am at a loss for how to correct this intellectual disaster, and I am not alone in my helplessness, I think—nor am I alone in feeling more than a little afraid. In a world where "scientists" first experiment on their fellow man, and ask questions later; where "scientists" weren't aware of nuclear fallout until _after_ Hiroshima was bombed; where personal and professional gain come before common sense and simple observance of reality—yes, I sometimes feel rather uneasy in such a world, and am unable to so much as propose a solution. Really, the best solution, as I see it, falls on me: to personally acknowledge reality in my daily life, to accept the state of things so that I might improve them on an individual level. Yes, the results of this sole, personal approach might appear insignificant; but then, appearances can be deceiving.

For starters, I've written this essay, in an attempt to at least state aloud this rather gargantuan problem confronting us today. It's the best I can do, I think—and, perhaps, _all_ I can do. If nothing else, now at least my reader cannot claim ignorance of our scientific quandary, whether my views on it are judged accurate or not. Agree or disagree, cheer or hiss—either way, it's a start.

#  XV. THE NAMELESS EXPERIENCE

Recently, I had a memorable experience. In fact, this experience was more than memorable—a magnificent, intricate, novel experience. An experience so interesting and inspiring, I just had to share it. So, this evening, I began an essay to describe this experience—only to find that it is _indescribable_.

After several attempts to do my experience justice in the written word, I concluded that it's just not possible. Thus, my experience must remain nameless, for to label it would be to despoil it.

The problem isn't of finding appropriate language, but with language itself. No amount of words could accurately—even _half_ -accurately—convey the experience in question. Even good words, or words invented special, or words arranged in poetic and devilishly clever fashion. Instead, a fundamental incompatibility exists, a blatant contradiction evoking square pegs and round holes. Not that my experience and I are just that unique, exactly; rather, what must be described is of a living, multifaceted nature beyond the scope of language. To force my experience into the confines of words would be akin to describing sight to a born-blind, or to confuse a photo for the flesh. That is, things are lost in translation, _vital_ things, which, when absent, devalue the description to the point of dishonor.

As it were, the more I tried to describe my experience, the less I was describing my experience.

So, instead, I wrote this brief essay, in the original's place. This surrogate is, it would seem, the only true means of conveying my experience: _indirectly_. This way, my experience is left nameless, and mine alone, but it will be _preserved_ , as to protect it from the acidic touch of words and quantification. I can only say what my experience is _not_ , for to do otherwise would destroy it. In some small sense, my experience is much like God, to be accurately described only in negatives.

Consider this essay a monument to my ineffable experience and its great many ilk, condemned to the netherworld of the unscribed, eternally awaiting some new medium to allow faithful transfer from the waiting room of human memory.

And, really, is _any_ experience truly, totally conveyed by today's mediums? Were we honest with ourselves, it might be admitted that _all_ conveyance ultimately fails, even the most passionate and heartfelt, restricting existential reality to those whom experience it, and those alone.

#  XVI. ON FREEDOM

If there is one subject addressed by philosophy at large, it's freedom. Yet freedom remains hugely misunderstood.

Why? Because of a flawed concept of freedom, reinforced by flawed thinking.

Freedom is all in the mind. A cliché? Maybe, but that doesn't make it wrong. In fact, we see here an example of the very same flawed thinking which distorts our view of freedom, that "cliché" equates to "irrelevant." Mental freedom: without it, no horizon is big enough, no house large enough, no country emancipated enough. By believing freedom to be solely physical or legal, one risks condemning themselves to a cage of assumptions and restrictive thinking. Freedom's mental counterpart isn't the icing on the cake, but the cake _itself_.

Ignore freedom's mental lynchpin, and confusion results.

Take wanderlust, for example. For many a nomad, their urge to roam stems from such flawed thinking and psychological shortcomings. Yes, that next town might keep your stone rolling and moss-free, but only because of the travel's _mental underpinnings_ , those which say to the mind "You are free" and proceed to undo one's subconscious locks. Though moderately effective, this method of freedom is less than elegant, hinging on a sort of psychological sleight-of-hand, to trick oneself into thinking themselves free—an awkward, roundabout way of achieving mental freedom, as it were. There are equivalent endeavors in society in general, elaborate charades to reassure ourselves and reinforce appearances of freedom. The truth is, these are mere Band-Aid solutions for the will to freedom, akin to buying a new car because the old one has a flat tire.

Achieve mental freedom, and no such workarounds are necessary.

History demonstrates freedom's mental component, and its power. In many free-roaming cultures, it is considered unconscionable to confine a human being, in stark contrast to the views typically held by sedentary cultures. For the average free-roamer, capital punishment is preferable to imprisonment, with a traditional penitential system viewed as perverted and heinous, tantamount to Western civilization's view of cannibalism. Yet, most other cultures regard confinement as an acceptable form of punishment, if an unwieldy and expensive one—certainly not a taboo, by any measure. Why this glaring divide? That's a massive sociological question, of course, but it usually boils down to the psychology of freedom, and its perceptual implications. The free-roaming society perceives confinement as a crime in itself, while the sedentary one perceives the exact same practice as a fact of life, inevitable as the tides. This was illustrated in the clash of nomadic Native American tribes with agrarian settlers in the 18th and 19th centuries, when imprisonment was viewed by Natives as barbaric and cruel, to be cited as evidence for the depravity of the European mind.

Which perception of confinement is correct? Both and neither, for each operates on a narrow definition of freedom. Were those cultures to possess a broad, inclusive perception of freedom, in which freedom is mental rather than physical or legal, no such discrepancies in semantics would occur. Theoretically, balance would ensue: a Native American tribesman might no longer fear captivity so, and the American settler might no longer believe it a pat solution to society's ills.

In my life and travels, I have come to define "freedom" strictly as a state of mind, with traditional qualifiers such as physical location and legal status bearing little on this condition. To be able to see things as they are, rather than as I'm told they are; to know myself and my history in fullness, without restriction or distortion; to experience that which I choose, as I choose to experience it—these are the hallmarks of what I have come to know as "freedom," and they are all achieved almost purely via mind. Yes, physical and legal freedom are great, but without mental and spiritual fortitude, how could I _enjoy and appreciate_ those liberties? On the other hand, take the physical and legal freedoms out of the equation but preserve their mental corollaries, and the essence of freedom remains. Traditional freedoms are not even the icing on the cake, but only _the cooking pan that gives the cake shape_. A cake baked without a pan is no less of a cake, and tastes just as sweet.

Learn to achieve freedom by way of mind, and you've shed a vital dependence, akin to baking a cake without a pan (and liking it).

Assumptions are enemy to mental freedom, as demonstrated by the aforementioned nomads and their disdain for sedentary existence. To assume that the cake pan of physical freedom is necessary to be free, will likely be one's undoing, for that assumption condemns oneself to that end, by way of their own mental reaction to captivity—self-imprisonment, you could say. Believe that physical freedom is necessary, and it _will_ be, even if it isn't. In fact, this principle of mental self-defeat extends far beyond matters of freedom, for we hang ourselves by this rope daily, in more ways than can be detailed in this essay.

Of course, avoiding such self-imprisonment isn't so easy as flipping a switch. It should be said that this mental reaction is largely _subconscious_ , occurring beyond the captive's conscious awareness, which certainly complicates things a bit. However, awareness of this reaction can, in fact, be attained, making it possible to _suspend_ that self-defeating reaction. Then, magic happens: the captive interrupts the psychological processes which indicate a loss of freedom, thus preserving freedom's psychological essence—wherever the captive is, whatever their condition. Believe you are captive, and you will be; believe you're _free_ , and ditto. For the Native who craves the open prairie, the prairie would be theirs, even behind the strongest bars—so long as they could stay in a prairie state of mind. However, when it is assumed that _no such liberating reaction is possible_ , freedom will remain at distance, perhaps even after the captive's release.

The preceding example serves as a metaphor for all freedom: the condition known as "free" is purely _of mind_ , and may be disrupted by assumption of imprisonment, real or imagined.

For those whom require physical and legal freedoms to feel free, I contend that they might bypass those restrictions and go directly to the source: _feeling and believing themselves free_ , by way of mental liberation. Personally, I have learned to be free so long as I retain my sense of self; my life's small accumulation of knowledge; my inclinations toward personal growth, and the ability to pursue it—free of being imposed upon by the restrictions and ideals of others, individual, cultural, or national. My only ideal is to live what is to be lived, experienced through my own inner prism of reality—experience for benefit of itself, nothing more or less. When I can perceive a sunrise as a new day rather than the Earth's rotation, then I know I'm still free.

And that, I say, is true freedom, the kind which can survive not just a jail cell, but the condemnation of my fellow man.

#  XVII. OUR PROGRESS THUS FAR

Breaking news! This just in:

MILESTONE STUDY CONCLUDES

NEW YORK (AP) -- Today, scientists have announced the results of a decades-long study to determine mankind's progress thus far. After rigorous experimentation, surveying, and sophisticated analyses, the study has indicated just two worldwide achievements. First, we have learned to be properly potty-trained, when the appropriate incentives are in place. Second, we have learned self-delusion, as to convince ourselves and one another that we have, in fact, learned more than potty-training and self-delusion. In a postscript, the study indicated that further achievements are unlikely.

Okay, so that study is imaginary, as well as a bit juvenile and exaggerated. Yes, we have ventured a step or two beyond going pee-pee and poo-poo where it won't foul things up, and more than a few folks have burst their self-delusion bubbles. However, my satirical little blurb contained a kernel of truth: mankind has certainly "progressed" in one sense or another, but under what _motivations_? What is the underlying nature of our so-called progress?

The answer: our progress has been fueled by a system of _incentives_ , no different than a child being potty-trained. That is, both potty-training and worldwide progress are, largely, motivated by the same forces: aversion to punishment, and pursuit of pleasure.

Now, I don't mean to imply that we are bumbling idiots, or any other derogatory insinuation. Rather, I am simply illustrating our predominant system of incentives, which motivates our housebreaking the same way it does other voluntary acts, so that, in principle, those acts are much the same, despite surface appearances and other high-level differences. Under this paradigm, potty-training operates on the same premise as, say, building a skyscraper; were we to act on a fundamentally _different_ system, such as that of conscious, principled action, then potty-training and construction would, thus, be far more disparate, involving varied motivations and intentions. As it stands, we do not presently live under such a conscientious way of doing things, so that, instead, the large majority of our activities are motivated by the same brute-force mentality of incentives and punishments. Today, rarely is something done because it is appropriate, healthy, or sustainable.

As for the mock study's statements about self-delusion, however, those were entirely literal, if not understated.

Self-delusion is rampant in today's world, to the point of being accepted by many people as a normal, inescapable quality of the human condition. Though, contrary to my news mockup, our delusions are not restricted to our achievements and progress, but instead extend far and wide, knowing no limits. So great is our collective skill in this area, we are able to delude ourselves about our self-delusion, as to create a feedback loop of delusional thinking, where a false reality reinforces itself. And, because this condition is so popular, it creates an appearance of normality, as to cement the illusion in the mass psyche. Thus, after centuries and generations of such delusions and their own self-denial, many of us have so departed from actual reality that even the idea of widespread self-delusion is wholly unknown and unprecedented, like the distant iterations of a fractal.

Combine such massive self-delusion with a social infrastructure based almost purely on incentives rather than principles, and we have the ingredients of the news parody above.

I can already hear one rebuttal to my claims: "But look at all that we've _done_!" a critic might say, gesturing to the abundance of the modern world. This person might then go on to cite the fantastic sciences we've founded, or the vanquishing of once-deadly diseases, or this last century's advances in transportation and electronics and communications—evidence of _progress_! How could a wrong-thinking society achieve such feats? As it were, I will not dispute these arguments for the most part, because society has, in a certain sense, been quite productive along these lines, creating a rather convincing appearance of legitimacy. However, what must be kept in mind is not what has been done, but _why and by what means_ it was done, for our methods and intentions comprise the true essence of our accomplishments, not how things seem or appear. Additionally, the question of _permanence and sustainability_ must be considered, for to focus only on immediate results will likely produce a self-destructive tunnel vision, one from which it is difficult to emerge. This is best exemplified by the practice of "planned obsolescence," which rarely includes a plan for _what to do with the abundance of obsolete products_ , however hazardous or polluting they might be. After all, economic survival justifies destructive behavior, right?

No, when it comes to "progress," appearances cannot be trusted, for there is a great overlap between things accomplished for the right reasons (principle and appropriateness) and the wrong (fear or a blind pursuit of pleasure). Whether one uses a toilet out of a desire for sanitation, or a desire to avoid a parent's scolding, that toilet will still be used—the same _surface appearance_. The same applies to many of our modern achievements, socially as much as industrially and intellectually, because things done out of fear can masquerade as real function, and convincingly so, because of that similarity of results. In fact, fear-based incentives can be quite productive in this capacity, the way the crack of a slave-driver's whip can build marvelous structures and craft beautiful objects, or as social punishment can bring about "socialized" behavior.

A shotgun wedding still results in a wedding, after all.

Do not underestimate the power of incentives and fear-based punishment, especially when combined with self-delusion. So psychologically strong is this cocktail, it, like our delusions, can deny itself. That is, with sufficient incentives, one can be made to believe that no incentive is at play, perhaps sincerely. This self-effacing quality can lead to yet another feedback loop of self-denial, as to be wholly disguised to the individual as much as to others. And how does this all relate to the real world? In effect, our system of incentives tends to produce "functional" adults whom are, at heart, little more than conditioned children, desperately seeking to avoid punishment or seek pleasure. Such non-adults can, in fact, even appear greatly intelligent, or be highly successful, with status, and high-paying jobs, and Ph.D.s, and very attractive spouses. But those things change nothing of the person's actual reality: someone who has managed material accomplishment by way of brute-force incentives, not true substance. When seen as they really are, these folks would appear drastically different than the superficial image their accomplishments might suggest, something like a toddler dressed in a parent's clothes. This concept translates directly to the material world and its illusions of "advancement" and "progress," which, in essence, could be likened to potty-training of a higher order.

Put on as much makeup as you want; the underlying wrinkles remain.

At this point, there is an important footnote: the classic scenario of doing "the right thing for the wrong reasons." Such incidents are not always so clear cut, for, once again, it all hinges on _intention and motivation_. For instance, a man can help an old lady cross the road—the "right" thing—but just to avoid being seen as "bad" or "unhelpful" (as opposed to simply helping because the woman needs help) -- the "wrong" reasons. Though, the incentive doesn't have to be negative, oriented in punishment; just as easily, it can be _positive_ , presenting a reward of some sort. If the man helps the old woman cross the road because it, say, _aggrandizes_ him, granting a false sense of goodness and validity, then the situation of "right thing, wrong reasons" remains the same, now just of a different bent. Such is a common consequence of living under a paradigm of incentives and fear, where, inevitably, at least some people will be struck effectively blind to acting on principle or appropriate, practical necessity, leaving them pathologically unable to do the right thing simply because _it's what needs to be done_. Such folk would be functionally handicapped, able to do only what feels good or bad or is convenient. Either way in this case, if the old lady truly needed help, the man wouldn't help her without a selfish incentive; whether that incentive is positive or negative in nature, it doesn't matter, for the woman would stay deprived of help.

Again, these concepts apply directly to the macrocosm of global order, where the difference between true, conscientious productivity and the false variety produced by incentives is not always so apparent. Immediately, the two can seem identical, both in appearance and even function, so that only later do the differences become apparent—sometimes _far_ later. When the unscrupulous contractor uses asbestos insulation to save money, the asbestos will still insulate. When a useful product is sold purely for profit, without mind to sustainability or humanitarian benefit, that product remains useful. Likewise, when a whole civilization is founded under the duress of fear, pleasure, and other incentives, that civilization can function well enough to appear to run on better stuff.

So _this_ is how a dysfunctional society can produce cars and medicines and super-fast computers: through the brute force of incentives, which can erect pyramids as easily as it can direct waste to a toilet. And, paired with a stiff chaser of self-delusion, said society could be _entirely unaware of its actual, mechanical nature_ (perhaps until that unsustainable reality _itself_ produces fear or displeasure, thus becoming unavoidably clear even to those on such a narrow wavelength). In short, our situation could be described as a wholesale aping of true civilization, so inclusive and widespread as to fool the eye, and just functional enough to keep from destroying itself totally—for now, at least.

Which begs the question: just _how long_ can such a society be sustained?

That _is_ the question, isn't it.

Fortunately, there is an alternative to such a shortsighted way of life: operating on _principle and reality_ , as to do the right thing for the _right_ reasons. Then, so many possibilities become available to us, from a tangible standpoint as much as a psychological one.

There's no way around it, folks: sound thinking requires us to acknowledge actual reality and act on principle rather than incentive. It's a necessary component of any truly sustainable society, and cannot be effectively substituted with incentives and fear. By making such a substitution, key consequences are inevitable (though not always immediately apparent, as outlined above). Just as intention defines an act, so do collective principles and intentions define a society and its course. And, throughout, actual reality and its repercussions remain unchanged, however much we might delude ourselves to the contrary. When an enemy surrenders because of a pointed gun, does that enemy really become friendly? When the battered wife says "I love you" to escape another beating, is that really love? Likewise, when a large majority of society acts "civilized" to avoid pain or jail or disapproval, is that really civilization?

No, it is not, as convincing as it might seem. Awareness, conscientiousness, accountability, and empathy are the cornerstones of civilization, and no amount of fear or reward can fill that role in a feasible capacity. Only when incentives take a backseat to principle will any sort of real civilization be established. It might be easy to think otherwise—because it feels right, or everyone else is doing it, or it pays well—but that doesn't change the grim reality at hand, nor the consequences which will inevitably present themselves. Those consequences might be _delayed_ , but, like the beach and ocean where the ostrich has its head in the sand, they still exist, and must, sooner or later, be confronted.

For our world, the only question is _when_ we'll cease our fearful masquerade, rather than _if_ , since this madness simply cannot be sustained. Eventually, our worldwide game of musical chairs must stop. Until then, we will remain frightened children dressed in our parents' clothes, and insisting, desperately, that this is not the case.

#  XVIII. ON TRANSACTIONS

Transactions exist beyond the cash register.

An impoverished man is begging on the street. A passerby drops a bill into the beggar's hat. The two exchange a pointed look, each nodding in turn, their expressions shifting respectively. Afterward, each man appears a little more solid, a little more _there_ , as if having received some vital nourishment.

A transaction has occurred, obviously. Though, money had little to do with it, for the true transaction was emotional and psychological—and, therefore, _hidden_ , perhaps even to the participants. This multidimensional nature characterizes the vast majority of human transactions.

Much can be read into the above example, from behavioral insights and sociological dynamics, to commentaries on poverty and class struggle. However, this essay is concerned only with the subtle mental exchange underlying that hypothetical encounter. More specifically, the exchange between the beggar and his patron was one of _gestures and appearances_ , and the many psychological corollaries that constitute such things.

Chiefly, we see here the element of role-playing: the moment the passerby donated to the beggar, a miniature drama unfurled, in which each player assumed a role in their respective mind. The beggar became, rather, The Beggar, and the passerby, The Samaritan, with a profound psychological change accompanying the shift. So powerful is this effect, it would likely induce distinct, measurable effects in the role-players, bringing about an altered state of consciousness in the way of a drug, as to be seen in bearing and gait and facial expression. When it comes to such radical psychological shifts, the line between fantasy and reality is blurred, so that, in some small way, The Beggar and The Samaritan are truly _real_ , if only in the role-players' heads.

Once the roles are assumed, the hidden emotional transaction occurs. Here, the role-players exchange eye-contact and something passes between them, and that's when the magic truly begins. _You're okay_ , The Beggar's eyes and body language say to his donor. _I'm okay_ , The Samaritan thinks in response, and actually _feels_ okay (because, after all, giving to the poor must indicate a good, upright person, correct?). And so we see what has _really_ transacted: not some money, but _approval_ , which is every bit as valuable (if not far more so). And, more important is what _wasn't_ transacted: the beggar's _disapproval_ , that intangible poison leveraged against civilized man for time out of mind. Had the passerby not opened his wallet, what foul things might the beggar's nonverbals have implied? Then, might The Samaritan have instead been cast as The Villain? And how much was it worth to avoid that judgment ...?

When the beggar set out his hat and donned a woebegone expression, he was, really, setting up shop: selling approval and reassurance (and the withholding of disapproval). And, with enough discretion, no one is the wiser in this trade, buyer and seller alike.

As it were, such subtle, psychological incentives are present in most any transaction, these days.

From business to love to politics, transactions are rampant, and often as clandestine as that described above. Some situations are more inclined in this direction than others, and some _people_ are more inclined; but, in one way or another, transactions are almost always active in our affairs. Because our world currently operates primarily on a brute-force system of incentives and punishments, it's only natural that we would conduct ourselves in this manner, transacting various hidden, psycho-emotional "goods" beneath the surface of our actions. And, because we have largely abandoned honesty and accountability (yet have not admitted this condition), there are efforts to _keep_ our transactions beneath the surface of things, as to maintain our illusions of a sound, sensible society, where no such illogical head-games take place. For these reasons, our hidden transactions will often be disguised by elaborate means, as to conceal the true nature of what is actually occurring, especially for those most offending to our beliefs of who we really are and what we're really about. In today's world, the truth wears a veil of acceptability.

When palms are greased with a bribe, it's never in so many words, but instead in "fees" or "considerations" or other euphemisms. The same goes for the psychological equivalents, so that a beggar's vending of approval is shrouded in charity and goodwill.

Hidden transactions are not limited to the large-scale, being just as relevant on the individual level. They frequently filter into our daily routines and affairs, and even our relationships— _especially_ relationships. The most obvious are the romantic, as with the classic "marriage of convenience" in which spouses transact with one another various services and benefits under the guise of "love." However, friendships and acquaintances are just as viable for transacting invisible "commodities," as with the beggar and the passerby. We offer one another _utility_ , as it were, and in ways that might be so subtle and obscure that we remain unaware of them even as we engage in them.

This pattern repeats itself in the macrocosm, right up into our industries, governments, and institutions.

Were appearances to be believed, we operate on patently upright causes: the humble, world-bettering civil servant; the selfless, sacrificial laborer striving to put food on the table; the scientist working for the betterment of mankind—people doing Good Things, under the banner of Good Causes. Sometimes these appearances are accurate; others, however, not so much, for surface appearances can conceal a great many things, usually rather contrary to observed behavior or stated goals—things such as psycho-emotional transactions and the incentives they run on, for instance. That's not to say that appearances and intentions never factor into it; rather, they might not be the _primary_ incentives, instead being secondary to some deeper drive or desire (perhaps of a somehow offensive or unacceptable nature). To know the actual reality of ourselves and the seen world, we must take such hidden components into question.

Examples surround us. Consider the statesman who primarily holds office not to serve the public, but to gratify an emotional need for power and stature. Or, the police officer who desires a license for punishment of others, rather than reducing crime or protecting communities. Or, the soldier who goes to war not because of patriotic duty, but to gain the admiration of their peers (while simultaneously avoiding their disapproval). Even some charities engage in such transactional doublethink, going so far that their humanitarian goals are completely secondary to catering to the emotional and psychological desires of their contributors. I certainly don't mean to imply that everyone chooses their jobs purely in pursuit of these spurious transactions and their emotional payoff (or that there is even something inherently wrong in doing so). Rather, I just use these as examples to illustrate the subtle, perhaps odd-sounding incentives which can lie right under our noses, in even the most seemingly respectable circles. And, make no mistake: no circle is immune to such incentives and their transactional drama. That spurious element resides everywhere, as much we might like to think otherwise.

Some transactions are more obvious than others, but they are almost always there. And, furthermore, they can be to _ill effect_ , for they naturally involve unreality and self-deception in some measure, such as the role-playing between the beggar and the passerby. And therein lies the potential for unhealthy consequences, for behavior of this sort gives way to illusionary thinking, as to distort our perceptions of ourselves, others, and the world at large.

At this point, you might be thinking, "So life is riddled with transactions and other hidden rigmarole—what of it?" A good, valid question, and an understandable one, for many of the transactions in question might appear rather benign. After all, isn't it The Samaritan's _right_ to get off on playing The Samaritan, if he so chooses? Or, maybe the approval-seeking soldier is fighting the war for the wrong reasons, but the war will still be _fought_ , no? In regards to the latter, this line of reasoning is not wrong, and it crosses into the territory of philosophy, raising age-old questions such as whether the act or the intention matters more. However, this reasoning is _shortsighted_ , for it doesn't take into account the big picture and long-term consequences.

Ultimately, this essay's point is twofold. First, it seeks to simply _acknowledge_ our many hidden transactions, as, given their spurious and often undesirable nature, they can all too easily be missed (especially with so much vested interest in their _being_ missed). Then, the second point is that our transactions have _consequences_ , which goes double considering our tendency to pretend that neither transaction nor consequence exist. Make no mistake: despite any surface appearance of harmlessness, our transactions can and do exert a great effect on the world at large, in ways that their participants might be fully unmet by.

Of these consequences, the most prominent is the most silent: that our hidden emotional transactions are _hidden_ , and that we actively try to keep it that way—that we try and suppress _actual reality_ , as it were. Nothing is more dangerous than a society which actively denies reality and gravitates towards illusions of various effect, as has been repeated many times in my writings. And, by regarding our transactions in such there-but-not fashion, so that they reside in that netherworld of things which are winkingly ignored and elided, illusionary thinking is precisely the effect we exert on ourselves and one another, eventually shaping greater society and, in time, the world.

This unreality is best seen in our general psychological and social ecology. When we encourage a mental landscape of distorted perceptions and their accompanying behavior, it often gives way to confusion in thought and action, thus translating into a nominally confused state of things, where our hidden transactions and incentives work invisibly, there but not there—the fabled "tangled web" that we collectively weave. This effect varies between different people and circumstances, of course; for one aware of their transactions on at least _some_ level, in _some_ terms, their thinking will be less distorted overall than for, say, one totally unaware of this hidden economy active within society. Dangerous is such innocence, for such a person might not think of transactions _period_ , in any terms whatsoever, accurate or not—caught up in the "web," as it were. For these folk, their transactions might be entirely unconscious and involuntary, done only because they "feel right," unknown except for a vague, deep-down sense of something occurring (and, perhaps, that that thing is horribly wrong). Yet those transactions are no less there, and their consequences no less evident.

This innocence, too, can contribute much to our collective atmosphere of confusion. How strange must it be, that these transactions occur without one's knowledge yet still produce effects, seeming to mysteriously arise from nowhere? When such transactions feel good (such as agreeing with someone in order to have an ally), there might not be much question or concern for those feelings' origins; but, when the transaction doesn't feel so good (such as being mentally dominated or abused, or having pictures taken in a moment of disgrace), those negative, sourceless consequences can add great insult to injury, perhaps to terrifying ends. And, how might such a confused, unaware person _react_ to such a negative transaction? The answer, I believe, lies all around us, in prisons and hospitals and morgues, for these places harbor the tangible symptoms of our intangible transactions. We see here the ingredients of all manner of social ills: bias, double standards, predatory laws; crimes big and small, violent disputes; illogical and self-destructive behavior—or, most commonly, just flat-out _unhappiness_.

To be sure, hidden transactions _distort and confuse_. And, when distorted and confused, we will _act_ distorted and confused.

By participating in these invisible psychological transactions, we begin a ripple effect, as it were, as to send out waves of unreality and distortion into the emotional waters of the world, each of which affects the total state of things in at least some small way. In this manner, everything is connected and what goes around comes around, so that our there-but-not transactions can and will come back to haunt us, right down to the smallest of them. In this light, the world is what we've made it, and we are all responsible, in whatever tiny way, either directly or indirectly. Remember this fact the next time you complain, for that complaint can, in some way or another, probably be redirected back to its source.

In the end, our hidden transactions are just one part of a greater condition: a global disposition toward unreality and make-believe, achieved by way of agreement and distorted perception. All too often, this whole mess comes together to form the "Official Story," which is, really, nothing but a jumble of veiled transactions, misdirection, maneuvering, and all manner of trickery, to conceal the reality of ourselves and our actions. Once the wheels are sent spinning in this direction, we may then uphold the accepted, agreed-upon version of events, as to truly believe what we desire to believe, usually while denying that any such subterfuge is taking place. Typically, this model carries over directly to the individual and their personal life, so that we craft our own, personal fictions of things—our own Official Story, achieved by the same mental sleight-of-hand of perceptual confusion and illusions. Likewise, both the individual and greater society will often _defend_ that Official Story, however indefensible or outright destructive it might be—sometimes out of self-interest, but, often as not, out of _sincere belief_ , because deeply confused people often don't know they're deeply confused.

So, what's to be done about this state of tangled webs and transactional craziness?

Well, that question assumes that something _should_ be done. After all, if one wants to live this way, they have every right to do so, as with The Samaritan buying approval from The Beggar. Really, it comes down to a matter of worldviews and ideals: if one's ideal in life is to pursue psycho-emotional transactions and other gratifications, despite the potential consequences, then that's their choice, and I don't condemn such an ideal or impose my own, however much this essay might lean in the opposite direction. Though, if one's ideal is to think and live sensibly—in _actual reality_ , as to avoid that tangled web woven by Official Stories and personal fictions—then I can suggest a solution: transparency.

Transparency is bigger than generally thought, not just limited to clean windows or good accounting. Rather than being a temporary state, to be used situationally or resorted to under threat of punishment, transparency is a way of life. And, really, true transparency is only achieved when it is indeed practiced as a lifestyle, so that one's whole _being_ is transparent, not just their taxes or their business dealings. Transparency is a distinct orientation, an axis of self, so that one's complete life operates on reality and what _is_ , rather than unreality and what appears to be (or what is _desired or demanded_ to be). The transparent citizen acts on principle rather than consequence; does the right thing for the right reasons, even when difficult or inconvenient; admits their mistakes and learns from them; is accountable and unceasingly honest. And, as far as transactions are concerned, if a transparent person is going to transact, they can choose to _acknowledge_ the transaction, rather than evading it by way of social gestures and misdirecting word-games. Real transparency encompasses the total person, as to be reflected in their innermost thoughts and perceptions as much as their outward actions, as to remain in touch with actual reality. In this way, transparency is as much a weapon as a condition, for it arms one against the pitfalls posed by unreality and self-deception in their many forms.

As it were, the transparent person says what they mean and means what they say. Practice that old Seussian wisdom in daily life, and no transactional make-believe will befall you.

Of course, a transparent lifestyle is not without its weaknesses. Many people will exploit transparency, sometimes viciously, whether for social, political, economical, or emotional gain. This is due to today's dog-eat-dog culture and its paradigm of scarcity and survival, where the very idea of transparency is regarded as backward and counterintuitive (or mistaken for rudeness or stupidity). Though, that doesn't invalidate transparency as a policy, or even lessen its effectiveness, so long as it's practiced with awareness and discretion, in the vein of "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Remember this: being transparent does not mean being submissive, permissive, or passive, as to be needlessly vulnerable. One need not say more than is necessary, or give more than is required, or allow more than is rightful. In this give-take world of ours, transparency must be tempered with wisdom.

I'll conclude this essay with a bit of scripture, which, as I interpret it, sums up the diametric conflict between transparency and unreality. Matthew 5:37: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." I would expand on that only to say that, rather than simple "evil," the consequences of letting your "yea" mean "nea" can be a condition of mental entropy, where one loses touch with the reality of themselves, their relationships, and their actions.

Of that deadly condition, hidden social transactions are only one small symptom.

#  XIX. TEN THOUSAND VOICES SAYING NOTHING

There's no question: we are indeed living in the Information Age, with our combined knowledge reaching levels unprecedented, and available largely at one's fingertips. However, what amount of that information is _good_?

Not nearly as much as we might like to think, I suspect.

Though I'm not the first to question our exponentially increasing information, the problem remains poorly understood in the public sphere. This is, I believe, because the information's flaws are complex, and made more so by the sheer breadth of the problem. Rather than the usual suspects of human error or simple laziness, the flaws' true origins are _psychological_. Specifically, I assert that a poorly developed faculty of logic, possessed by a significant portion of today's population, plays a central role in undermining the fidelity of our information. Due to structuring our thoughts and actions on such fallible logic, many of us have fallen victim to a shortsighted mentality, which has, naturally, carried over into our collective knowledge. Thus, our information explosion has been _tainted_ , not so much by visible, high-level flaws, but subtle, underlying ones, those posed by reasoning on questionable premises and untested assumptions.

As it were, our new library of information may be exceedingly large, but it is fundamentally flawed, having the proverbial feet of clay.

The way I see it, we have here a case of developmental imbalance. While our skills in information-gathering and communications have reached new heights, those of sound logic and critical, realistic thinking have been comparatively neglected, resulting in a dangerous lopsidedness in our reasoning—our mental reach exceeding our grasp, you could say. Because the average person is unwilling or unable to reach a sound, logical conclusion (or, alternately, to _withhold_ conclusion when there's insufficient information), the quality of our expansive knowledge has duly suffered, thus forging those clay feet which weaken it so. Likewise, there exists a similar imbalance in regards to _self-interest_ , which has not abated in proportion to our informational wizardry. When it comes to evaluating our facts and conclusions, various forms of self-interest frequently win out over impartiality, thus tilting the scales even further toward inaccuracy and distortion. Factoring in our culture of selfishness and exclusion, we see further taints introduced into our information, now of personal bias and other vested interest (which does not help the original, logical flaws).

Combine our flawed logic with unrestrained self-interest, and a prowess in mass media and communication, and the result is a damning, pervasive slant to our aggregate information—not to mention distorted _interpretation_ of that information, an important corollary problem. All in all, we are left with whole systems of skewed information, that which recognizes only one side of an argument, one interpretation of observed events, one set of possibilities and outcomes (and often the most _convenient and profitable_ of these things, at that). In such a biased, restrictive hive of data, there's simply no room for truth and reality, these being too broad and complex for our narrow, single-minded aims.

Yet, for all the danger posed by our information's fallibility, the problem is largely _invisible_.

It's a matter of awareness. In my experience, few enough people are aware of the problem that it easily goes unremarked upon. So inclusive is our unawareness of the bad-information epidemic, it is scarcely known within even educated circles, much less publically; therefore, the problem just doesn't exist (or so it might appear). Because the information's _consumers_ often possess the same faulty mentality of the information's _authors_ , the flaws can go mutually unobserved, banished to the netherworld of that which exists beyond our precedents and possibilities, like brushstrokes made outside a painting's canvas. When information is agreed upon by the masses and the experts alike, it is therefore cemented as "real" in the collective mind, flawed or not. And as for _actual_ reality? It becomes "hidden in plain sight," collectively unseen by the public and our authorities, however much it still exists.

Furthermore, the same quasi-invisibility applies to self-interest and its wealth of factual slants. These days, we are so commonly bombarded with selfishness and exploitation from birth (such as in the form of negative advertisements and abusive political campaigns), we are easily desensitized, often to the point where deception and manipulation are considered a given, as to be expected and inevitable, if not _normal_. So skewed is today's general outlook, such predation is often viewed as something else entirely, as to appear to be fully acceptable behavior, due to a deep, subconscious confusion that is widely shared. After all, if everyone is lying, cheating, and misrepresenting for personal gain, then that makes it okay, right?

For a real-world example of questionable information and how psychology contributes to its spread, consider an average internet blogger and their posting habits. Named John Doe and located in a modern American city, our blogger is, as it so happens, a health enthusiast, an interest reflected in his blog, which promotes or decries various healthcare practices and related issues. When composing his blog posts, Mr. Doe does make sure to research his endorsements and their underlying claims—after all, what good would his information be if it wasn't somehow _verified_? However, there's a problem with Mr. Doe's "research": it is carried out _entirely within the confines of our corrupted public knowledge_.

As it were, John Doe's fact-checking is performed almost solely online, and consists of skimming through popular health-information resources—except, these resources are _themselves_ largely unresearched and unverified. Despite the appearance and reputation of these websites, which suggest validity and authority, many of them are authored by people _no more informed than John Doe_ , without any deeper research than goes into his own blog posts. Yet, because there are so _many_ such websites, and so many agree with one another, it creates an illusion of proof and truth—the "echo-chamber" effect. After all, how could so many good-looking, smart-sounding websites be _wrong_? Easily, that's how, for if these resources are built on the same unproven premises and shallow thinking of John Doe's blog, then their baseless claims could begin echoing one another in that deadly-but-convincing fashion, giving way to illusions of legitimacy.

For many of us today, a sufficiently loud echo is all that's necessary to be persuaded.

Do not underestimate the power of repetition to make even the most preposterous claim appear true. So long as our faculty of logic and critical thinking is impaired, the echo chamber remains disturbingly effective. In a society so heavily swayed by appearances and peer pressure, if enough "authorities" present something as true, then that is equated with actual proof, whether at all substantial. Thanks to recent trends, proof is commonly calculated on even lesser grounds: a trustworthy headshot, or enough Facebook "likes," or enough five-star reviews, or because a "fact" is repeated in the right newspapers and TV shows. In a world where this is the dominant metric of truth, what dangerous, distorted behavior could be expected? What we read daily in the papers, perhaps?

So, when blogger John Doe, a son of this illogical, appearance-oriented society, does the "fact-checking" for his latest post, little is actually checked. Instead, his conclusions become ensnared in that public web of illusionary proof, despite there being nothing of the sort—all going back to Mr. Doe's mentality of taking things at face value and equating appearances and consensus with evidence. Though, to be fair, John was never taught critical, objective thinking in the course of his upbringing, nor were his peers—so how could he be blamed, however unhealthy and contagious his actions may be? Perhaps, at some point, it crosses his mind that maybe he's omitting some facts, or not seeing certain angles or points of view, or maybe reasoning on assumptions—or that one or more of his sources might be _wrong_. But then again, how _could_ they be wrong, being "expert" authorities, and so many in number? Experts are never wrong, after all (because, surely, _they've_ done research and checked facts and done experiments, and the like). So John Doe sides with his jumped-to conclusions and ignores his doubts, and when publishing his writings, he does so in utmost confidence, reaching a conclusion within the post's brief, incomprehensive treatment, based on tenuous facts "proven" only by their ubiquity.

In the end, John Doe's theoretical blog would advocate its flawed healthcare claims with surety, promoting them as unquestionably true despite being based on resources which are just as suspect. Thus, our world's flood of flawed information gains another drop—perhaps to give way to more, when the _next_ freelance writer cites Mr. Doe's blog as a reference for _their_ article. And so on and so forth.

And what of the _readers_ of this spurious blog and similar media? When it comes to discretion and objectivity, they are unlikely to be much better, suffering from the same lifelong exposure to flawed information. Because they are, generally, not accustomed to critical thinking, broad logic, or rejecting assumptions, Mr. Doe's readers are apt to accept his information as readily as he had his "expert" resources. Rare is the reader who withholds conclusion and performs diligent, objective research, for such practice is foreign to a mentality of snap judgments and knee-jerk conclusions. In a culture of the thirty-second commercial and the five-minute news flash, our logic and reasoning have been equivalently narrowed, so that if something can't be explained in minutes flat, it is likely to be ignored. And after all, if something is too complicated for one's attention span, then that thing must not be worth understanding, anyway.

Here, I will once again frame my point in the Golden Rule: How would it feel if someone promoted flawed, unproven information about _you_?

Though of course simplified, the example of John Doe the blogger does, I believe, describe the bottom end of our situation. Thus, if we expand Mr. Doe's irresponsible blogging to a worldwide, exponential scale, we begin to see the shape of the problem, and its incredible size (which eclipses most of the rulers used to gauge it). This problem has resulted from our collective shunning of sound thinking, when we as a people give little consideration to the consequences of our actions and the information we promote. It bears mentioning that these principles apply just as much to our general beliefs, policies, and interactions, as they too are vulnerable to flawed reasoning and the illusions forged by consensual agreement. These things, also, factor into the greater psychological problems facing our civilization, for everything is connected.

And so it is, a raging storm of skewed thinking and pseudo-facts, swirling onward and outward on its own strength. The net effect is the birth of an informational juggernaut, constructed from a grand web of suspect data. Through an ever-pervasive tangle of mass media and word-of-mouth, this juggernaut grows bigger and louder by the day (or the hour, or the minute), self-replicating and self-reinforcing and self-sustaining, and wholly out of control. It makes a sound like ten thousand voices saying nothing, yet so many of us are seen to listen.

In such a grim scenario, which I believe to be precisely that facing us today, a solution is not forthcoming. It's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." Due to the self-reinforcing nature of the problem, any direct, active means of combating that figurative juggernaut would, most likely, be ineffective. By my reckoning, the only real solution is a passive, indirect approach. Namely, we must establish a whole new psychological paradigm, one in which individual awareness and sober, conscientious thought and behavior are the status quo. When flawed thinking is the root of the problem, then flawed thinking must be addressed, as incremental as this approach might feel. Unappealing, perhaps idealistic? Yes. Inappropriate? _No_ , for to confront that massive, screaming juggernaut directly would be akin to attacking a hydra's heads rather than its heart.

Ten thousand voices can, after all, be intensely loud, even if they're just empty noise.

Ironically, this essay itself presents a paradox, for in writing it, I too am joining the cacophony. By publishing within the very media so affected by the stated problem, I add my own voice to the confused, deafening thought-stream that daily clogs so many channels. Yet I must do this, when all logic and appearance insist it's futile, for it is my only recourse. Talk is cheap, but silence is death.

So, yes, I betray the very principles outlined in this essay and add my little drop to the ocean, just as so many others in this day and age. Ultimately, I take heart in a single anecdote: even the smallest of forces can stir effect, in the way of sparks inciting a blaze, or hurricanes and butterfly's wings. I could say more, but that would take me beyond the scope of this essay, straying into matters of faith.

#  XX. THREE SIDES TO EVERY STORY: A PRIMER IN MULTIDIMENSIONAL THINKING

We've all heard the age-old saying of there being "three sides to every story": yours, mine, and the truth. Few, if anyone, would argue otherwise, so widely is this wisdom believed; but then, believed is far different than _applied_. Were more of us to truly grasp our three-sided nature and apply it fully to daily life, the world would, I suspect, be very a different place.

In the past, I was one such quasi-believer, subscribing to the conventional wisdom of "three sides to every story," yet practicing it not at all, as to continue in my one-sided thinking. Thankfully, however, I would change; and, like so many of our most valuable lessons, it started with a personal experience.

The experience in question involved, of all things, laptop computer batteries. It occurred approximately twenty years ago, in high-school shop class. I was sitting by the shop teacher and playing with my laptop, in the last few, eager minutes of class, waiting for the bell to ring. Suddenly, the teacher broke the uneasy silence to ask me about laptop batteries—their operating time, how long they took to charge, their general lifespan. Being a teenager in love with his laptop, I eagerly answered the man's questions, explaining them in depth—because, after all, he'd asked, so he must've wanted to _know_ , right?

Oddly, the teacher made no response to my thorough answers, his face and body language showing little interest despite his ongoing questioning. The encounter and its illogical outcome left me somewhat puzzled, and it would be nearly two decades before I understood—because, at the time, I possessed only _one side of the story_.

It was only by chance that I learned the other two sides to my laptop-battery story. I was in the home of an acquaintance whom I was not entirely comfortable with, and when an awkward silence opened between us, I found myself engaging in a bad habit: blurting the first thought to come to mind, in hopes of proving that I wasn't so nervous and uncomfortable. And, as it were, that first thought involved the acquaintance's tablet computer, sitting between us on a table. "How long does the battery in your tablet last?" I asked, interested less in the answer than in simply providing some suitably distracting noise. But, instead of quoting a simple figure, the acquaintance proceeded to deliver a longwinded answer, detailing the various factors and operating conditions that determined the tablet's battery life. All the while, I listened and nodded, but the more she explained, I could feel my face growing slack and disinterested, and probably even more uncomfortable than before. My empty question had only made things worse—not a social highpoint for me, as it were, as someone who strives for transparency in my interactions.

Apparently, my acquaintance had taken my question at face value and, thus, answered it in full. Her response was logical, yes, but ultimately irrelevant, for my question wasn't a question at all—though, my _acquaintance_ didn't know that, because she too possessed only one side of this story, just like my teenage self explaining laptop batteries all those years before. In a bald irony, my social blunder had put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, and in the most explicit of ways. Yet, the irony was just the start.

On the surface, my experience might sound like a notable coincidence, perhaps a little twist of fate. However, it hides a valuable truth, for it demonstrates the "three sides" concept in living terms. The lesson's full impact of came only after the fact, sometime after I'd posed my frivolous question about the tablet batteries and, therefore, been granted the second side of that story begun so long ago. Armed with this broadened perspective, I could then review my original experience from the side posed by the man whom had asked me about the life of my laptop battery—that is, jump to _his side of the story_ , where his underlying intentions weren't as they appeared from my side of the pond. Of course, I then put it all together: my high-school shop teacher had just been trying to make conversation to stave an uncomfortable silence as we waited for the bell to ring, rather than being interested my laptop's battery. As it were, the teacher's disinterested expression could've fit me perfectly upon my being informed on the nuances of tablet batteries.

With that insight, the whole experience clicked into place and made sense, whereas previously it had been a confusing jumble—the miracle of complete understanding, that granted by possessing the alternate viewpoints of a situation, as to view its other dimensions. Then, I possessed both my side and my teacher's side, and, consequently, that of the _truth_ , which came about only by synthesizing the other two points of this experiential triangle. I've come to employ this basic process when evaluating the truth and the reality of observed events, to very practical ends. In my mind, I've termed it "multidimensional thinking," in regards to obtaining all sides of any "story" before judging it or drawing a conclusion.

As it were, this multidimensional principle applies to all things in life, extending far beyond interpreting our double-layered conversations and empty social gestures.

Life is not simple. Really, the true nature of anything is three-sided—if not four-sided, or five- or six-, or ten-, or a _thousand-_. Due to the multidimensional nature of basic existence, just about any given thing is moderately complex, right down the most seemingly uncomplicated things and situations (or people). This innate complexity is without limit, and the more the "three sides to every story" concept is understood and explored, the more its truth becomes apparent, revealing the depth of life phenomena and their causes. However, a casual grasp on these facts is not enough, for life's multidimensional nature must be integrated into one's _everyday thoughts and actions_ , lest we fall into the deadly illusion of a simplified world.

And therein lies the rub.

Living multidimensionally is another case of "easier said than done." It all comes down to a matter of self-restrictive thinking: under today's dominant mindset, we've been led to believe in a simple world, where complexity is rare, if existent at all. Generally, we are urged not concern ourselves with such existential matters, instead leaving them up to experts and authorities. The world is what's visible and agreed upon and readily comprehensible, this mentality says, in quiet dispute to any notion of complexity (or personal responsibility in _understanding_ that complexity). This narrow reality is reflected in our media, our mannerisms, and our language—and, thus, our thinking. As a result, it's hard for many folks to wrap their heads around the very _concept_ of multisided complexity, so that simplicity and one-dimensional nature are assumed, regardless of what's actually there. In the end, life's true, complex nature becomes hidden from public view, obscured by this perceptual veil of narrow, simplistic thinking. And, naturally, those possessing such distorted perceptions _act_ on them, thus regarding others and their environment with a simplicity that just isn't there.

Problems result, for the world does not simplify because one treats it simply. That universal complexity remains, and will award its consequences all the same, the way gravity will pull even its doubters over the cliff.

Though the applications of multidimensional thinking are many, one stands out in importance: its role in _empathy_.

Empathy could be described as the critical human quality, that necessary to truly actualize the startling reality that, yes, other people have needs and feelings and bills to pay, _just like you_. Empathy is the vital ingredient in our interactions with others, serving as a bridge for us to "walk a mile in another person's shoes." For this reason, empathy is the foundation of all fair, ethical, considerate, and productive behavior ( _sustainably_ productive, at least). But, really, it's the cornerstone of _civilization itself_ , for without a ready ability to place oneself squarely into another's shoes, we are apt to perceive other people as, simply, Other—as being _separate_ , which is the first step toward not really seeing others at all. A lack of empathy is, in one way or another, at the root of each and every unjust act or hurtful word.

And, as it were, a multidimensional mentality lies at the core of empathetic thought.

Seen in this aspect, the "three sides to every story" doctrine is, really, nothing more than a study in empathy. It's not just about seeing the other guy's side of things, but keeping in mind that there are other sides _at all_. Far too often, we lose sight of this basic premise, and from there, it's a domino effect, the classic "slippery slope." First there's only oneself and their side of the story; next, that story becomes as the person _wants_ it to be; then, finally, they're justifying crimes, victimization, and other selfish behavior—because the other guy is a jerk who deserves what he gets, or that big corporation will just write off the theft, or that pedestrian shouldn't have been walking there. Yet, in reality, our interactions will always retain their "three-sidedness," however much it might be ignored or denied. Of course, it might not seem this way, especially in the heat of the moment, when empathy and its broadened horizons can feel cumbersome and impractical, if not outright impossible—such as when, say, you're staring down the barrel of a gun. But empathy's importance persists, even if seen only in retrospect; the trick is to suspend our natural desire to shrug empathy and adhere to appearances, instead keeping in perspective the bigger picture and its multidimensional nature—that there's a "your" side in addition to the "mine," and that, chances are, neither of them are completely the "truth."

Once we lose a functional sense of empathy, the rug is pulled from under us, distancing our thoughts from actual reality and sound, just action. But, thankfully, just staying in touch with the "three-sides" concept goes a long way toward preserving a total, empathetic view of things.

There's three sides to every story ...

Who would've thought such a clichéd old saying would have such bearing on everyday life? For the reasons outlined above (and many others), a working understanding of the world's complex, multisided nature is necessary for conscientious living, for otherwise we are left adrift in a distorted, incomplete perception of ourselves, others, and our environment. There's far more to the subject of multidimensional thinking, of course—more "sides" to its "story," if you will—but this essay is a worthy primer, I think. Again, it's a monumental step to just open oneself to the _possibility_ of other sides to their life stories; from there, the rest is cake.

In closing, I must admit that, among its other benefits, multidimensional thinking can be a source of great _pleasure_. For me, it's a wonderful feeling when all sides are learned and things just _click_ , so that that final point of the triangle—truth—is at last attained. For one who values truth above all, nothing could be more worthwhile, nor delightful. In this way, three-sided thinking can serve as a gateway to endless joy, perhaps of a kind unprecedented.

#  XXI. THE MIRACLE OF CHOICE

It was a rocky Spring.

The mercury poisoning, I could deal with. The same for the problem with my thyroid gland—old news these, however disastrous their effects on my energy and wellbeing. But then the seasonal allergies started, and wet weather left my apartment overrun with toxic mold. Insomnia followed, and a dozen other debilitating symptoms brought about by my cocktail of illness.

My body was besieged.

I was sick. I was exhausted. I could not think straight. Daily chores and personal hygiene gained difficulty. And there was my job—cutting grass, which was complicated by the same freak rains that had brought about the mold. But I could do this. I knew how to work sick, had been doing it for years. However, on top of everything, I then injured my knee, bringing red-hot pain with each step, when I needed to walk miles a day behind a mower. A black sun rose over my world.

Yet, I kept going—and _loved_ it. Against all logic, I _loved_ the walking disaster I'd become. All because I chose to.

The miracle of choice.

Though, it wasn't always this way—not by a long shot. I'd taken sick in 2004, stricken with a condition that would be given a dozen names before being pegged as mercury poisoning and its offshoots illnesses. Back then, I chose anything but love. I chose defeat. I chose, "Why me?" I chose quick fixes and Band-Aid solutions, which would only make things worse. Not that I was so wrong to—what's a young man to do when his world is suddenly flipped on its head? School doesn't teach you these things, nor does anyone else. In this day and age, sufficient displeasure is considered The End, and there is no reaction but a bad one.

But, as I would come to learn, this common belief is assumption, and quite untrue.

Unknown to me at the time, my 2004 curveball was the first step of a long journey, one which would take me to foreign lands. I would travel to countries I'd never known existed, places with names like "Too Sick To Walk," and "Can't Do Basic Math," and "Been Awake For Five Days." I would learn that the consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle are real, and stick around no matter how much you complain. I would learn that a victim mentality helps no one but the sellers of comfort food. I would learn that "bad" can, in fact, become "worse." I would learn that there were millions of folks as sick and desperate as myself, and take no comfort in this.

But, none of these lessons would mean anything until I learned the greatest one of all: that I had _choice_ in the matter, that I could _choose_ happiness and perseverance in the face of crippling illness.

Though, make no mistake: it was a long road to loving that rocky Spring. That was in 2013, and for most of the nine years between then and 2004, I reacted badly, again and again, even in the face of far less-devastating circumstances. It was only in the darkest depths of my illness, around 2010, that I found myself faced with a choice: do something about my health, or die. My condition had degraded at this point, to where I could no longer take care of myself in the day-to-day. The symptoms were overwhelming, and made worse by my self-defeating reactions to them. Daily life was unbearable. Waking up in the morning was both difficult and terrifying, and I was only getting worse.

Here, I'll make a long story short: when faced with choosing action or death, I chose action. But this brought me to another crossroads: what action to _take_? I'd long ago abandoned traditional medicine, when no doctor could so much as name my disease (I would only be diagnosed with mercury poisoning in late 2012, by way of my own detective work and some interesting coincidences). And, in time, the same went for alternative medicine, and everything in between. So my first reaction was of despair, for I had the will but not the way. Then I realized another assumption I was making: that to be happy and functional, I had to be _healed_.

It was a perfectly logical assumption: health equals happiness, so no health equals no happiness, right? But, all the same, an assumption it was—a very _wrong_ one. This epiphany led to several years of educational experience, which I will also condense: eventually, I learned that I could be happy _without being healthy_ —that I could _choose_ how to feel.

Slowly, I adopted a good attitude, by reacting well and making the best of a bad situation. And, by golly, it seemed to work: the better I reacted, the better I felt, despite the same physical symptoms. I was amazed. For those long years after 2004, which for me felt like a second life, I had become accustomed to bad reaction, leading to a vicious cycle—feel sick, be unhappy, become sicker. After my 2010 awakening, however, I was suddenly breaking the cycle and reacting differently, and with magical results. As time went on, I _kept_ reacting well, and it kept helping: I could, for the most part, be happy, no matter how sick I felt.

Cool.

Here, I'll again fast-forward. Sensing significant power, I felt around this good-reaction phenomenon, and kept learning. My search would lead me deeper and deeper into my mind and its workings, until I could isolate exactly what occurred when I chose to be happy. In the end, I determined that it all boiled down to _reaction_ , on the deepest levels of my mind, those which contain one's innermost beliefs. With time and contemplation, my search would lead me through a jungle of psychological concepts: perception, projection, thought processes, personality, memory, conditioning, mental complexes—the nuts and bolts of the subconscious mind, that psychic substrate which makes you _you_. I found an enormous, infinitely complicated machine lurking beneath the floorboards of my conscious, topside mind, one I'd been almost entirely ignorant of. And, it was _this_ that was responsible for my newfound ability. By reacting badly, I'd been pushing the machine's buttons without realizing it, as it were.

But, the ability to choose happiness was only one of the tricks this subconscious machine could perform.

My learning went on and on, culminating in an informal education in psychology. And, each step along the way, I gained more awareness and self-knowledge, as well as more practice in applying good reaction and conscious choice. Mind you, I wasn't always successful in reacting well to my handicapped life, for there were certainly bumps along this road; but, all in all, I grew disciplined in these mind-over-matter techniques—enough to overcome that toxic Spring when it came my way, and to smile as I did so. Then, I chose happiness and perseverance in the face of my sudden onslaught of misfortune. Not even my injured knee could hold be back, for I used my strange training to first react well, then work around the damage, compensating for it using various techniques centered around conscious awareness.

In time, the knee healed and my other problems were resolved. I didn't lose a single day's work.

* * *

As it turned out, my springtime trial was just the start.

As I saw more and more success with this choosing-to-be-happy thing (sometimes to unexpected, almost supernatural degrees), my natural reaction was to share my story, in hopes of aiding the legion of incurables in which I'd once been a member. And, as a matter of circumstance, the means was clear: the written word. After being forced out of my hobbies as my illness progressed, I'd picked up writing, resulting in some smalltime publications of short stories and a novel. So it was only logical that I author a book detailing my experience. It would be a short memoir, I decided, perhaps a hundred pages long.

I started by writing notes—nothing big or fancy, just notes about where I'd been, how I'd gotten there, and what it taught me. However, as these notes amassed, it was clear that there would be no memoir, but instead a self-help book of some kind, something that would target not just the sick and compromised, but _anyone_. I ran with the idea, and the end result was hundreds of pages of text, all of it describing psychological concepts in the simplified, laymen's terms that I knew them in. This maze of text formed two books: a parent and its companion volume, dubbed _Learn Yourself: A Manual for the Mind_. Ironically, there would be little of myself in the finished work, for my story took a back seat to the methods of learning oneself and the mind (and the empowerment this grants).

I believe that anyone can survive life's rocky parts with little more than a good attitude and a smile, and in the _Learn Yourself_ books, I do my best to explain how. Learn more at http://www.learnyourselfbook.com.

