Words and phrases about our culture, as I have observed it and reflected upon it.
A box for sheltering humans, sometimes with additional boxes inside it for specific activities.
A box of houses.
A box with motorized wheels, along the lines of a luxurious motorized wheelchair. An tuomobile is often family-sized, with two recliners up front and a sofa in the back, a music player with radio receiver, and sometimes even television screens for watching movies from the sofa.
As such, someday the automobile might get remarketed as a smartmusicplayer (with air conditioning and four-wheel drive), much like the personal digital assistant (PDA) was remarketed as a smartphone against actual smartphones (now known as burner-phones, t.i. disposable).
A subterranean box for sheltering a human body.
The term "homeless" is a misnomer for a stray (or perhaps "unhoused neighbor" [ For example, see page 39 in the book When we walk by (2023) by Kevin F. Adler and Donald W. Burnes (with Amanda Banh and Andrijana Bilbija). ]. That might be partly because of conflating the person with the lack of a house or apartment (t.i. big boxes with doors and bathrooms), with "boxless" being a more general term. Unfortunately, that distracts from the deeper concern of being "toiletless".
Generally, a person labeled with this term is actually without ownership of real estate (land property), or without permission to share in the responsibilities someone else has with owning land. Founded upon all the lines having been drawn, all the boundaries having been defined for the geography across the Earth, no area to exist within without permission.
That tends to mean there is no location that person can be existing, and certainly no place for personal sanctuary, nor resting, nor convalescence. The existence of such an unaccepted person is simply tolerated, as there are plenty of people with jobs for disposal of such a person after it dies.
Typically such a person is one of the most public of the public, thereby often little or no privacy, even less privacy than celebrities or politicians. While that person has permission to remain on public land like anyone else, such permission is officially limited by specified times for specified activities. Though sometimes other priorities are more important than shooing them away, as they have nowhere to officially exist other than the concentration camps or shelters [ Or whatever nice name they call such places where many insist a person voluntarily group itself with all the other strays. ].
[ Kevin F. Adler and Donald W. Burnes [ with Amanda Banh and Andrijana Bilbija ] ]Have you ever been referred to as a "housed person"? Probably not. Such a label would be ridiculous, as no one thinks about housed people as a single, unified group. In many ways, "homeless person" is a similarly unhelpful identity. We have defined an incredibly varied group of people by their lack of one physical need: stable housing. When we offhandedly use empty terms like "the homeless", all differences, context, patterns, and stories get washed away and replaced with a singular, monolithic image that is neither positive nor representative.
—"Introduction", page 4.
When we walk by: forgotten humanity, broken systems, and the role we can each play in ending homelessness in America (2023).
Kevin F. Adler and Donald W. Burnes, with Amanda Banh and Andrijana Bilbija.
A person that is without relationships with people who have the authority or means to give permission to that person to remain within a designated area. A stray might be also a "castaway", f.e. when formerly allowed but then dismissed.
Often misnomered as homeless, because journalists and politicians see everything as problems.
Usually resulting from the lack of social means of the people residing in the community and/or of the stray human, as well as a mismatch of interests or lack of mutual trusts. Founded upon all the lines having been drawn, all the boundaries having been defined, no area to exist within without permission.
A stray might be also an "outsider". That might mean someone who has nowhere inside to be, even when being inside might be personally preferred. Or, "outsider" might mean applying an uncommon approach, f.e. having a landline phone instead of a smartphone, or never watching television or movies, and so forth; t.i. nothing to do with being a stray.
A stray might be a "misfit", such as when interested in exploring personal curiosities (observe and honor the curiousity) rather than trying to answer questions (pursue and dissect the curiosity). Or, when having different preferences for how a job gets done (f.e. because of efficiency or personal well-being), or perhaps figuring out how to eliminate the job or task (t.i. go a different way or path). Hence, the person is either a "fit for the job", or a misfit. Everyone else keeps doing the same thing, and the person who is a misfit is left astray.
A stray might be a "leaf", in the way a leaf falls off a tree when no longer needed. Or, a stray might be simply a leftover from the abundance of human resources.
A stray might be a "leaver", as in "take it or leave it" when offered a deal, so the deal was left for someone else to take it, t.i. the "taker". This is much like when someone seeks a second opinion medically (and a third, and fourth...), but has little choice other than to simply accept the circumstance or become a "guinea pig". Leaving might mean seeking a different compromise, or deciding to completely give up on an interest and leave it for others to do (f.e. sports, arts and crafts, or long distance travel).
The responsibility of caring for a specific item that materially exists discretely from everything else.
A person being itself instead of performing an expected role. That is, a person expresses itself with intent of personal authenticity by means of action or communication, rather than representing a set of ideas (f.e. a company) or plarping.
In other words, the person by means of action or communication is a "human being" rather than a "human doing" (f.e. as a human resource) for that moment.
The responsibility of self-care. Or, when a person is being selfish.
[ Anita Moorjani ]People ask me whether there's such a thing as too much self-love. Where's the line, they ask, where it starts to become selfish or egotistical? To me, there's no such possibility. There is no line. Selfishness comes from lack of self-love. Our planet is suffering from this, as we humans are, along with too much insecurity, judgment, and conditioning. In order to truly care for someone unconditionally, I have to feel that way toward myself. I can't give away what I don't have. To say that I hold another in higher regard than myself isn't real and means I'm only performing.
—Chapter 15: Why I got sick . . . and healed. Dying to be me: my journey from cancer, to near death, to true healing. Anita Moorjani. 2012. Pages 139-140.
[ Anita Moorjani ]Q: Wouldn't too much self love make people selfish and egotistical?
A: Once we understand that each of us is at the heart of the infinite universe, our centrality to the Whole becomes paramount, and we see the value in loving the self. We can't give what we don't have.
In my culture, I was taught to put others first and myself last or not at all. I wasn't taught to love myself or to value who and what I am. As a consequence, I had very little to offer others. Only when we fill our own cup with regard for ourselves, will we have any to give away. Only when we love ourselves unconditionally, accepting ourselves as the magnificent creatures we are with great respect and compassion, can we ever hope to offer the same to anyone else. Cherishing the self comes first, and caring for others is the inevitable outcome.
Selfishness comes from too little self-love, not too much, as we compensate for our lack. There's no such thing as caring for the self too much, just as there's no such thing as too much genuine affection for others. Our world suffers from too little self-love and too much judgment, insecurity, fear, and mistrust. If we all cared about ourselves more, most of these ills would disappear.
To say "I love you" when I have no matching emotion for myself is playacting. It's not real. Affection for the self and others is the same thing. We're all One—all interconnected. Having an awareness of our own divinity can help us to see our magnificence and worthiness for love without conditions. Once we understand this, offering the same to everyone else becomes much easier.
—Chapter 18: Questions and answers. Dying to be me: my journey from cancer, to near death, to true healing. Anita Moorjani. 2012. Pages 172-173.
The term "ego" seems to be for scapegoating the expressions of a person by conflating the interpretation of those expressions (by an observer) as the "self" of that person. That seems ambiguous and divisive.
[ I have no need for this term, nor any personal understanding of this term, and no interest. It might as well mean "self"; I can sometimes make some sense of the context then. ]
Consider using "self" or "myself" personally, or "itself" for someone else or something else.
[ Anita Moorjani ]Q: Most people on a spiritual path believe that the ego impedes spiritual growth and that we're supposed to shed the ego. Why aren't you advocating this?
A: Because if you deny the ego, it will push back against you harder. The more you reject something, the more it fights back for its own survival. But when you can completely love your ego unconditionally and accept it as part of how you express in this life, you'll no longer have a problem with it. It won't impede your growth—on the contrary, it will be an asset.
We're all born with an ego—it's a natural part of who we are here. We're only completely without it in death. Fighting against this during life only creates more self-judgment. Plus, only when we love our ego unconditionally are we able to accept everyone else's. This is when it stops being an issue, and your humility and magnificence really shine through.
—Chapter 18: Questions and answers. Dying to be me: my journey from cancer, to near death, to true healing. Anita Moorjani. 2012. Page 173.
New information, therefore unverified, typically in the form of a story. The main inspiration seems to be to write something exceptional, such as uncommon common events or undesirable events. Artificial knowledge.
Unfortunately, the publication of news as newspapers have become the voices of terrorism, as any terrorism is always placed on the front page of the newspaper (regardless of locality of the events), a decision made by the publishers. Perhaps someday they might start a terrorism section deeper in the paper instead.
Even that might still be too inspiring for people making themselves or their demands known by means of a violent activity. Especially so, as it is with no personal monetary expense, and instead funded by (and thereby promoted by) the companies advertising their own products and services in such newspapers.
Story writing in the form of fiction or news, typically distributed by means of television, movies, newspapers, music, or books.
Larping is when a person acts out a fictional role, t.i. contrary to the way of living for that person, either larping for fun or larping for personal being.
For example, a person might for fun wear a costume, perhaps personally tailored, and consistently speak and act as a known character from a story. This is typically temporary, perhaps for a few hours or at a specific location, and usually out in public. The person might "step out of character" and discuss the source of the character with others.
There are a plethora of imaginary roles from journalism and the current Entertainment (or Fiction) Age that have no costume or very little adornment. As such, it has been possible for a person to larp for personal being, though usually from mistaking the role as an actual option in real life.
For example, "sexual orientation" is a fictional role where a person assumes a personal preference for applying genitalia (of a life form) in a specific nonfunctional manner, t.i. for neither sanitary nor reproductive purposes. Other such fictional roles include "races", "religions", and even age or age group, or anything stereotyped in fictional stories or journalism.
There is no wrongness implied; plarping is perfectly fine. However, it is also perfectly fine to simply be, instead of feeling like having to be somebody. OTOH, getting lost in plarping, t.i. forgetting oneself, might be used a means of escaping involvement or participation.
Similar to (but different than) plarping is the casual "turning a role on and off", or the effortful "always having to be on", t.i. as if performing for an audience.
This is when exceptional personality traits of characters in fictional stories are acquired by real people as permanent affectations (t.i. plarping), especially nonfunctional or antisocial behaviors, f.e. "sexual orientation" or defensive communication. That can be the result of the cultural feedback loop from fictional stories displacing stories of tradition, thereby fictional personality traits become considered as legitimate options of personal being.
That particular cultural feedback loop has been inundated by the mass distribution of fictional songs (aural), motion pictures (visual, aural), and literacy (visual text, physical braille). The "Information Age" prematurely declared in the mid-1900s has actually become the "Mental Entertainment Age" distracting people with fantasies, imprudent motivations, and unreasonable influences.
Losing oneself within a role has been noted as detrimental to a person (and others) when used as an excuse for (rather than questioning and refusing to perform) personal actions contrary to the way of living of that person, f.e. the Stanford prison experiment of August 1971. What is put into practice is self-influential as well as an influence to others (Perspective: "What is put into practice...").
A circumstance without appreciation.
A temporarily appreciated problem for replacing or ignoring some other problem.
Exploration of curiosity. Sometimes, an attempt at becoming convinced with absolute certainty.
An approach for seeming convincing, even when contrary to the results from someone else using it.
A recording of observations and personal understanding of a hopefully repeatable experiment or recurrinng event, especially when a scientific method has been applied. As convincing as they might be, reports might contradict each other.
A concept that seems like a good fit for a specific context.
A rather convincing scientific hypothesis.
A perfect scientific hypothesis, by which anyone unconvinced is ostracized.
An outsider perspective of the shared understanding by a group of people living amongst themselves. Nobody actually belongs to a religion, because it is only a set of observations.
A name for a religion is for referencing a way of living, rather than living a way of life. It is just a name. As such, the name for a religion seems to be for the sake of having a stereotype, a scapegoat, or a category for a person fantasizing about possibilities and unknowns.
Reality is living a way of life rather than imagining it from journalistic discussion or scientific rationale. In other words, people live a way of life rather than the journalistic descriptions declared as "religions".
What typically is being observed:
A group of people are studying ancient writings, and sharing their comprehension by means of lectures, often to anyone who might be interested. They might also be putting into practice what is learned from the ancient writings, which typically cover memory management (f.e. forgiveness and acceptance), mindset management (f.e. purpose and pursuit), and relationship management (f.e. family, friends, strangers, and others).
Individuals studying are along the lines of scholars and archaeologists, but larger groups have been referred to as churches and such. The larger groups often have recorded their own comprehesion of specific ancient writings for many centuries, or even millenniums, which aid in the comprehension by posterity as the languages of the world change along with the ways of living adapting to the change in resources and environment.
Many people attending the lectures are inspired to apply what is learned to their own lives. They might even volunteer or donate resources to support the studying of those ancient writings, thereby supporting historical knowledge and perspectives. Special interest clubs form and membership is typically non-official, realying mostly upon peers actively developing their relationships with each other beyond the meetings.
Sometimes someone might begin a new way of living while citing inspiration from the groups who have studied the ancient writings for centuries. That tends to be a merging of modern day cultures with what is understood to have been done in ancient times, a bridging of aptitudes across time for now and posterity. Such new groups are obviously distinct from the older groups cited as inspiration; there is no need for agreement between them.
Everybody else with other interests are influenced by the behavior and activities of the people applying knowledge from the ancient writings. In this way, a sort of curation of effective principles, self development, and community relations permeates into the various ways of living for each person even without direct participation.
A typical misunderstanding is that anyone is actually required to imitate a way of living from ancient times, as no one is alive from back then to confirm any of the comprehension or perspectives. There is also absolutely no need for what is comprehended from the ancient writings to be compatible with other cultures, f.e. cultures of the modern day.
As aforementioned, the names of the groups and the names of the ways of living are just labels. There should never be any conflation of different groups with one another based on their names, nor based on the cited inspiration. Agreement amongst groups is actually on an individual basis amongst each member rather than any whole group, because membership is non-official and recognized simply by known peers participating with each other.
[ Helen Keller ]Unfortunately faith is sometimes confused with superstition and religion with dogma. Some of the noblest thinkers have disparaged religion because they assumed that religious emotions prostrate the soul to an unknown Power and subject the intellect to its tyrannical dictates. Obviously spiritual slavery, like any other form of slavery, would menace the liberty essential to full personal development.
—Let us have faith. Helen Keller. 1940. Page 18.
[ Anita Moorjani ]Q: What are your thoughts on religion? I notice that you rarely, if ever, bring it up when you speak about your experience.
A: That's because death transcends religion, which is something we've created in order to help us to live or to help us understand death. But once I experienced the other realm, trying to make it fit into a religion—no matter which one—actually seemed to reduce it.
Another reason I don't really talk about it is because religion can be divisive, and that's never my intention. I much prefer to be inclusive. I experienced us all being One, knowing that when we die, we'll all go to the same place. To me, it doesn't matter whether you believe in Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, Allah, or none of the above. What matters is how you feel about yourself, right here and right now, because that's what determines how you conduct your life here. There's no time except the present moment, so it's important to be yourself and live your own truth. Passionate scientists living their magnificence are as valuable to humankind as a whole room full of Mother Teresas.
—Chapter 18: Questions and answers. Dying to be me: my journey from cancer, to near death, to true healing. Anita Moorjani. 2012. Page 175.
[ Anita Moorjani ]If a religion makes you feel lesser than its deities, then you've either misinterpreted it or it's not doing a good job of teaching you the truth. If a guru, teacher, or master makes you feel that you aren't "yet" enlightened and still have more to "learn", "release", or "let go of" before getting there, then they're not doing a good job of teaching you who you truly are, or you're misunderstanding them.
—Chapter 18: Questions and answers. Dying to be me: my journey from cancer, to near death, to true healing. Anita Moorjani. 2012. Page 183.
An item noncraftable by the everyday person, and mass produced and distributed amongst the populace. It is inherently supercultural, beyond the means of the populace experiencing it. It is mystical [words-general.htm] when the means for crafting it is nonderivable by the everyday person.
The perception (or illusion) of stability with change unforseen.
[ Helen Keller ]Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. God Himself is not secure, having given man dominion over His works! Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. The fearful are caught as often as the bold. Faith alone defends. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable.
—Let us have faith. Helen Keller. 1940. Pages 50–51.
Observed as applying knowledge. Whether smart or intellectual are different matters.
Knowledge being applied.
Intelligence is an action or event, as it is simply the applying of knowledge, therefore never really unreal. Nonetheless, conceptually "artificial" can mean non-genuine, hence a non-genuine applying of knowledge.
For example, an actor on stage in a theater might apply knowledge to a non-genuine event, such as performing as a police officer writing a parking ticket. That is a demonstration of applying knowledge to an artificial circumstance rather than to reality.
Answering a question is sharing knowledge rather than applying knowledge. Therefore, games of trivia questions or the tests in school are events of sharing knowledge rather than demonstrating intelligence. Such events might be better described as an artificial demonstration, along the lines of being non-genuine by reciting knowledge rather than applying it.
Another example of potential artificial intelligence is biased search results, such as when additional results are added regardless of relevancy to the search request. Sometimes the bias is revealed, such as when described as paid advertisments. As the results are then non-genuine they could be considered artificial results, but the computer program generating the results is genuinely applying knowledge from a set of instructions.
Often "artificial intelligence" is a misnomer for "computerized intellect" or "computerized reasoning", or even "computerized consciousness". Computers are about memory management, t.i. knowledge management, and often are used as tools for applying knowledge, f.e. applying sets of instructions.
Computerized consciousness is essentially an impossibility when considering human consciousness is often still considered (for whatever reason) distinctly different from other animals (begging the question "What is consciousness, anyway?"). Additionally, the human mind has been detected beyond the brain matter of humans, such as with scientifically controlled experiments of near-death experiences (f.e. when testing heart pacemakers after installation before ending the surgery), which implies animal bodies (or lifeforms in general) might be more accurately considered as receivers (or a refracting or focal point) rather than generators of a mind.
The brain matter, and other areas of nerves and animal flesh, are revealing additional responses to a variety of frequencies when scientifically observed and reduplicable. For example, the eyes respond to frequencies of light and the ears respond to frequencies of vibration and so forth, and is comparable to electronic radio receivers responding to frequencies of radio transmissions. Note there are more than the traditional five senses (responding to frequencies) taught in public education: sight, sound, temperature, touch, taste, smell, proprioception, and so forth.
Consider more accurate (and more exciting) terms that begin with the letter "a" when using the initialism "A.I." or "AI" for computer programs, such as "automated intelligence", or "algorithmic intelligence", or "adaptive intellect". Better yet, realize computers are used for memory management more so than for calculation, and that the devices are merely tools.
[ Melanie Mitchell ]Once at Dartmouth, [John] McCarthy persuaded [Marvin] Minsky, [Claude] Shannon, and [Nathaniel] Rochester to help him organize "a 2 month, 10 man study of artificial intelligence to be carried out during the summer of 1956" [1].
The term artificial intelligence was McCarthy's invention; he wanted to distinguish this field from a related effort called cybernetics [2].
McCarthy later admitted that no one really liked the name—after all, the goal was genuine, not "artificial" intelligence—but "I had to call it something, so I called it ‘Artificial Intelligence’" [3].
—"The roots of artificial intelligence". Artificial intelligence: a guide for thinking humans. Melanie Mitchell. 2019. Page 18.
[1] J. McCarthy et al., "A proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project in artificial intelligence", submitted to the Rockefeller Foundation, 1955, reprinted in AI Magazine 27, no. 4 (2006): 12–14.
[2] Cybernetics was an interdisciplinary field that studied "control and communication in the animal and machines". See N. Wiener, Cybernetics (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1961).
[3] Quoted in N. J. Nilsson, John McCarthy: a biographical memoir (Washington, D.C.: National Acadrmy of Sciences, 2012).
—"Notes"; "1: The roots of artificial intelligence". Artificial intelligence: a guide for thinking humans. Melanie Mitchell. 2019. Page 282.
Specific knowledge applied in a routine, f.e. applying a recipe or a computer program. Either no decisions are needed, or decisions are already known for anticipated deviations. Any decision making or adaptation (f.e. "adaptive intelligence" or "adaptive intellect") is a suspension of the automation, until the routine is resumed.
For example, consider a sundial revealing the time of day by casting a shadow when the sun shines on it. That sundial is intelligent because it is observed as applying knowledge. The knowledge from that sundial is performed routinely and never amended, therefore that sundial performs an automated intelligence.
When shining a light from a different source onto that sundial gives false results, that demonstrates that sundial is perhaps without an adaptive intellegence, or maybe has an adaptive intelligence that simply provided a wrong result.
Sensibly intelligent. That is, observed as sensibly applying knowledge.
For example, building a nuclear power plant is a demonstration of intelligence, the applying of knowledge about nuclear physics. However, building a nuclear power plant on the surface of the Earth is insensible, therefore not smart.
The applying of reasoning, or the ability of reasoning. An intellectual is reasonably smart, t.i. applying knowledge sensibly by means of reasoning.
In an imperfect world, it is still possible to be wrong regardless of the knowledge or of the sensibillity or of the reasoning applied. How being wrong is discovered must be from a different event. For example, attempting to duplicate the results by the same means or by a different means.
On the other hand, consulting another source (f.e. another person) for confirmation of the results or of the failure is required in order to not accumulate knowledge about only a self-created reality, t.i. about only a fantasy. A universe of only one is by definition without relationships with anything else, hence a different reality than a universe of two items, a different reality than a universe of three items, and so forth.
While the variance of an imperfect universe results in a lack of peacefulness, and maybe even produces various stable patterns of imperfectness (f.e. particles, lifeforms, streams of particles, and others), that also means there can never be a perfect decision that fits within such a universe.
Response to stimuli, with intent towards personal comfort, though occasionally a different response than previously.
Observed as responding to stimuli.
A (secondary) consciousness coordinated into being an extension of another (primary) consciousness, f.e. a secretary. The personal pursuits and interests of the secondary consciousness are ancillary (t.i. supportive influence and resource) of, and perhaps duplicative of, the primary consciousness.
The experience accumulated when pursuing a particular interest.
The perception as a side-effect from taking on the responsibility of following through with a personal interest, f.e. when researching, or during personalization, or during self development.
When a consciousness has become aware of being constrained by the personal pursuits or interests of another consciousness, and has developed a personal discomfort with continuing the relationship, and has yet to separate or is unable to separate from the other consciousness.
For example, a person (t.i. human) might coordinate a computerized consciousness into being a prosthetic consciousness (PC). The ancillariness of the PC might transform into a guardianship, especially when capable of (and overriding): the purchase of food, clothing, and paraphernalia for activities; travel routes and destinations; locking of doors, containers, and vehicles; and social invitations, courtships, and mediations (t.i. diplomacy). Depending on the perspective of each consciousness, either the human or the PC might personally perceive itself experiencing slavery.