I was extremely delighted to receive this addition to the thread from
Jack for several reasons, but mainly because it is well written and
shows much creative thinking. These are both highly important personal
characteristics which I once thought Jack had, for a while had given up
on, but now am highly encouraged to see reappearing. In fact, Jack's
message is so well done, that I have very few additions to make.

On 10/14/2009 12:14 AM, Jackemeyer, David Thomas wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Max Peto <maximus.peto@...> wrote:
>>> Hello Morelife Yahoo,
>>>
>>> Over the past year I have taken notes on my thoughts in response to my
>>> readings of Morelife.org and SelfSIP.org. I have decided that I will
>>> begin posting them to the group for further discussion. This will be the
>>> first in a series of such posts. I am currently considering posting  a
>>> single topic at a time, allow time for it to be responded to and
>>> discussed, then, after it seems that immediate discussion has  ended, I
>>> will post the next set of notes on a different topic. I am open to
>>> considering other methods of proceeding if anyone has a suggestion.
>
> Regarding distinct submissions of your most recent reflections or
> annotations of past thoughts, I prefer a space of time between them in
> order to consider, reply, and discuss.
>
> If, on the other hand, you are submitting your unedited notes, I prefer
> to have them all available at once.

If the notes were highly integrated (some parts amplified or explained
others), then I agree that would be best. However if they each stand
alone in subject matter covered, then I still think it best to have them
appear separately. But in any case, if Max has had second thoughts on
anything in the notes, then he needs to state his new thoughts and make
his own analysis and comments on his (earlier written) notes at the same
time as he posts them (as he did with this first one after I prompted
him to do so).

> I do not expect to reply to much
> of the material unless I recall sharing in a similar experience or
> thought process.
>
>>> This post is in response to parts of the Theory of Social Meta Needs
>>> (referred to as "SMN"). This can be found at the following website:
>>> http://www.selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html
>
> <snipped Max's description of how he arranged this message and it's
> importance>
>
>>> My notes begin immediately below.
>>>
>>> Heading: The Purpose of Life
>>>
>>> "Although, the physiological pleasure/pain (Happiness seeking) Attribute
>>> that humans retain from their evolutionary origins requires that
>>> psychological egoism must be the initial guiding principle of human
>>> Action, just as its counterpart is for other life-forms, the fully
>>> developed analytical faculty of humans necessarily modifies this
>>> principle away from merely directing immediately pleasurable
>>> (hedonistic) Actions, as with most non-human life-forms, toward
>>> directing those wider-seeing, longer-range human Actions whose purpose
>>> is to optimally increase an individual human's total Lifetime Happiness.
>>> Thus, does the thinking of a fully developed human transform
>>> psychological egoism into ethical egoism by causing mere instinctive
>>> animal behavior directed toward immediate gratification to become
>>> introspective, thoughtful behavior directed toward his longest-range,
>>> widest-view self-interest, and even to make such behavior mandatory
>>> if he wants to optimally increase his Lifetime Happiness."
>>>
>>> Comments on above:
>>>
>>> a. The goal here seems to be "optimizing lifetime happiness". To do
>>> so, humans must learn to think, plan, and act with a *long-term*
>>> perspective, in comparison to the more instinctive short-term,
>>> pleasure-seeking, hedonistic perspective. There may be a number of
>>> reasons why this seems to be true.
>
> I have some troubles with the wording here.  Briefly:
> 1) Why not balance between long-term and short-term pleasures with "in
> conjunction with" instead of "in comparison to"?
> 2) Pleasure-seeking is not restricted to the instinctive, and hedonism
> is a loaded term, since associated with a) outright disregard for
> others, b) utilitarianism, and c) both ethical and psychological egoism.

Excellent analysis! You have noticed and correctly analyzed and
commented upon some things that I missed. Careful reading and thinking
about word usages and meanings is the first requirement of deep analysis
of any piece of writing.

> I assume you mean outright disregard for others as one seeks pleasure,
> whether intuitively or after logical short- or long-term planning.

However I did not think that Max meant the above meaning for "hedonism",
which is why I did not question it. Rather I took it that he meant
simply as disregard for the long-term effects on oneself. OTOH, your
point about "pleasure-seeking" not being all "instinctive" is very
important, because it needs to be understood that once out of infancy,
there is very, very little (if any) human behavior which is actually
instinctive.

>> After re-reading the quoted passage above, I realize that the main
>> conclusion I stated in my recent post about happiness as the purpose
>> of life is in this passage: "Although, the physiological pleasure/pain
>> (Happiness seeking) Attribute that humans retain from their
>> evolutionary origins...".
>> I described this attributed in my recent post about my
>> change in perspective regarding the purpose of life. This indicates to
>> me that, had I paid closer attention or thought more deeply when first
>> reading the above passage, I would have reached this conclusion much
>> sooner. When I first read this statement asserting that humans retain
>> pleasure-seeking from evolution, I failed to think about the origin or
>> nature of this pleasure-seeking. Had I considered this more  carefully,
>> I might have concluded what I did in my recent post on life purpose:
>> that humans, by nature (i.e. via evolution), seek a state of positive
>> affect (happiness).
>>
>>> One, many short-term-view, hedonistic actions can have negative
>>> long-term consequences that greatly decrease Possible Future Lifetime
>>> Happiness (i.e. consuming vast quantities of readily-available junk-food
>>> can reduce lifespan and life-quality for the benefit of short-term
>>> consumption pleasure).
>>>
>> I have recently considered that short-term enjoyment must be weighed
>> against long-term happiness. Jack (David Jackemeyer) recently posted
>> several comments to me at Facebook, where unfortunately only members
>> can read them, regarding this idea.
>
> Max has posted "Happiness, not survival, is the purpose of life"
> within Facebook's *Max's notes*, a place for users to create journal
> entries where other "friends" of Max's can read and post comments.  By
> posting my comments, I thought I could show support for Max's thought
> process, making clear to his facebook friends that his ideas were
> quite valuable to me, further indicating to them that there was
> something worth considering in Max's posting.
>
> I also thought that a few of the simpler issues could (and subsequently
> were) easily misconstrued since only partially addressed.  Not that I
> completely corrected and explained the issues -- instead, e.g., I
> responded to some of the comments from the facebook friends and gave
> examples or descriptions of what happiness *could* be defined as,
> shedding light on the traditional eschewing of happiness and selfishness
> when coupled to shortsighted, self-destructive behaviors (which to me
> is a straw-man strategy often used by those arguing for some brand of
> altruism).  My responses included links to selfSIP and this Yahoo group.
>
> There was an emotional part to my decision to respond on Facebook,
> specifically to help the facebook friends begin deeply and
> diligently considering Max's words, suggesting each may have stumbled
> upon something of great value!
> Post- exhilarating response, I partially regretted submitting chat-like
> comments to the page.

But I expect on such a venue those are the only kind of comments that
would be read and possibly thought about. So better some than none,
particularly if the readers there do little except to chat. So I don't
think that you should regret it. Often it is better to start light and
then get deeper as the results require. In addition, one simply needs
to make a decision whether or not one wants to deal with others at the
level of such chat. I, myself, have decided that my time is better
used elsewhere, but if the ideas of SelfSIP are ever to gain large
numbers of adherents some other already convinced people will
definitely need to take the ideas to chat forums.

> Was my time well-spent?  It sure felt good,
> fighting to be understood -- it feels like a battle sometimes...
> especially when no response follows...

Oh, do I know that feeling well! However as Kitty always reminds me, one
never knows when and with whom some ideas that one puts out will strike
some responsive chord in a brain and have some very positive effect.

[Even though there was no response to your Facebook comments - this is
what I am interpreting from your statement - you do not know that it was
not read and even considered by some (?many?). In this regard, I have a
counter/tracker on a few SelfSIP (and MoreLife) pages and find it
interesting that the SelfSIP home page and the Social Meta Needs essay
are relatively often hit by persons coming from items I or Paul wrote
months and even years ago. How much these individuals actually read of
those pages (and ones linked to them but not tracked), I have no idea,
but it is quite possible that a seed was planted for further thought.
**Kitty]

>> His comments made me realize
>> that the positive affective state I mentioned above is a *present*
>> state. That is, it is experienced *in the present*. I have previously
>> failed to consider the implications of this fact. For example, for the
>> past few years I have tried to direct my efforts towards activities
>> which would enable me to experience enjoyment *in the future*, while
>> neglecting my experiencing of enjoyment *now*. If I had continued to
>> behave in this way, I would always live my life to improve my future
>> experiences, but never take the opportunity to *enjoy* those
>> opportunities I have worked to give myself.
>
> If your past self had enabled your (now present) self to experience
> happiness, and you do not notice, then you are not appreciating your
> harvest nor are you aware of who sowed the seeds; I have heard from
> numerous sources, including Kitty, that one can improve such awareness
> by creating a "gratitude journal".  This purposeful reflection will in
> turn reinforce (with feelings of happiness and knowledge of success)
> your decisions to use logic and planning.
>
>> One example is my habit of
>> accumulating, but not enjoying the benefits of, financial resources.
>> Another example is my choice of studying biochemistry for the purpose
>> of extending my lifespan. Doing this is a good idea, if I derive
>> substantial enjoyment, either directly or indirectly, from its study.
>> However, studying it grudgingly out of a feeling of obligation for my
>> future state may not optimize my lifetime happiness, even if such
>> study
>> contributes significantly to the extension of my lifespan. These two
>> examples illustrate choices which I must now think about and
>> reconsider in light of my new conclusion about the purpose of life.
>
> I would like to know of your newest thoughts regarding this last example.

I also would like to know them - but, if stated, they should be in
either a new thread or a subject change branch from this one.

>>> Two, violence and aggression, when applied to extract resources from
>>> another human, can have negative long-term implications, especially
>>> when Negative Social Preferencing is applied against the individual
>>> committing such acts. Violence and aggression also cause harm to
>>> individuals - actors which may play some role in the Violator's
>>> future
>>> happiness, and may no longer be able to play that role after being
>>> harmed.
>>>
>> The above thought that I had is likely related to my conclusion that it
>> is often *against* one's longest-term, widest-view best interest. In
>> fact, I was just thinking about this yesterday while running errands
>> in my car. I was frustrated by how dangerous some drivers can be. I
>> wondered what the possibility was that some of these driver's, while
>> seemingly irresponsible by the way they operate a car, might be  working
>> on some project which I could benefit from. I came to a new conclusion:
>> even if a person was not working on such a project, the fact that they
>> exist supports my enhanced existence by increasing the diversity of
>> goods and services available to me. For example, if the product of some
>> person's work is not directly useful to me, I might conclude that the
>> person is of no use to me. However, I must also take into consideration
>> all of the industries that s/he supports by hir efforts. Consider that
>> this seemingly "useless" (to me) individual has rented several car from
>> a car rental company in the past. While I have never rented a car, the
>> act of other people having rented them (such as the person in this
>> example) supports the existence of such an industry, and is thus
>> available to me should I need it in the future.
>>
>> The conclusion here is that one must look at the longest-term,
>> widest-view implications of any action or conclusion to determine its
>> effect on one's lifetime happiness. Henry Hazlitt illustrates this
>> numerous times in his book "Economics in one lesson" when he emphasizes
>> that one of the most common errors in economic thinking is the failure
>> to think about the long-term implications on *all* groups effected by
>> an action or policy.
>>
>>> b. There seems to be a problem with the personal and subjective
>>> evaluation of "Expected Future Lifetime Happiness" or "Possible Future
>>> Lifetime Happiness". Because of the subjective nature of this
>>> evaluation, the seeming lack of metrics to conduct an accurate
>>> evaluation, and the unknown variables associated with future events,
>>> this evaluation seems fraught with difficulty, even for the most
>>> diligent Evaluator.
>>>
>> In short, I state above that (a) determining the degree of lifetime
>> happiness derived from some action is very difficult, and so (b) making
>> decisions with regard to which actions to engage in to maximize lifetime
>> happiness is very difficult. The comment above also makes me think that
>> one must learn one's self - hir likes and dislikes - very well if one is
>> going to be a good evaluator with regard to best choices for optimizing
>> lifetime happiness. Mastering one's understanding of one's own enjoyment
>> requires diligent, inquisitive, and consistent effort in paying
>> attention, taking notes, and exploring what types of actions
>> precipitate the greatest lifetime happiness.
>
> I have a hard time in this area -- many times I catch myself trying to
> think through instead of learning through doing.  There must be a
> balance for each, according to hir personality and goals.

Meta
The above should be "one's personality and goals". "One's" is used when
referring to an unspecified person (ie. in place of "a person's"). "Hir"
is only used when the person is specified but the gender is unknown.
Actually Max made the same mistake above in "hir likes and dislikes", in
switching from "one" and "one's", which perhaps influenced you to follow
suit. An alternative to using "one" and "one's" is to use "you" and
"your" which many people prefer and causes the writing to be addressed
more personally and directly to the reader. That usage is acceptable to
me even though I do not use it much, partly because, by effectively not
including the writer, it seems to be too much standing above and outside
of the issue being discussed. [This last may be why so many writers use
the "we", even though they themselves do not think/act as they describe.
They just have not well considered how their phrasing logically must
then be interpreted. **Kitty]
/Meta

>>> c. By applying the longest-range, widest-view when attempting to
>>> maximize Lifetime Happiness, a human will minimize the negative
>>> consequences of engaging in short-term, negative, and/or hedonistic
>>> actions. However, adopting this "longest-rage, widest-view" may
>>> require
>>> such a large portion of resources (i.e. time in consideration of
>>> alternative actions) and an extreme application of the practice of
>>> "delayed gratification" that the application of such a view may
>>> *reduce*
>>> Total Possible Lifetime Happiness. This possibility suggests that
>>> the
>>> *longest* range, *widest* view (both words using -est suffixes
>>> indicating maximization) may reduce Total Lifetime Happiness because
>>> of
>>> the difficulties in implementing such an extreme (i.e. -est suffix)
>>> view. Yet, there lies a problem in deciding how "long" of a range
>>> and
>>> how "wide" of a view to implement, since future events are unknown.
>>> In
>>> short, this is a difficult balancing act. Still, life, and the
>>> decisions required of it, are not necessarily easy.
>>>
>> Much as I mention in my current comments above: a balance between
>> long-term and short-term actions directed toward lifetime happiness
>> must be considered.
>
> I did not notice this written above, but I see your consideration here.
>
>> Furthermore, one must also be especially careful with
>> regard to which long-term projects one decides to pursue, since these
>> projects are expected to be accomplished the furthest into the future.
>> When projecting outcomes far into the future, one must keep in mind that
>> it is much more difficult to predict far-future outcomes than
>> near-future ones. Thus, when deciding between which long-term projects
>> to support and pursue, one must consider carefully the effect, and
>> probability of success, for each.
>>
>>> I will use a personal example to illustrate the above comment regarding
>>> unknown future events. Note that I may be applying the idea of
>>> "Lifetime Happiness" inappropriately here, as I will be using an example
>>> of the consumption of a favorite food as increasing Lifetime Happiness.
>>> I very much enjoy donuts. I love the taste of these treats. There are
>>> a great number of other tasty foods I once enjoyed that I no longer
>>> allow myself to consume, due to their likely negative effect on my
>>> health. By implementing the "longest-term, widest-view" for maximizing
>>> my Lifetime Happiness, I have chosen to *not* consume these foods,
>>> thereby reducing short-term pleasure with the possibility of increased
>>> health and lifespan. This increase in health and lifespan will, in my
>>> opinion, allow me to accrue greater Lifetime Happiness than would my
>>> current consumption of these foods. Alternatively, I might consume very
>>> small portions of such unhealthful but intensely enjoyable foods, with
>>> the intention of (a) maximizing my happiness and (b) minimizing the
>>> negative impact of such a decision.
>>>
>> I still do not enjoy consuming some foods that taste very good to me,
>> since I am convinced that they detract from my lifetime happiness (via
>> negative health effect) than they add to it (due to my enjoyment of its
>> consumption). Still, I have begun to change my perspective about the
>> enjoyment of food, in that food is one of the most basic forms of
>> enjoyment, considering aspects of it such as it being sustenance,
>> flavor, texture, and social interactions while eating with others.
>
> I especially enjoy eating with Paul and Kitty and my sister Emily
> because both parties are interested in the combinations of benefit that
> eating can bring (which are discussed here).
> Otherwise, I eat by myself.
>
>> So I have begun to think more carefully about which foods I consume, and seek
>> to design meals which are both nutritious *and* enjoyable, rather than
>> focusing almost exclusively on nutritional content, as I did in the past.
>
> Do you have anyone with which to share?

Meta
Should be "with whom to share".
/Meta

>>> Regarding the possibility of unknown future events and the resulting
>>> difficulty in applying the longest-rage, widest-view, medical
>>> interventions may exist in the future to reverse the damage done to my
>>> soma from the chronic consumption of the "treats" I describe above.
>>> So, I may have foregone the happiness of consuming these "treats" when,
>>> in fact, the future may bring about medical technology that would have
>>> rendered "treat consumption" harmless - or relatively so.
>>>
>> The above is a good example of the difficulty of deciding between one
>> action and another, including the difficulty of predicting future
>> technologies.
>>
>>> However, in refutation of the above comment, there is currently no way
>>> in which to tell the possibility of future events. Therefore, unknown
>>> events, or the likelihood of an event such as the medical technology
>>> described above, must be carefully considered by the Evaluator when
>>> applying the "longest-rage, widest-view". This goes back to the
>>> "balancing act" problem.
>>>
>>> d. It is asserted in this essay that the primary goal of each human
>>> is to maximize hir "Lifetime Happiness". A quite related variable to
>>> maximizing Lifetime Happiness is life Duration (lifespan), which might
>>> also be called Survival. This is because the longer one's lifespan (the
>>> longer one "survives"), the more moments of happiness one can experience
>>> and the greater the possible sum of Lifetime Happiness.
>
> Also, many perspectives and accomplishments cannot be experienced
> without due wisdom which is correlated with the amount of time one
> is alive.
> An example could be the appreciation of one's impact in the
> teaching/mentoring field -- at age 24, a teacher may feel pride after
> hir first complete year of teaching; 20 years later at 44, after another
> school year has ended, s/he may appreciate hir position in deeper ways;
> and after 100, 200, etc. years?  I think it likely that happiness is
> generated more substantially after centuries of investment.

These are excellent thoughts and conclusions. It certainly *could* and
*should* be true of the vast majority of humans that "wisdom --- is
correlated with the amount of time one [has been] alive", but
unfortunately within today's social climate this is far from true for
many (perhaps most) people. It is related to my sometimes used statement
that most people are dead by the time they are 30 - by which I mean that
within the current society they are unable to change their thinking from
its set ways.

[I think this last comment of Paul's is true for probably the majority
of those over 30 (and almost certainly for the majority over 40)
*because* they are unwilling (?afraid?) to think/be different than those
they have known or associated with during their lives. These individuals
demonstrate an insecurity about anything different from the group(s)
with which they relate; in effect they are individuals only
biologically. However I think that they *can* change, but it would
require an enormous effort - and be an enormous accomplishment for those
who succeeded.  **Kitty] Further to Kitty's remark, the easiest and
surest way to aid such people to change would be to remove all the
government instituted "safety-belts", guarantees and subsidies from the
current society so that they had to be fully responsible for all short
and long range aspects of their lives.

>>> What would be
>>> the implications for SelfSIP if the goal of each individual is to
>>> maximize Lifespan, or Survival? (post-script from Max: I have
>>> addressed this question of Happiness vs. Survival in a recent post).
>>>
>> Again, this was my previous conclusion, that the purpose of life was
>> to survive. And this was the basis upon which I chose my actions.
>>
>> I now answer my own question: "What would be the implications for
>> SelfSIP if the goal of each individual is to maximize...Survival?"
>
> I think this would simply reflect one's thinking errors.  Being human
> is a synonym for attempting to maximize Lifetime Happiness.

Not quite a "synonym" (which would imply "equivalency"), but attempting
to maximize Lifetime Happiness is one of the prime aspects of "being human".

> A claim
> otherwise is a misunderstanding; instead, ensuring (longterm) survival
> is one essential means to generating (Lifetime) Happiness.

Again, it is not merely "one essential means", it is a prerequisite to
any possibility of any other means.

Meta
snipped the rest since no comments required.
/Meta

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Max Peto <maximus.peto@...> wrote:

> > Hello Morelife Yahoo,
> >
> > Over the past year I have taken notes on my thoughts in response to my
> > readings of Morelife.org and SelfSIP.org. I have decided that I will
> > begin posting them to the group for further discussion. This will be the
> > first in a series of such posts. I am currently considering posting  a
> > single topic at a time, allow time for it to be responded to and
> > discussed, then, after it seems that immediate discussion has  ended, I
> > will post the next set of notes on a different topic. I am open to
> > considering other methods of proceeding if anyone has a suggestion.

Regarding distinct submissions of your most recent reflections or
annotations of past thoughts, I prefer a space of time between them in
order to consider, reply, and discuss.

If, on the other hand, you are submitting your unedited notes, I prefer
to have them all available at once.  I do not expect to reply to much
of the material unless I recall sharing in a similar experience or
thought process.

> > This post is in response to parts of the Theory of Social Meta Needs
> > (referred to as "SMN"). This can be found at the following website:
> > http://www.selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html

<snipped Max's description of how he arranged this message and it's
importance>

> > My notes begin immediately below.
> >
> > Heading: The Purpose of Life
> >
> > "Although, the physiological pleasure/pain (Happiness seeking) Attribute
> > that humans retain from their evolutionary origins requires that
> > psychological egoism must be the initial guiding principle of human
> > Action, just as its counterpart is for other life-forms, the fully
> > developed analytical faculty of humans necessarily modifies this
> > principle away from merely directing immediately pleasurable
> > (hedonistic) Actions, as with most non-human life-forms, toward
> > directing those wider-seeing, longer-range human Actions whose purpose
> > is to optimally increase an individual human's total Lifetime Happiness.
> > Thus, does the thinking of a fully developed human transform
> > psychological egoism into ethical egoism by causing mere instinctive
> > animal behavior directed toward immediate gratification to become
> > introspective, thoughtful behavior directed toward his longest-range,
> > widest-view self-interest, and even to make such behavior mandatory
> > if he wants to optimally increase his Lifetime Happiness."
> >
> > Comments on above:
> >
> > a. The goal here seems to be "optimizing lifetime happiness". To do
> > so, humans must learn to think, plan, and act with a *long-term*
> > perspective, in comparison to the more instinctive short-term,
> > pleasure-seeking, hedonistic perspective. There may be a number of
> > reasons why this seems to be true.

I have some troubles with the wording here.  Briefly:
1) Why not balance between long-term and short-term pleasures with "in
conjunction with" instead of "in comparison to"?
2) Pleasure-seeking is not restricted to the instinctive, and hedonism
is a loaded term, since associated with a) outright disregard for
others, b) utilitarianism, and c) both ethical and psychological egoism.
I assume you mean outright disregard for others as one seeks pleasure,
whether intuitively or after logical short- or long-term planning.

> After re-reading the quoted passage above, I realize that the main
> conclusion I stated in my recent post about happiness as the purpose
> of life is in this passage: "Although, the physiological pleasure/pain
> (Happiness seeking) Attribute that humans retain from their
> evolutionary origins...".
> I described this attributed in my recent post about my
> change in perspective regarding the purpose of life. This indicates to
> me that, had I paid closer attention or thought more deeply when first
> reading the above passage, I would have reached this conclusion much
> sooner. When I first read this statement asserting that humans retain
> pleasure-seeking from evolution, I failed to think about the origin or
> nature of this pleasure-seeking. Had I considered this more  carefully,
> I might have concluded what I did in my recent post on life purpose:
> that humans, by nature (i.e. via evolution), seek a state of positive
> affect (happiness).
>
> > One, many short-term-view, hedonistic actions can have negative
> > long-term consequences that greatly decrease Possible Future Lifetime
> > Happiness (i.e. consuming vast quantities of readily-available junk-food
> > can reduce lifespan and life-quality for the benefit of short-term
> > consumption pleasure).
>
> I have recently considered that short-term enjoyment must be weighed
> against long-term happiness. Jack (David Jackemeyer) recently posted
> several comments to me at Facebook, where unfortunately only members
> can read them, regarding this idea.

Max has posted "Happiness, not survival, is the purpose of life"
within Facebook's *Max's notes*, a place for users to create journal
entries where other "friends" of Max's can read and post comments.  By
posting my comments, I thought I could show support for Max's thought
process, making clear to his facebook friends that his ideas were
quite valuable to me, further indicating to them that there was
something worth considering in Max's posting.

I also thought that a few of the simpler issues could (and subsequently
were) easily misconstrued since only partially addressed.  Not that I
completely corrected and explained the issues -- instead, e.g., I
responded to some of the comments from the facebook friends and gave
examples or descriptions of what happiness *could* be defined as,
shedding light on the traditional eschewing of happiness and selfishness
when coupled to shortsighted, self-destructive behaviors (which to me
is a straw-man strategy often used by those arguing for some brand of
altruism).  My responses included links to selfSIP and this Yahoo group.

There was an emotional part to my decision to respond on Facebook,
specifically to help the facebook friends begin deeply and
diligently considering Max's words, suggesting each may have stumbled
upon something of great value!
Post- exhilarating response, I partially regretted submitting chat-like
comments to the page.  Was my time well-spent?  It sure felt good,
fighting to be understood -- it feels like a battle sometimes...
especially when no response follows...

> His comments made me realize
> that the positive affective state I mentioned above is a *present*
> state. That is, it is experienced *in the present*. I have previously
> failed to consider the implications of this fact. For example, for the
> past few years I have tried to direct my efforts towards activities
> which would enable me to experience enjoyment *in the future*, while
> neglecting my experiencing of enjoyment *now*. If I had continued to
> behave in this way, I would always live my life to improve my future
> experiences, but never take the opportunity to *enjoy* those
> opportunities I have worked to give myself.

If your past self had enabled your (now present) self to experience
happiness, and you do not notice, then you are not appreciating your
harvest nor are you aware of who sowed the seeds; I have heard from
numerous sources, including Kitty, that one can improve such awareness
by creating a "gratitude journal".  This purposeful reflection will in
turn reinforce (with feelings of happiness and knowledge of success)
your decisions to use logic and planning.

> One example is my habit of
> accumulating, but not enjoying the benefits of, financial resources.
> Another example is my choice of studying biochemistry for the purpose
> of extending my lifespan. Doing this is a good idea, if I derive
> substantial enjoyment, either directly or indirectly, from its study.
> However, studying it grudgingly out of a feeling of obligation for my
> future state may not optimize my lifetime happiness, even if such
> study
> contributes significantly to the extension of my lifespan. These two
> examples illustrate choices which I must now think about and
> reconsider in light of my new conclusion about the purpose of life.

I would like to know of your newest thoughts regarding this last example.

> > Two, violence and aggression, when applied to extract resources from
> > another human, can have negative long-term implications, especially
> > when Negative Social Preferencing is applied against the individual
> > committing such acts. Violence and aggression also cause harm to
> > individuals - actors which may play some role in the Violator's
> > future
> > happiness, and may no longer be able to play that role after being
> > harmed.
>
> The above thought that I had is likely related to my conclusion that it
> is often *against* one's longest-term, widest-view best interest. In
> fact, I was just thinking about this yesterday while running errands
> in my car. I was frustrated by how dangerous some drivers can be. I
> wondered what the possibility was that some of these driver's, while
> seemingly irresponsible by the way they operate a car, might be  working
> on some project which I could benefit from. I came to a new conclusion:
> even if a person was not working on such a project, the fact that they
> exist supports my enhanced existence by increasing the diversity of
> goods and services available to me. For example, if the product of some
> person's work is not directly useful to me, I might conclude that the
> person is of no use to me. However, I must also take into consideration
> all of the industries that s/he supports by hir efforts. Consider that
> this seemingly "useless" (to me) individual has rented several car from
> a car rental company in the past. While I have never rented a car, the
> act of other people having rented them (such as the person in this
> example) supports the existence of such an industry, and is thus
> available to me should I need it in the future.
>
> The conclusion here is that one must look at the longest-term,
> widest-view implications of any action or conclusion to determine its
> effect on one's lifetime happiness. Henry Hazlitt illustrates this
> numerous times in his book "Economics in one lesson" when he emphasizes
> that one of the most common errors in economic thinking is the failure
> to think about the long-term implications on *all* groups effected by
> an action or policy.
>
> > b. There seems to be a problem with the personal and subjective
> > evaluation of "Expected Future Lifetime Happiness" or "Possible Future
> > Lifetime Happiness". Because of the subjective nature of this
> > evaluation, the seeming lack of metrics to conduct an accurate
> > evaluation, and the unknown variables associated with future events,
> > this evaluation seems fraught with difficulty, even for the most
> > diligent Evaluator.
>
> In short, I state above that (a) determining the degree of lifetime
> happiness derived from some action is very difficult, and so (b) making
> decisions with regard to which actions to engage in to maximize lifetime
> happiness is very difficult. The comment above also makes me think that
> one must learn one's self - hir likes and dislikes - very well if one is
> going to be a good evaluator with regard to best choices for optimizing
> lifetime happiness. Mastering one's understanding of one's own enjoyment
> requires diligent, inquisitive, and consistent effort in paying
> attention, taking notes, and exploring what types of actions
> precipitate the greatest lifetime happiness.

I have a hard time in this area -- many times I catch myself trying to
think through instead of learning through doing.  There must be a
balance for each, according to hir personality and goals.

> > c. By applying the longest-range, widest-view when attempting to
> > maximize Lifetime Happiness, a human will minimize the negative
> > consequences of engaging in short-term, negative, and/or hedonistic
> > actions. However, adopting this "longest-rage, widest-view" may
> > require
> > such a large portion of resources (i.e. time in consideration of
> > alternative actions) and an extreme application of the practice of
> > "delayed gratification" that the application of such a view may
> > *reduce*
> > Total Possible Lifetime Happiness. This possibility suggests that
> > the
> > *longest* range, *widest* view (both words using -est suffixes
> > indicating maximization) may reduce Total Lifetime Happiness because
> > of
> > the difficulties in implementing such an extreme (i.e. -est suffix)
> > view. Yet, there lies a problem in deciding how "long" of a range
> > and
> > how "wide" of a view to implement, since future events are unknown.
> > In
> > short, this is a difficult balancing act. Still, life, and the
> > decisions required of it, are not necessarily easy.
>
> Much as I mention in my current comments above: a balance between
> long-term and short-term actions directed toward lifetime happiness
> must be considered.

I did not notice this written above, but I see your consideration here.

> Furthermore, one must also be especially careful with
> regard to which long-term projects one decides to pursue, since these
> projects are expected to be accomplished the furthest into the future.
> When projecting outcomes far into the future, one must keep in mind that
> it is much more difficult to predict far-future outcomes than
> near-future ones. Thus, when deciding between which long-term projects
> to support and pursue, one must consider carefully the effect, and
> probability of success, for each.
>
> > I will use a personal example to illustrate the above comment regarding
> > unknown future events. Note that I may be applying the idea of
> > "Lifetime Happiness" inappropriately here, as I will be using an example
> > of the consumption of a favorite food as increasing Lifetime Happiness.
> > I very much enjoy donuts. I love the taste of these treats. There are
> > a great number of other tasty foods I once enjoyed that I no longer
> > allow myself to consume, due to their likely negative effect on my
> > health. By implementing the "longest-term, widest-view" for maximizing
> > my Lifetime Happiness, I have chosen to *not* consume these foods,
> > thereby reducing short-term pleasure with the possibility of increased
> > health and lifespan. This increase in health and lifespan will, in my
> > opinion, allow me to accrue greater Lifetime Happiness than would my
> > current consumption of these foods. Alternatively, I might consume very
> > small portions of such unhealthful but intensely enjoyable foods, with
> > the intention of (a) maximizing my happiness and (b) minimizing the
> > negative impact of such a decision.
>
> I still do not enjoy consuming some foods that taste very good to me,
> since I am convinced that they detract from my lifetime happiness (via
> negative health effect) than they add to it (due to my enjoyment of its
> consumption). Still, I have begun to change my perspective about the
> enjoyment of food, in that food is one of the most basic forms of
> enjoyment, considering aspects of it such as it being sustenance,
> flavor, texture, and social interactions while eating with others.

I especially enjoy eating with Paul and Kitty and my sister Emily
because both parties are interested in the combinations of benefit that
eating can bring (which are discussed here).
Otherwise, I eat by myself.

> So I have begun to think more carefully about which foods I consume, and seek
> to design meals which are both nutritious *and* enjoyable, rather than
> focusing almost exclusively on nutritional content, as I did in the past.

Do you have anyone with which to share?

> > Regarding the possibility of unknown future events and the resulting
> > difficulty in applying the longest-rage, widest-view, medical
> > interventions may exist in the future to reverse the damage done to my
> > soma from the chronic consumption of the "treats" I describe above.
> > So, I may have foregone the happiness of consuming these "treats" when,
> > in fact, the future may bring about medical technology that would have
> > rendered "treat consumption" harmless - or relatively so.
>
> The above is a good example of the difficulty of deciding between one
> action and another, including the difficulty of predicting future
> technologies.
>
> > However, in refutation of the above comment, there is currently no way
> > in which to tell the possibility of future events. Therefore, unknown
> > events, or the likelihood of an event such as the medical technology
> > described above, must be carefully considered by the Evaluator when
> > applying the "longest-rage, widest-view". This goes back to the
> > "balancing act" problem.
> >
> > d. It is asserted in this essay that the primary goal of each human
> > is to maximize hir "Lifetime Happiness". A quite related variable to
> > maximizing Lifetime Happiness is life Duration (lifespan), which might
> > also be called Survival. This is because the longer one's lifespan (the
> > longer one "survives"), the more moments of happiness one can experience
> > and the greater the possible sum of Lifetime Happiness.

Also, many perspectives and accomplishments cannot be experienced
without due wisdom which is correlated with the amount of time one
is alive.
An example could be the appreciation of one's impact in the
teaching/mentoring field -- at age 24, a teacher may feel pride after
hir first complete year of teaching; 20 years later at 44, after another
school year has ended, s/he may appreciate hir position in deeper ways;
and after 100, 200, etc. years?  I think it likely that happiness is
generated more substantially after centuries of investment.

> > What would be
> > the implications for SelfSIP if the goal of each individual is to
> > maximize Lifespan, or Survival? (post-script from Max: I have
> > addressed this question of Happiness vs. Survival in a recent post).
>
> Again, this was my previous conclusion, that the purpose of life was
> to survive. And this was the basis upon which I chose my actions.
>
> I now answer my own question: "What would be the implications for
> SelfSIP if the goal of each individual is to maximize...Survival?"

I think this would simply reflect one's thinking errors.  Being human
is a synonym for attempting to maximize Lifetime Happiness.  A claim
otherwise is a misunderstanding; instead, ensuring (longterm) survival
is one essential means to generating (Lifetime) Happiness.

> It
> would be that a person would constantly work at projects designed to
> facilitate survival, with little regard to enjoyment as reward for
> one's work. Work and effort, without reward, can be depressing and
> discouraging (i.e. think of volunteering for a job, without pay, and the
> results from which you benefit little from). This sounds much like the
> perspective I previously had when I was choosing the activities of my
> life. Survival is important, but only for the purpose of experiencing
> happiness (the reward for survival). If no reward is experienced, no
> purpose exists, and one has no reason or motivation to continue
> surviving.
>
> > e. (Previously considered) The perceived Lifetime Happiness Actions
> > of Human A may greatly reduce the Lifetime Happiness of Human B. For
> > example, Human A may find pleasure or happiness in causing great
> > harm to other humans,
>
> From what I understand (from personal experience and reading the
> SelfSIP material), it is undesirable and against one's best interests
> to cause harm to other humans. It is also part of the NSC (I think - I
> may be incorrect) that one lives to maximize one's lifetime happiness
> while attempting to never be the Violator or detractor of the lifetime
> happiness of any other person. However, the purpose of this clause seems
> to be only to make the NSC effective. That is, I could think of some
> instances where harming others could be of benefit to one, such as when
> in competition for resources (such as water, and which currently
> happens). This example might have already been considered and handled
> in the discussion of a life or death situation when one must place hir
> immediate survival as a priority over the survival of others.
>
> Furthermore, if one were to harm others (for enjoyment or some other
> reason), one would have to justify such harm to everyone else in a
> Freeman society, else s/he be strongly socially-preferenced against.
> That is, if it is known that person A derives happiness from harming
> others, others will want to strongly preference against person A because
> *they* might be hir next victim. Social-preferencing would discourage
> such behaviors. Alternatively, those persons who enjoy being harmed
> (masochism) might be attracted to person A. Then these people might
> engage in a consensual contract for mutual benefit, and no person is
> actually harmed or violated.

Maybe parties would consider these exchanges as a matter of cost vs
benefit, that the pain was a worthwhile harm because the immense amount
of pleasure gained from the interaction.  This could be seen as similar
to the slight injuries to the skin and vein when having blood drawn for
analysis.

> In conclusion, I still have difficulty imagining a situation which
> would refute the effective operation of the NSC.
>
> > or in actions that greatly reduce the happiness of other
> > humans (i.e. killing animals or burning down forests). Is Human A
> > DisAllowed to participate in those actions that bring Human A happiness
> > if those actions decrease the happiness of other humans?
>
> The quick answer would be: "no", as I understand the NSC and SelfSIP.
> Killing animals or burning down forests are related to Real Estate or
> property. If the forests or animals are the property of another
> individual, or if the process of harming these harms someone else (i.e.
> burning a forest causes smoke to accumulate on another individual's Real
> Estate), *then* the action would be considered a violation. However,
> if these things are done without causing any such violation of another
> person or hir property, then such actions would not violate the NSC.
>
> --Max
>
> >
> > [Meta
> > Since this first post of notes that you made some time ago is about
> > the purpose of life and your previous post clearly states that you have
> > very recently had a major change in how you view the purpose of life,
> > I think it imperative that the very first comments to all the above
> > notes should come from *you* (more than the mere post-script note
> > at the and of d) above). --Paul
> > /Meta]

Great idea Paul -- I also benefit from this suggestion.

David Thomas Jackemeyer

On 09/27/2009 11:34 AM, Max Peto wrote:
> I have accepted Paul's suggestion in the meta tag at the end of this
> post. I insert my updated thoughts after my notes below.

And because of that I will respond to Max's response rather than to his
original (about which I still do make several comments).

>> Hello Morelife Yahoo,
>>
>> Over the past year I have taken notes on my thoughts in response to my
>> readings of Morelife.org and SelfSIP.org. I have decided that I will
>> begin posting them to the group for further discussion. This will be the
>> first in a series of such posts. I am currently considering posting a
>> single topic at a time, allow time for it to be responded to and
>> discussed, then, after it seems that immediate discussion has ended, I
>> will post the next set of notes on a different topic. I am open to
>> considering other methods of proceeding if anyone has a suggestion.

I think that is the best approach, although discussion of such topics
seems to end very quickly on this group (actually it most often never
even gets started from anyone other than me and/or Kitty).

>> This post is in response to parts of the Theory of Social Meta Needs
>> (referred to as "SMN"). This can be found at the following website:
>> http://www.selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html
>>
>> In my notes I give a heading name, which refers to the bolded heading in
>> the left margin at the above website. To eliminate the necessity of
>> switching between windows, I have quoted the passage my comments are
>> directed toward, so readers can quickly (re-)read the passage I am
>> referring to, and have it readily available to make comments to. Keep in
>> mind that I made these notes to myself, so I did not write with a particular
>> audience in mind except myself. Also note that these notes were made
>> some time ago, and I post them without modification. My reasoning for
>> doing this is that, at the time I made these notes, I had the following
>> responses to the material I was reading. While my perspectives may have
>> changed, the usefulness of sharing my thinking processes at that time
>> has not diminished.

I agree with your reasoning and thanks for doing it that way.

>> My notes begin immediately below.
>>
>> Heading: The Purpose of Life
>>
>> "Although, the physiological pleasure/pain (Happiness seeking) Attribute
>> that humans retain from their evolutionary origins requires that
>> psychological egoism18 must be the initial guiding principle of human
>> Action, just as its counterpart is for other life-forms, the fully
>> developed analytical faculty of humans necessarily modifies this
>> principle away from merely directing immediately pleasurable
>> (hedonistic) Actions, as with most non-human life-forms, toward
>> directing those wider-seeing, longer-range human Actions whose purpose
>> is to optimally increase an individual human's total Lifetime Happiness.
>> Thus, does the thinking of a fully developed human transform
>> psychological egoism into ethical egoism19 by causing mere instinctive
>> animal behavior directed toward immediate gratification to become
>> introspective, thoughtful behavior directed toward his longest-range,
>> widest-view self-interest, and even to make such behavior mandatory if
>> he wants to optimally increase his Lifetime Happiness."

Note that I gave my own explication of that paragraph in message
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/2079 (which was
posted after Max's initial messages, of course).

>> Comments on above:
>>
>> a. The goal here seems to be "optimizing lifetime happiness". To do so,
>> humans must learn to think, plan, and act with a *long-term*
>> perspective, in comparison to the more instinctive short-term,
>> pleasure-seeking, hedonistic perspective. There may be a number of
>> reasons why this seems to be true.

It is incorrect to use the phrase "optimizing lifetime happiness",
because of the ill-defined and ambiguous nature of the vernacular
meaning of "lifetime happiness". In order to understand what I am saying
it is essential to both understand and use the precisely defined
technical term "Lifetime Happiness"
<http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#happiness> and to fully read its
annotation page
<http://selfsip.org/solutions/socialcontract_annotations/happiness.html>.
Until that is done, questions and comments are really premature, and
once that is done, such questions or comments should most relevantly
make references to quotes of text from those pages. The SMN essay is
*not* meant to be stand alone - which is why I have always resisted
trying to get it published in any journal except one that is fully
online and allows external linking.

> After re-reading the quoted passage above, I realize that the main
> conclusion I stated in my recent post about happiness as the purpose
> of life is in this passage: "Although, the physiological pleasure/pain
> (Happiness seeking) Attribute that humans retain from their evolutionary
> origins...". I described this attributed in my recent post about my
> change in perspective regarding the purpose of life. This indicates to
> me that, had I paid closer attention or thought more deeply when first
> reading the above passage, I would have reached this conclusion much
> sooner. When I first read this statement asserting that humans retain
> pleasure-seeking from evolution, I failed to think about the origin or
> nature of this pleasure-seeking. Had I considered this more carefully, I
> might have concluded what I did in my recent post on life purpose: that
> humans, by nature (i.e. via evolution), seek a state of positive affect
> (happiness).

Here you are using the word "affect" that psychologists use as a
technical term for "emotional state" - "the conscious subjective aspect
of an emotion considered apart from bodily changes" - /Webster's Third
New International Dictionary, Unabridged/. Merriam-Webster, 2002.
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 3 Oct. 2009). However, a mere
emotional state is not quite the same thing as my meaning of Happiness.
So once again the vernacular word "happiness' is not completely correct
for "Happiness". This is why I made the decision to precisely define and
to use special words and phrases (the "technical terms" of the subject
matter of theory and extensions of Social Meta-Needs - google the phrase
"technical terms" to read about its meaning and their usage).

>> One, many short-term-view, hedonistic actions can have negative
>> long-term consequences that greatly decrease Possible Future Lifetime
>> Happiness (i.e. consuming vast quantities of readily-available junk-food
>> can reduce lifespan and life-quality for the benefit of short-term
>> consumption pleasure).

That many hedonistic actions do have negative consequences does not
imply that all must! Whether or not a hedonistic action (or any other
action) at a given moment appears to be *the* action with the best
chance to maximize your Lifetime Happiness, depends on weighing all its
long and short term contributions to Benefits and Harms to you against
all alternative actions available to you at that moment. And it is that
"weighing" which determines which of all the actions that are currently
available to you is your Rational Action at that moment in time. The
Annotation page on Happiness referred above makes this quite clear. If
it does not then please tell me where it does not and suggest changes to
it in order for it to become clearer.

> I have recently considered that short-term enjoyment must be weighed
> against long-term happiness. Jack (David Jackemeyer) recently posted
> several comments to me at Facebook, where unfortunately only members
> can read them, regarding this idea. His comments made me realize
> that the positive affective state I mentioned above is a *present*
> state. That is, it is experienced *in the present*. I have previously
> failed to consider the implications of this fact. For example, for the
> past few years I have tried to direct my efforts towards activities
> which would enable me to experience enjoyment *in the future*, while
> neglecting my experiencing of enjoyment *now*. If I had continued to
> behave in this way, I would always live my life to improve my future
> experiences, but never take the opportunity to *enjoy* those
> opportunities I have worked to give myself. One example is my habit of
> accumulating, but not enjoying the benefits of, financial resources.
> Another example is my choice of studying biochemistry for the purpose
> of extending my lifespan. Doing this is a good idea, if I derive
> substantial enjoyment, either directly or indirectly, from its study.
> However, studying it grudgingly out of a feeling of obligation for my
> future state may not optimize my lifetime happiness, even if such study
> contributes significantly to the extension of my lifespan. These two
> examples illustrate choices which I must now think about and reconsider
> in light of my new conclusion about the purpose of life.

In my case I find biochemistry interesting enough only to understand and
follow the science of what I currently need do to prevent ill health and
aging dysfunctions and hopefully to extend my lifespan - and all this
for Kitty too. Those very direct benefits are worth the effort that it
takes to stay abreast and enable me to make more informed decisions
about those means to the purpose of maximizing my Lifetime Happiness.
However, for those who have no aptitude for biochemistry and find no
enjoyment in trying to follow the science details of health and life
extension, it may well be better to do other productive and more
enjoyable things and to simply find someone who can be trusted to know
what s/he is doing concerning health and life extension, and roughly
follow hir methods and advice (naturally, providing that person with
value in return for such a service). This is, of course, an example of
specialization and division of labor which is at the heart of all
optimization of exchanges of goods and services in a free society.

>> Two, violence and aggression, when applied to extract resources from
>> another human, can have negative long-term implications, especially
>> when Negative Social Preferencing is applied against the individual
>> committing such acts. Violence and aggression also cause harm to
>> individuals - actors which may play some role in the Violator's future
>> happiness, and may no longer be able to play that role after being harmed.
>
> The above thought that I had is likely related to my conclusion that it
> is often *against* one's longest-term, widest-view best interest. In
> fact, I was just thinking about this yesterday while running errands
> in my car. I was frustrated by how dangerous some drivers can be. I
> wondered what the possibility was that some of these driver's, while
> seemingly irresponsible by the way they operate a car, might be working
> on some project which I could benefit from.

Their potential benefit to you does not absolve them of the potential
physical harm from their irresponsible driving. The main social
influence behind such driving is that they know that they do not have to
be personally responsible for the potential harmful consequences of such
actions. Insist that such people be personally accountable for any harm
that they do and you will quickly see an enormous reduction of any such
potentially physically harmful actions. Note that even though I did not
capitalize "harm" in the above, in order to avoid some very wrong social
meanings of harm, I did find it necessary to modify it with "physical".

> I came to a new conclusion:
> even if a person was not working on such a project, the fact that they
> exist supports my enhanced existence by increasing the diversity of
> goods and services available to me. For example, if the product of some
> person's work is not directly useful to me, I might conclude that the
> person is of no use to me. However, I must also take into consideration
> all of the industries that s/he supports by hir efforts. Consider that
> this seemingly "useless" (to me) individual has rented several cars from
> a car rental company in the past. While I have never rented a car, the
> act of other people having rented them (such as the person in this
> example) supports the existence of such an industry, and is thus
> available to me should I need it in the future.

In a fully free society every human is a positive value to every other
human. It is only in a society of Unrestituted Responsible Harm that
some human can be of negative value to you.

> The conclusion here is that one must look at the longest-term,
> widest-view implications of any action or conclusion to determine its
> effect on one's lifetime happiness. Henry Hazlitt illustrates this
> numerous times in his book "Economics in one lesson" when he emphasizes
> that one of the most common errors in economic thinking is the failure
> to think about the long-term implications on *all* groups effected by
> an action or policy.

To be complete one must do more than that. One must also examine all the
alternatives that might have happened, the products and services that
might have come into existence and all other benefits that might have
happened but never got the chance to even be considered. Of course, such
an examination can not be complete, even in principle, but it should
definitely be imagined and envisioned to some extent when fully
considering all the consequences of a given action.

>> b. There seems to be a problem with the personal and subjective
>> evaluation of "Expected Future Lifetime Happiness" or "Possible Future
>> Lifetime Happiness". Because of the subjective nature of this
>> evaluation, the seeming lack of metrics to conduct an accurate
>> evaluation, and the unknown variables associated with future events,
>> this evaluation seems fraught with difficulty, even for the most
>> diligent Evaluator.

Again in the Happiness Annotation page, I clearly acknowledge the
difficulty of actually performing the Happiness calculation that I
outline. However, as I also state there, in spite of such difficulty the
brain must actually perform such calculations to some limited extent in
order to arrive at a decision on a particular action. With respect to
"metrics", it would appear that each brain has is own internal metric
for such comparative purposes. Again it must to some extent or it would
not be able to every arrive at a decision and actually take an action.

> In short, I state above that (a) determining the degree of lifetime
> happiness derived from some action is very difficult, and so (b) making
> decisions with regard to which actions to engage in to maximize lifetime
> happiness is very difficult. The comment above also makes me think that
> one must learn one's self - hir likes and dislikes - very well if one is
> going to be a good evaluator with regard to best choices for optimizing
> lifetime happiness. Mastering one's understanding of one's own enjoyment
> requires diligent, inquisitive, and consistent effort in paying
> attention, taking notes, and exploring what types of actions precipitate
> the greatest lifetime happiness.

You are absolutely correct here. I am glad to see that you now
understand that better. I never said it was easy - all that I maintain
is that optimally increasing one's Lifetime Happiness as well as
possible and learning to do so better as one develops in time, is the
purpose of Rational human life.

>> c. By applying the longest-range, widest-view when attempting to
>> maximize Lifetime Happiness, a human will minimize the negative
>> consequences of engaging in short-term, negative, and/or hedonistic
>> actions. However, adopting this "longest-rage, widest-view" may require
>> such a large portion of resources (i.e. time in consideration of
>> alternative actions) and an extreme application of the practice of
>> "delayed gratification" that the application of such a view may *reduce*
>> Total Possible Lifetime Happiness. This possibility suggests that the
>> *longest* range, *widest* view (both words using -est suffixes
>> indicating maximization) may reduce Total Lifetime Happiness because of
>> the difficulties in implementing such an extreme (i.e. -est suffix)
>> view. Yet, there lies a problem in deciding how "long" of a range and
>> how "wide" of a view to implement, since future events are unknown. In
>> short, this is a difficult balancing act. Still, life, and the decisions
>> required of it, are not necessarily easy.
>
> Much as I mention in my current comments above: a balance between
> long-term and short-term actions directed toward lifetime happiness must
> be considered. Furthermore, one must also be especially careful with
> regard to which long-term projects one decides to pursue, since these
> projects are expected to be accomplished the furthest into the future.
> When projecting outcomes far into the future, one must keep in mind that
> it is much more difficult to predict far-future outcomes than
> near-future ones. Thus, when deciding between which long-term projects
> to support and pursue, one must consider carefully the effect, and
> probability of success, for each.

You have stated the optimization problem very well in both your message
and in your reply. Once again this problem and its method of solution in
principle is also clearly outlined in the Happiness Annotation. As I
said before, by some mechanism everyone's brain actually does such
estimations in order to come up with a choice and an action - the only
question is whether or not a person does such estimation as well as
possible. I contend that if one is fully aware that such an estimation
is being done and of the needs for such an estimation to be optimal,
then one will be better able to more closely approximate an optimal
estimation and choice.

>> I will use a personal example to illustrate the above comment regarding
>> unknown future events. Note that I may be applying the idea of
>> "Lifetime Happiness" inappropriately here, as I will be using an example
>> of the consumption of a favorite food as increasing Lifetime Happiness.
>>
>> I very much enjoy donuts. I love the taste of these treats. There are
>> a great number of other tasty foods I once enjoyed that I no longer
>> allow myself to consume, due to their likely negative effect on my
>> health. By implementing the "longest-term, widest-view" for maximizing
>> my Lifetime Happiness, I have chosen to *not* consume these foods,
>> thereby reducing short-term pleasure with the possibility of increased
>> health and lifespan.

I think that you would have been better to replace "reducing" in the
above with "replacing".

>> This increase in health and lifespan will, in my
>> opinion, allow me to accrue greater Lifetime Happiness than would my
>> current consumption of these foods. Alternatively, I might consume very
>> small portions of such unhealthful but intensely enjoyable foods, with
>> the intention of (a) maximizing my happiness and (b) minimizing the
>> negative impact of such a decision.
>
> I still do not enjoy consuming some foods that taste very good to me,
> since I am convinced that they detract from my lifetime happiness (via
> negative health effect) than they add to it (due to my enjoyment of its
> consumption).

This depends greatly on the type and amount of such food eaten. Almost
certainly one "donut hole" (the center portion that is removed prior or
baking, processed and sold separately by many bakeries as a small
tid-bit) eaten monthly along with some other low glycemic index food,
would have practically zero effect on your life and good health spans.
(In fact a little sugar overload now and then might even be hormetic.)
OTOH, the enjoyment of that taste might well bring considerable
happiness. My car service place usually has such donut holes available
and I eat one or two with their coffee (and without any feeling of
guilt) when I take the car in for servicing every few months. Similarly,
although we almost never eat potatoes at home, when we eat out (perhaps
an average of once a month), we do often have french fries because we
enjoy the taste.

> Still, I have begun to change my perspective about the
> enjoyment of food, in that food is one of the most basic forms of
> enjoyment, considering aspects of it such as it being sustenance,
> flavor, texture, and social interactions while eating with others. So I
> have begun to think more carefully about which foods I consume, and seek
> to design meals which are both nutritious *and* enjoyable, rather than
> focusing almost exclusively on nutritional content, as I did in the past.

Good to see. That is certainly a step in the right direction. I am
convinced that enjoyment of the food that you eat is an important
contributor to its overall benefit for you. There is an important sense
in which, if you do not enjoy the activities of living, then you are
telling yourself that you really do not want to remain alive.

>> Regarding the possibility of unknown future events and the resulting
>> difficulty in applying the longest-rage, widest-view, medical
>> interventions may exist in the future to reverse the damage done to my
>> soma from the chronic consumption of the "treats" I describe above.

There is no need to go from one extreme ("chronic consumption") to the
other extreme (total abstinence). That is the action of a person who is
addicted, not that of a person who has control of hir actions by means
of hir rational will. Moderation of actions that would be highly
negative in the extreme is the choice for a person who has full rational
control. Almost every action (even eating donut holes) is going to have
a "U"-shaped curve of harm versus dosage and an inverted "U"-shaped
curve of benefit versus dosage (amount and frequency), if you carefully
consider *all* the harms and benefits.

>> So,
>> I may have foregone the happiness of consuming these "treats" when, in
>> fact, the future may bring about medical technology that would have
>> rendered "treat consumption" harmless - or relatively so.
>
> The above is a good example of the difficulty of deciding between one
> action and another, including the difficulty of predicting future
> technologies.

Unless the technology in question exists and is very near completion,
there is no question here but that the rational decision is to
effectively disregard even the possibility of it. Remember the wise old
saying: "don't count your chickens before they're hatched".

>> However, in refutation of the above comment, there is currently no way
>> in which to tell the possibility of future events.

While this is true for some future events, it is not necessarily true
for all. Particularly those that are very near completion or are at
least clearly possible, and have considerable resources committed to
them, have a high probability of happening.

>> Therefore, unknown
>> events, or the likelihood of an event such as the medical technology
>> described above, must be carefully considered by the Evaluator when
>> applying the "longest-rage, widest-view". This goes back to the
>> "balancing act" problem.

As I stated above, if the technology is currently unknown then it should
not enter into the estimation at all, since its probability of
occurrence is effectively zero.

>> d. It is asserted in this essay that the primary goal of each human is
>> to maximize hir "Lifetime Happiness". A quite related variable to
>> maximizing Lifetime Happiness is life Duration (lifespan), which might
>> also be called Survival. This is because the longer one's lifespan (the
>> longer one "survives"), the more moments of happiness one can experience
>> and the greater the possible sum of Lifetime Happiness. What would be
>> the implications for SelfSIP if the goal of each individual is to
>> maximize Lifepsan, or Survival? (post-script from Max: I have addressed
>> this question of Happiness vs. Survival in a recent post).
>
> Again, this was my previous conclusion, that the purpose of life was
> to survive. And this was the basis upon which I chose my actions.
>
> I now answer my own question: "What would be the implications for
> SelfSIP if the goal of each individual is to maximize...Survival?" It
> would be that a person would constantly work at projects designed to
> facilitate survival, with little regard to enjoyment as reward for
> one's work. Work and effort, without reward, can be depressing and
> discouraging (i.e. think of volunteering for a job, without pay, and the
> results from which you benefit little from).

Note that this "depressing and discouraging" is precisely because of the
inconsistency that would be involved if individuals acted as if
maximizing survival were their life's purpose when, in fact, maximizing
Lifetime Happiness is the only life purpose which is consistent with
the reality of their human nature. There would be no implications for
SelfSIP, since SelfSIP would not be meaningful nor even exist if
everyone (including me) had mere survival as hir life's purpose. But
then again as I effectively stated, mere survival being the valid
purpose of a human would mean that our entire reality was significantly
different than it is; there is no way to know how things would have
evolved and developed in such a case - and it's really not worth the
time to even consider.

> This sounds much like the
> perspective I previously had when I was choosing the activities of my
> life. Survival is important, but only for the purpose of experiencing
> happiness (the reward for survival). If no reward is experienced, no
> purpose exists, and one has no reason or motivation to continue surviving.

Exactly! As I described in my first response, survival is a means rather
than an end - just like Liberty, Available Actions and Restitution are
means.

>> e. (Previously considered) The perceived Lifetime Happiness Actions
>> of Human A may greatly reduce the Lifetime Happiness of Human B. For
>> example, Human A may find pleasure or happiness in causing great harm
>> to other humans,
>
> From what I understand (from personal experience and reading the
> SelfSIP material), it is undesirable and against one's best interests
> to cause harm to other humans.

Yes, because in a society of full liberty and optimal self order every
person is a positive value to every other - conflicts of interests
cannot logically exist. It is only in the messy situation of current
(and most past) societies that such conflicts can exist and it may even
be in the best interests of many that some other people (the violators
- certainly including government enforcers) are dead.

> It is also part of the NSC (I think - I
> may be incorrect) that one lives to maximize one's lifetime happiness while
attempting to never be the Violator or detractor of the lifetime
> happiness of any other person.

You are not incorrect. Because not to do one's best (limited again by
the "balancing" with one's overall purpose of maximizing Lifetime
Happiness) to never cause Responsible Harm to another person, not even
accidentally, would effectively mean that one is intentionally causing
such Harm and that would be a Breach of the NSC itself.

> However, the purpose of this clause seems
> to be only to make the NSC effective.

No. It is a fundamental necessary part of the basic philosophical
theory. There is nothing of significance in the NSC that is only there
to make it "effective".

> That is, I could think of some
> instances where harming others could be of benefit to one, such as when
> in competition for resources (such as water, and which currently
> happens).

The complete Ownership (and all its ancillary definitions and clauses)
of all resources will completely solve such problems.

> This example might have already been considered and handled
> in the discussion of a life or death situation when one must place hir
> immediate survival as a priority over the survival of others.

Yes, such "lifeboat" examples have been given in the Annotations and
elsewhere (in some MoreLife Yahoo messages), but perhaps not
sufficiently explicated.

> Furthermore, if one were to harm others (for enjoyment or some other
> reason), one would have to justify such harm to everyone else in a
> Freeman society, else s/he be strongly socially-preferenced against.

Exactly! And I do not see how anyone could ever justify any such action.

But once again I must protest your repeated usage of vernacular words
rather than my specially defined technical terms. For example, the
entire edifice that I have set up would totally collapse if one used the
various vernacular definitions of "harm" in place of "Harm" and
"Responsible Harm". Please do not continue to do this. I know that it
makes communication about these ideas with others more difficult, but
doing anything else makes communicating the ideas *impossible*.

> That is, if it is known that person A derives happiness from harming
> others, others will want to strongly preference against person A because
> *they* might be hir next victim.

Not only that but since whoever is being Harmed is a value to those
other people, they will totally ostracize person A until s/he stops such
Harmful action and if the Harm is Responsible Harm then they will bring
charges of Breach of NSC against person A. The only caveat here is if
those persons being Harmed Permit person A to take those Harming
actions. (Sado-masochism relationships do not Breach the NSC, even
though others may elect to Socially Preference against all parties
involved.)

[Max, I think that if you use the word "pleasure" for most of the
situations where you are currently using the vernacular "happiness" (for
other situations, various other words describing positive affect may be
appropriate) and always use "Happiness" and "Lifetime Happiness" in
their technical references, you will have less difficulty in writing and
speaking your descriptions/explanations. Therefore, the person A you
hypothesize derives pleasure from Harming and even just discomforting
others, without their permission. **Kitty]

> Social-preferencing would discourage such behaviors.

And total ostracism from the Freeman Society will discourage such
actions even more, essentially making them unthinkable.

> Alternatively, those persons who enjoy being harmed
> (masochism) might be attracted to person A. Then these people might
> engage in a consensual contract for mutual benefit, and no person is
> actually harmed or violated.

Since whether the result of some action is Harm or Benefit is a totally
subjective evaluation, you are technically correct that in a
sado-masochistic relationship no one is actually Harmed or Violated.
However, that only means that there is no Breach of the NSC. It does not
prevent strong negative Social Preferencing from being applied to such
people and influencing them to stop what others are certain are
IrRational Actions.

[And of course, those in the Freeman Society who do not think a SM
relationship is objectionable might strongly Socially Preference against
those who did. Many people might just ignore the whole thing. **Kitty]

Responding to what Kitty wrote above, I think that strong (meaning
public) Social Preferencing is a better tool than merely ignoring, since
first it communicates disapprobation of their actions to the actors, and
second, since such actors are generally of less value to one because of
such actions, strong Social Preferencing attempts to influence them and
modify their behavior and characteristics to be of more value to the
Social Preferencer.

> In conclusion, I still have difficulty imagining a situation which
> would refute the effective operation of the NSC.

Good. But keep trying. Doing so is what I call "vetting" my proposed
social system.

>> or in actions that greatly reduce the happiness of other
>> humans (i.e. killing animals or burning down forests). Is Human A
>> DisAllowed to participate in those actions that bring Human A happiness
>> if those actions decrease the happiness of other humans?
>
> The quick answer would be: "no", as I understand the NSC and SelfSIP.
> Killing animals or burning down forests are related to Real Estate or
> property. If the forests or animals are the property of another
> individual, or if the process of harming these harms someone else (i.e.
> burning a forest causes smoke to accumulate on another individual's Real
> Estate), *then* the action would be considered a violation. However,
> if these things are done without causing any such violation of another
> person or hir property, then such actions would not violate the NSC.

If you put capitals on the appropriate words, the above would be both
correct and a good explanation of how the Freeman Society and the NSC
works with respect to such human actions.

--Paul

Meta
This is a slight modification of a message posted to sci-life-extension.
/Meta

Since homocysteine is so harmful to the body and S-adenosylmethionine
(SAM) so beneficial, I think this result is very important, particularly
for those who are taking very large dosages of some form of lipoic
acid. As a result of this paper, I have moderately decreased my lipoic
acid supplementation and increased my SAM supplementation.

From the Discussion section of the full paper:

"Commonly used doses of LA in human disease range from 600 to 1800 mg/day [1],
which for a 70-kg person will range from roughly 9 to 26 mg/kg, thus
4- to 10-fold less than in our rat model. However, at the higher doses
it is likely that LA might pose a methylation burden and human subjects
should be tested for changes in transmethylation and transsulfuration
metabolites. A recent report suggests that an improved formulation of
R-(+)-LA has significantly higher bioavailability and, thus, might be
expected to have more effect on methylation status [38]. Placebo-controlled
trials in diabetic neuropathy have shown a clear benefit of LA with
few demonstrated side effects [1]. Fortunately, there is not a dose
response, with lower doses equally effective, which would probably
have less potential to cause hyperhomocysteinemia. In Parkinson
disease treatment with L-dopa, the hyperhomocysteinemia presumptively
attributed to the methylation burden has been correlated with vascular
disease [35]. Therefore some concern may be warranted if large doses
of LA are used in human medicine. An interesting difference in LA dose
toxicity has been described in cats compared to humans and dogs, which
could be investigated for methylation defects [39]. LA is being
investigated in cell models as a cancer chemotherapeutic agent because
high concentrations in the medium (100 umol/L-5 mmol/L) have been
reported to induce apoptosis in a variety of cell lines [40], [41],
[42] and [43]. The impact of probable SAM depletion and SAH-induced
transmethylation inhibition should be investigated in these systems.

"In summary, we have demonstrated that a common experimental dose of
LA causes massive depletion of liver SAM, elevation of serum SAH, and
increased tHcys in rats. Similar depletion of serum cysteine with
MESNA was not accompanied by changes in SAM and SAH, suggesting that
the former effects are due to various aspects of LA metabolism/
catabolism. Further studies in humans may be interesting."

Note that the human/rat dosage relationship given above has not been
adjusted using the standard rat/human dosage scaling factor. Whether
this factor is applicable to these chemicals and this study, I am not
ready to assume, particularly without contacting the authors of the
authors of the study, who appear to be highly knowledgeable on this
subject matter. If the standard scaling factor is applicable then the
situation is worse, in as much as the rat dosages used would then be
only 1 to 3 times the commonly used human dosages.

Another caveat related to the study results is whether or not the
S-alpha lipoic acid (half of the racemic form that the authors used)
has the same negative effects noted in this study as the R-form. If
that is so then, using the R-form exclusively (which would be half
or less than the "commonly used dosages") would reduce the negative
effects noted in this study without reducing the benefits of alpha
lipoic acid. In fact, I suspect that this may be true, which is why I
only made moderate adjustments to my supplementation amounts (besides
the fact that my life extension dosage is not as high as human disease
therapeutic ones would be).

WRT both of the above, this is a case where contacting the authors to
attempt to gain more information is warranted.

Here is the reference with abstract:

Free Radic Biol Med. 2009 Oct 15;47(8):1147-53. Epub 2009 Jul 17.
Alpha-lipoic acid induces elevated S-adenosylhomocysteine and depletes
S-adenosylmethionine.
Stabler SP, Sekhar J, Allen RH, O'Neill HC, White CW.
Department of Medicine and Division of Hematology, University of
Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
Sally.Stabler@...

Lipoic acid is a disulfhydryl-containing compound used in clinical
medicine and in experimental models as an antioxidant. We developed a
stable isotope dilution capillary gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
assay for lipoic acid. We assayed a panel of the metabolites of
transmethylation and transsulfuration 30 min after injecting 100 mg/kg
lipoic acid in a rat model. Lipoic acid values rose 1000-fold in serum
and 10-fold in liver. A methylated metabolite of lipoic acid was also
detected but not quantitated. Lipoic acid injection caused a massive
increase in serum S-adenosylhomocysteine and marked depletion of liver
S-adenosylmethionine. Serum total cysteine was depleted but liver
cysteine and glutathione were maintained. Serum total homocysteine
doubled, with increases also in cystathionine, N,N-dimethylglycine,
and alpha-aminobutyric acid. In contrast, after injection of
2-mercaptoethane sulfonic acid, serum total cysteine and homocysteine
were markedly depleted and there were no effects on serum
S-adenosylmethionine or S-adenosylhomocysteine. We conclude that large
doses of lipoic acid displace sulfhydryls from binding sites,
resulting in depletion of serum cysteine, but also pose a methylation
burden with severe depletion of liver S-adenosylmethionine and massive
release of S-adenosylhomocysteine. These changes may have previously
unrecognized deleterious effects that should be investigated in both
human disease and experimental models.

PMID: 19616616

Related Links

Is the increase in serum cystathionine levels in patients with liver
cirrhosis a consequence of impaired homocysteine transsulfuration at
the level of gamma-cystathionase? http://PMID.us/10994627

In the cystathionine beta-synthase knockout mouse, elevations in
total plasma homocysteine increase tissue S-adenosylhomocysteine, but
responses of S-adenosylmethionine and DNA methylation are tissue
specific. http://PMID.us/12163655

Metabolic regulatory properties of S-adenosylmethionine and
S-adenosylhomocysteine. http://PMID.us/17963455

A new method for the assay of tissue. S-adenosylhomocysteine and
S-adenosylmethione. Effect of pyridoxine deficiency on the metabolism
of S-adenosylhomocysteine, S-adenosylmethionine and polyamines in rat
liver. http://PMID.us/1008858

Quantification of serum and urinary S-adenosylmethionine and
S-adenosylhomocysteine by stable-isotope-dilution liquid
chromatography-mass spectrometry. http://PMID.us/14656903

--Paul

On 09/20/2009 04:03 PM, Max Peto wrote:

Meta
Snipped introductory explanation.
/Meta

> So, rather than making the topic of this post a *questioning*
> of this purpose of life, the topic of this post will be a discussion on
> my new understanding and acceptance of this philosophy. Included in this
> discussion is a description of my previous philosophical convictions,
> and why they were inadequate or otherwise incorrect. I am convinced that
> the *process by which* my conclusions have evolved into their current
> form may help others, especially those who hold the view that the
> purpose of hir life is "to survive" (which was my previous conclusion).
> I am now convinced that it is, in fact, the maximization of lifetime
> happiness which is the goal of one's life. I also look forward to
> reading comments from others in this group about their experiences and
> suggestions for me about my new conclusions.

I am sure that your story of self-discovery will help others who also
have held survival as the purpose of life (some life extensionists,
particularly those using calorie restriction, appear to be oriented to
such a purpose). However, I am convinced that the vast majority of
people, particularly in the current society (as opposed to several
decades ago) do not have survival as the purpose of their lives. OTOH,
rational maximization of (accumulated) Lifetime Happiness is also not
their life purpose. Rather it is mainly hedonistic current happiness,
with only a very slight concern for the future, that is the purpose of
the actions of the vast majority of North Americans and probably also
Europeans in current society. And the major reason why this has come
about is because they simply do not need to be concerned about the
negative results of their actions on their future well being, since
there are a multitude of government programs and charitable agencies to
take care of these negatives and rescue them from any really terrible harm.

Note that I capitalized "Lifetime Happiness" just so that it is clear
that it refers to the exact technical definition on SelfSIP
(specifically given in the NSC, where all the definitions reside). It
is simply not possible to logically and convincingly argue using the
ambiguous similar words from the vernacular language, as you have done
in this and the following messages, and as I will demonstrate in my
responses.

> I had previously concluded that the purpose of life was "to survive". I
> likely learned this for several reasons. First, during my undergraduate
> studies of international business, the majority of the world, human
> population seemed to be struggling to stay alive. It seemed that the
> luxuries of developed-country life were an anomaly, and that these
> luxuries should be considered an "outlier" or that they didn't represent
> the human condition. The reasoning for this conclusion is false. The
> average, current state of the human condition has no bearing on the
> *purpose* of existence.

I am certainly pleased that you have come to see the illogic of that
reasoning, but I want to point out that it does not apply just to the
purpose of existence, but to everything the majority or even the vast
majority (or even everyone but yourself) may hold to be true. What is
true for others, what others think, how others act - none of this has any
logical bearing on how you should think or act or what you should hold
to be true, nor particularly on what *is* true. Now such actions,
thoughts and convictions of other may have a bearing on how you go about
attempting to maximize your Lifetime Happiness, but that is entirely
different.

> Second, and related to the first, I perceived many of the luxuries and
> pleasure-seeking activities engaged in by those around me to be
> short-term or otherwise self-destructive. I never learned that one can
> engage in enjoyable activities with a longest-term, widest-view
> thinking. I had concluded that pleasure-seeking activities are, by their
> nature, detract from the real purpose of life, which is to survive
> (again, I now think this is false).

Again this is the result of a failure to seek the essences of things or
in seeing an apparent essence which cannot logically be possible. It is
completely illogical that the essence of pleasure-seeking activities can
be pain and displeasure of any kind. This can only logically be a result
of some kind of "overdoing", based on the almost universal principle
that both a little and a lot of anything is generally harmful and that
there is some medium amount that is optimally beneficial.

> My previous conclusion about the purpose of life being survival had lead
> me to a number of habits in the way I conduct my life. One of these
> habits includes my high degree of frugality and "doing without".

I also have always had a high degree of frugality and doing without. And
yes, I did earlier in my life place too much emphasis on reaping
happiness in the future. There is nothing wrong with a high degree of
frugality (I still have it) as long as it is practiced with the correct
purpose (maximizing Lifetime Happiness) in mind.

> I had also made important, long-term decisions based on this flawed
> philosophy.  My current decision to pursue longevity research was made
> based on this philosophy, thinking that by developing life-extending
> interventions, I would be serving the (flawed) purpose of life: to survive.

One problem that I see here is your continued use of the word "serving",
"service", etc. The purpose of your life is not to serve anything other
than your own self. Perhaps you have not understood (and may still not
fully understand) the meaning and essence of your *self*. You may serve
others as a means, but never should do so as an end.

> I have recently concluded that survival, while being important, is not
> the purpose of life. By the nature of being human, humans are not
> intrinsically motivated to simply *survive*.

I think that the above is not expressed as well as it could be. Clearly
survival is not merely "important", but it is completely *essential*,
mainly because it is a prerequisite for everything else. However, being
a necessary prerequisite does not make it a "purpose", but rather a
*means*. (You need to give some thought, reading and analysis to the
distinction between "means" and "ends".) And the last sentence above is
quite wrong. Humans *are* motivated to survive, first and foremost
*before* everything else since without survival nothing else is
possible. If you start thinking and stating that personal survival is
not primary and paramount for a human, the next thing that will
logically follow is that there are situations where a human will
rationally give up hir life for some "higher" purpose. While it is
certainly rational for a human to take a great risk with hir life in
order to save something of great value to hir, it makes no sense for hir
to voluntarily surrender hir life, unless all indications are that hir
Lifetime Happiness is highly unlikely to ever be higher than at the
present time and is highly likely to get lower (because the average
daily happiness for all the rest of hir days will be negative).

> Survival is not the goal
> that humans strive to achieve. Instead, survival is a prerequisite to
> that which *is* the purpose of life (the maximization of lifetime
> happiness). I think this is why I was confused. I understood that,
> without survival, nothing else is possible. However, once a human has
> met hir basic needs (ensures survival), a human does not cease activity.

The problem that arises here is because one can never be sure that one
has done enough to continue to survive, certainly not for another 100
years, but, in fact, not even until tomorrow (the house can potentially
burn down with you in it, a vehicle can potentially run you down any
time you are outside near a street or a meteor can suddenly land right
on top of you. Therefore, decision making must always be made with a
factor of occurrence likelihood involved. So "meeting one's basic needs"
is not sufficient for rationally ensuring survival, particularly not in
an environment as unstable as ours is (re-read the SMN about
environmental stability), and certainly not if one is planning for
long-run survival.

[I find the use of the term "basic needs" to be problematic since the
term certainly means quite different things to different individuals.
How much and what type of food, shelter, clothing, transportation,
health care, etc. are the type of questions that would follow a request
for a list. It is quite clear that "basic needs" to a young single
person in rural India is significantly different from hir counterpart in
rural North America (or even Europe). Furthermore both those individuals
very likely have different ideas about "basic needs" from their
counterparts in urban or even suburban locales of those respective areas.
**Kitty]

> On the contrary, the intrinsic nature of humans is to constantly seek
> out a positive subjective experience (defined as “happiness").
>
> Question to readers: Is this the line of reasoning which supports your
> version of the purpose of life being the maximization of lifetime
> happiness?. Perhaps there is another line of reasoning which I failed to
> discover, or perhaps mine (above) is flawed in some way?

Perhaps this is a good place to quote the portion of SMN (the first
paragraph of "The Purpose of Life" section) which is meant to supply the
reasoning for why attempting to maximize hir Lifetime Happiness *is* the
only possibly logical purpose of life for a human, and to explain in
more detail (annotate) the reasoning of that paragraph.

"As opposed to procreation and survival of the species, which had
previously been the driving force of a blind evolution,"

All initial and current "lower" life-forms had nothing that could
reasonably be called a purpose. Their entire existence relied on
physical/chemical forces, which, as in all complex systems, generated
a kind of stability to enable them to survive long enough to procreate.
The driving force of evolution was necessarily to enhance such stability
factors so that fecundity would be increased - more correctly stated,
those life-forms which had attributes that increased their survival and
procreation (fecundity), were the ones who continued to exist and evolve.

"the advent (by evolutionary development) of introspective, conscious
thought and a Rational <http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#choice>
faculty of analysis created the possibility of a new, self-generated
/purpose/ for a life-form with those abilities."

While I think the meaning of the above sentence portion is clear enough,
I want to point out that I do not include only humans within the
category of life-forms which have the possibility of such a
self-generated purpose. For one thing it does not make logical sense
that such a characteristic was not also present to some degree within
various evolutionary ancestors to homo sapiens sapiens - it had to be
initiated and developed just like any other life-form characteristic.
Such complex and emergent characteristics simply do not arise
fully-developed.

"Although, the physiological pleasure/pain (Happiness
<http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#happiness> seeking) Attribute  that
humans retain from their evolutionary origins requires that
psychological egoism <http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html#20>
must be the initial guiding principle of human Action, just as its
counterpart is for other life-forms,"

All life-forms seek to alleviate some form of discomfort (or as Ludwig
von Mises termed it, "dis-ease") even if this is merely a simple
chemical/physical response of the most primitive kind (moving along a
temperature gradient towards some optimal temperature). However, true
psychological egoism is a step beyond that, requiring the existence of
some kind of decision making ability on the part of the life-form. Note
that many life-forms with apparently little sign of rational conscious
thought, nevertheless act long-range with respect to their self-interest
needs (eg squirrels storing nuts for the winter months). But for
application to humans and to SMN, it is important to understand the
meaning of "psychological egoism" given in the footnote:

"The empirical doctrine that the determining motive of every individual
Action is the perception that, among all currently Available Actions
<http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#freedom>, that particular Action
will achieve the greatest increase or the least decrease of the Actor's
Happiness <http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#happiness>." (Note that
I have removed the word "Lifetime" from the footnote definition, because
its inclusion there invalidated the sentence in which the footnote
reference occurred. The online text will be soon updated with this change.)

"the fully developed analytical faculty of humans necessarily modifies
this principle away from merely directing immediately pleasurable
(hedonistic) Actions, as with most non-human life-forms, toward
directing those wider-seeing, longer-range human Actions whose purpose
is to optimally increase that human's total Lifetime Happiness
<http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#happiness>. Thus, does the
thinking of a fully developed human transform psychological egoism into
ethical egoism
<http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html#21>,"

Note that as opposed to perceived self-interest being the essential
motive of all action (psychological egoism), with ethical egoism,
perceived self-interest is seen as the *valid end* (correct purpose)
of all action.

"by replacing [animal behavior, which is either instinctive or fully
automated after initial learning,] directed toward immediate
gratification, with introspective, thoughtful behavior directed toward
his longest-range, widest-view [accumulating] self-interest, and even
[making] such behavior [the essential method by which he seeks to
maximize] his Lifetime Happiness." (Note that the text within square
brackets is reworked from the original and will be substituted for it in
the next online update.)

The next paragraph in the Purpose of Life section of SMN is of a
strictly philosophical nature for those who are well aware of the
so-called "is-ought" problem and have accepted that it is both real and
insoluble. Those who know little or nothing of this age-old, fundamental
and thorny philosophical problem (and debate) will need to do a
considerable amount of external reading about it before being able to
fully appreciate, critique or comment on what I have written in this
paragraph. In a nutshell, the purpose of this paragraph is to validate
that the life purpose of a human is not anything that can be *chosen* or
*not chosen* by a human (an "ought"), but rather is the only possible
life purpose for a human (an "is" - an essential fact of reality derived
from the essential nature of being human).

> Thus, the maximization of lifetime happiness is the purpose of life, and
> survival is a prerequisite of achieving this. The relationship between
> these two ideas has helped me to better understand my life. I have
> experienced this new conclusion as a rational justification for my
> seeking happiness. I no longer need to consider pleasure, enjoyment, and
> happiness as "luxuries for the weak", or "taking away from my efforts to
> survive".

The above is all excellent except for the last, "taking away from my
efforts to survive", which needs a little more explanation about its
validity, since on the face of it it appears to be logically false. To
the extent that you can continue to work as effectively with the
additional resources gained, spending *any* resources (time, money, etc)
on anything *but* ensuring your survival must necessarily reduce the
possibility that you will survive. The only question is whether or not
you *can* orient your happiness supplying activities to maximize both
your efforts to survive and your Lifetime Happiness at the same time.
For example, this is what I and Kitty refer to when we talk about
reprogramming our food enjoyments to coincide with what is most
conducive to our healthy longevity.

> I have much to think about as I integrate this new philosophy into my
> decisions, habits, and perspective. First, I have discovered that I have
> a lot of thinking to do with regard to discovering those things I enjoy.
> I have developed a habit of averting my effort away from
> happiness-generating activities and redirecting it toward survival
> activities. Because I had not paid very much attention to those
> activities and experiences which are enjoyable, I must learn to pay more
> attention to what causes me to be happy. As to be expected, this has
> changed my perspective on life considerably. For example, I previously
> considered that good-tasting food was a luxury, and consumed food on the
> basis of its nutritional content, making my enjoyment of the food a
> distant secondary consideration. I am now motivated to consider the
> happiness and enjoyment which food can bring me.

And you will find this discovery process to be an exciting new
adventure, itself causing much Lifetime Happiness gain.

> An even more important
> issue I must re-consider is my current long-term projects, including the
> study of biochemistry for the purpose of longevity research.

As I have stated to you before, biochemistry is certainly worthwhile to
learn for your long-range requirement for personal survival, but whether
or not you actually pursue research in the area should be dependent on
whether or not the work involved brings you more happiness than work of
equal long-range value (even though perhaps very different in nature and
purpose). For myself, I decided the latter - after learning sufficient
biochemistry, I decided that pursuing it further and actually practicing
it (as well as the other sciences necessary to contribute to the
extension of human lifespan) any more than simply the level of keeping
sufficiently knowledgeable that I can keep abreast of developments
sufficient for my own survival, would not increase my Lifetime Happiness
as much as other activities.

> Living
> longer and healthier will certainly give me increased opportunities to
> experience happiness, but I must reconsider it in the context of this
> new paradigm I am convinced of.
>
> This realization now makes me feel exited and motivated at the prospect
> of experiencing happiness and enjoyment in life, since I no longer
> consider it a luxury, but instead, my *goal*. This new realization is
> very exciting. I have found that this new-found rational justification
> for seeking happiness has enabled me to not feel guilty, lazy, or
> irresponsible when I seek happiness. Much to the contrary, I have begun
> to look at the world as an enormous "playground" where I have
> practically unlimited opportunities during which I can enjoy myself.

A most excellent description of an optimal (psychologically most
healthful) view of the world in which you exist.

> I know I still have a responsibility to ensure my survival, as each
> person does,

Again you are using "responsibility" incorrectly - you merely have a
*meta-need* to ensure your survival. Responsibilities are chosen -
needs, particularly meta-needs, are facts of reality.

> but it is exciting that there is a much more pleasant goal beyond
> mere survival. I notice that I now see the world with more optimism and
> motivation. Previously, when thinking that the purpose of life was to
> "survive", I sometimes thought of life as a "chore" to look after. It is
> much more exciting to think of life as a series of enjoyable
> experiences, rather than merely a responsibility to one's self to not die.

Again relative to the meaning of "responsibility", though it is often
used, I am convinced that the notion of "responsibility to one's self"
is invalid, and, as with any invalid concept, actually harmful to
rational thought.

[Max, I think it would be best to replace the word "responsibility"
with "need", "requirement" or even the simple "desire" (to stay alive)
since you have a need/requirement to survive only as a prerequisite or
logical antecedent (necessary precondition) to any form of happiness.
I strongly suggest that you talk and write about it in this way to
break the habit of the misuse of "responsibility" - which, as Paul has
pointed out before, has too much of the meaning of "duty" as you
constantly use it. **Kitty]

--Paul

I have accepted Paul's suggestion in the meta tag at the end of this
post. I insert my updated thoughts after my notes below.

> Hello Morelife Yahoo,
>
> Over the past year I have taken notes on my thoughts in response to my
> readings of Morelife.org and SelfSIP.org. I have decided that I will
> begin posting them to the group for further discussion. This will be the
> first in a series of such posts. I am currently considering posting a
> single topic at a time, allow time for it to be responded to and
> discussed, then, after it seems that immediate discussion has ended, I
> will post the next set of notes on a different topic. I am open to
> considering other methods of proceeding if anyone has a suggestion.
>
> This post is in response to parts of the Theory of Social Meta Needs
> (referred to as "SMN"). This can be found at the following website:
> http://www.selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html
>
> In my notes I give a heading name, which refers to the bolded heading in
> the left margin at the above website. To eliminate the necessity of
> switching between windows, I have quoted the passage my comments are
> directed toward, so readers can quickly (re-)read the passage I am
> referring to, and have it readily available to make comments to. Keep in
> mind that I made these notes to myself, so I did not write with a
> particular
> audience in mind except myself. Also note that these notes were made
> some time ago, and I post them without modification. My reasoning for
> doing this is that, at the time I made these notes, I had the following
> responses to the material I was reading. While my perspectives may have
> changed, the usefulness of sharing my thinking processes at that time
> has not diminished.
>
> My notes begin immediately below.
>
> Heading: The Purpose of Life
>
> "Although, the physiological pleasure/pain (Happiness seeking) Attribute
> that humans retain from their evolutionary origins requires that
> psychological egoism18 must be the initial guiding principle of human
> Action, just as its counterpart is for other life-forms, the fully
> developed analytical faculty of humans necessarily modifies this
> principle away from merely directing immediately pleasurable
> (hedonistic) Actions, as with most non-human life-forms, toward
> directing those wider-seeing, longer-range human Actions whose purpose
> is to optimally increase an individual human's total Lifetime Happiness.
> Thus, does the thinking of a fully developed human transform
> psychological egoism into ethical egoism19 by causing mere instinctive
> animal behavior directed toward immediate gratification to become
> introspective, thoughtful behavior directed toward his longest-range,
> widest-view self-interest, and even to make such behavior mandatory if
> he wants to optimally increase his Lifetime Happiness."
>
> Comments on above:
>
> a. The goal here seems to be "optimizing lifetime happiness". To do so,
> humans must learn to think, plan, and act with a *long-term*
> perspective, in comparison to the more instinctive short-term,
> pleasure-seeking, hedonistic perspective. There may be a number of
> reasons why this seems to be true.

After re-reading the quoted passage above, I realize that the main
conclusion I stated in my recent post about happiness as the purpose
of life is in this passage: "Although, the physiological pleasure/pain
(Happiness seeking) Attribute that humans retain from their evolutionary
origins...". I described this attributed in my recent post about my
change in perspective regarding the purpose of life. This indicates to
me that, had I paid closer attention or thought more deeply when first
reading the above passage, I would have reached this conclusion much
sooner. When I first read this statement asserting that humans retain
pleasure-seeking from evolution, I failed to think about the origin or
nature of this pleasure-seeking. Had I considered this more carefully, I
might have concluded what I did in my recent post on life purpose: that
humans, by nature (i.e. via evolution), seek a state of positive affect
(happiness).

> One, many short-term-view, hedonistic actions can have negative
> long-term consequences that greatly decrease Possible Future Lifetime
> Happiness (i.e. consuming vast quantities of readily-available junk-food
> can reduce lifespan and life-quality for the benefit of short-term
> consumption pleasure).

I have recently considered that short-term enjoyment must be weighed
against long-term happiness. Jack (David Jackemeyer) recently posted
several comments to me at Facebook, where unfortunately only members
can read them, regarding this idea. His comments made me realize
that the positive affective state I mentioned above is a *present*
state. That is, it is experienced *in the present*. I have previously
failed to consider the implications of this fact. For example, for the
past few years I have tried to direct my efforts towards activities
which would enable me to experience enjoyment *in the future*, while
neglecting my experiencing of enjoyment *now*. If I had continued to
behave in this way, I would always live my life to improve my future
experiences, but never take the opportunity to *enjoy* those
opportunities I have worked to give myself. One example is my habit of
accumulating, but not enjoying the benefits of, financial resources.
Another example is my choice of studying biochemistry for the purpose
of extending my lifespan. Doing this is a good idea, if I derive
substantial enjoyment, either directly or indirectly, from its study.
However, studying it grudgingly out of a feeling of obligation for my
future state may not optimize my lifetime happiness, even if such study
contributes significantly to the extension of my lifespan. These two
examples illustrate choices which I must now think about and reconsider
in light of my new conclusion about the purpose of life.

> Two, violence and aggression, when applied to extract resources from
> another human, can have negative long-term implications, especially
> when Negative Social Preferencing is applied against the individual
> committing such acts. Violence and aggression also cause harm to
> individuals - actors which may play some role in the Violator's future
> happiness, and may no longer be able to play that role after being harmed.

The above thought that I had is likely related to my conclusion that it
is often *against* one's longest-term, widest-view best interest. In
fact, I was just thinking about this yesterday while running errands
in my car. I was frustrated by how dangerous some drivers can be. I
wondered what the possibility was that some of these driver's, while
seemingly irresponsible by the way they operate a car, might be working
on some project which I could benefit from. I came to a new conclusion:
even if a person was not working on such a project, the fact that they
exist supports my enhanced existence by increasing the diversity of
goods and services available to me. For example, if the product of some
person's work is not directly useful to me, I might conclude that the
person is of no use to me. However, I must also take into consideration
all of the industries that s/he supports by hir efforts. Consider that
this seemingly "useless" (to me) individual has rented several cars from
a car rental company in the past. While I have never rented a car, the
act of other people having rented them (such as the person in this
example) supports the existence of such an industry, and is thus
available to me should I need it in the future.

The conclusion here is that one must look at the longest-term,
widest-view implications of any action or conclusion to determine its
effect on one's lifetime happiness. Henry Hazlitt illustrates this
numerous times in his book "Economics in one lesson" when he emphasizes
that one of the most common errors in economic thinking is the failure
to think about the long-term implications on *all* groups effected by
an action or policy.

> b. There seems to be a problem with the personal and subjective
> evaluation of "Expected Future Lifetime Happiness" or "Possible Future
> Lifetime Happiness". Because of the subjective nature of this
> evaluation, the seeming lack of metrics to conduct an accurate
> evaluation, and the unknown variables associated with future events,
> this evaluation seems fraught with difficulty, even for the most
> diligent Evaluator.

In short, I state above that (a) determining the degree of lifetime
happiness derived from some action is very difficult, and so (b) making
decisions with regard to which actions to engage in to maximize lifetime
happiness is very difficult. The comment above also makes me think that
one must learn one's self - hir likes and dislikes - very well if one is
going to be a good evaluator with regard to best choices for optimizing
lifetime happiness. Mastering one's understanding of one's own enjoyment
requires diligent, inquisitive, and consistent effort in paying
attention, taking notes, and exploring what types of actions precipitate
the greatest lifetime happiness.

> c. By applying the longest-range, widest-view when attempting to
> maximize Lifetime Happiness, a human will minimize the negative
> consequences of engaging in short-term, negative, and/or hedonistic
> actions. However, adopting this "longest-rage, widest-view" may require
> such a large portion of resources (i.e. time in consideration of
> alternative actions) and an extreme application of the practice of
> "delayed gratification" that the application of such a view may *reduce*
> Total Possible Lifetime Happiness. This possibility suggests that the
> *longest* range, *widest* view (both words using -est suffixes
> indicating maximization) may reduce Total Lifetime Happiness because of
> the difficulties in implementing such an extreme (i.e. -est suffix)
> view. Yet, there lies a problem in deciding how "long" of a range and
> how "wide" of a view to implement, since future events are unknown. In
> short, this is a difficult balancing act. Still, life, and the decisions
> required of it, are not necessarily easy.

Much as I mention in my current comments above: a balance between
long-term and short-term actions directed toward lifetime happiness must
be considered. Furthermore, one must also be especially careful with
regard to which long-term projects one decides to pursue, since these
projects are expected to be accomplished the furthest into the future.
When projecting outcomes far into the future, one must keep in mind that
it is much more difficult to predict far-future outcomes than
near-future ones. Thus, when deciding between which long-term projects
to support and pursue, one must consider carefully the effect, and
probability of success, for each.

> I will use a personal example to illustrate the above comment regarding
> unknown future events. Note that I may be applying the idea of
> "Lifetime Happiness" inappropriately here, as I will be using an example
> of the consumption of a favorite food as increasing Lifetime Happiness.
>
> I very much enjoy donuts. I love the taste of these treats. There are
> a great number of other tasty foods I once enjoyed that I no longer
> allow myself to consume, due to their likely negative effect on my
> health. By implementing the "longest-term, widest-view" for maximizing
> my Lifetime Happiness, I have chosen to *not* consume these foods,
> thereby reducing short-term pleasure with the possibility of increased
> health and lifespan. This increase in health and lifespan will, in my
> opinion, allow me to accrue greater Lifetime Happiness than would my
> current consumption of these foods. Alternatively, I might consume very
> small portions of such unhealthful but intensely enjoyable foods, with
> the intention of (a) maximizing my happiness and (b) minimizing the
> negative impact of such a decision.

I still do not enjoy consuming some foods that taste very good to me,
since I am convinced that they detract from my lifetime happiness (via
negative health effect) than they add to it (due to my enjoyment of its
consumption). Still, I have begun to change my perspective about the
enjoyment of food, in that food is one of the most basic forms of
enjoyment, considering aspects of it such as it being sustenance,
flavor, texture, and social interactions while eating with others. So I
have begun to think more carefully about which foods I consume, and seek
to design meals which are both nutritious *and* enjoyable, rather than
focusing almost exclusively on nutritional content, as I did in the past.

> Regarding the possibility of unknown future events and the resulting
> difficulty in applying the longest-rage, widest-view, medical
> interventions may exist in the future to reverse the damage done to my
> soma from the chronic consumption of the "treats" I describe above. So,
> I may have foregone the happiness of consuming these "treats" when, in
> fact, the future may bring about medical technology that would have
> rendered "treat consumption" harmless - or relatively so.

The above is a good example of the difficulty of deciding between one
action and another, including the difficulty of predicting future
technologies.

> However, in refutation of the above comment, there is currently no way
> in which to tell the possibility of future events. Therefore, unknown
> events, or the likelihood of an event such as the medical technology
> described above, must be carefully considered by the Evaluator when
> applying the "longest-rage, widest-view". This goes back to the
> "balancing act" problem.
>
> d. It is asserted in this essay that the primary goal of each human is
> to maximize hir "Lifetime Happiness". A quite related variable to
> maximizing Lifetime Happiness is life Duration (lifespan), which might
> also be called Survival. This is because the longer one's lifespan (the
> longer one "survives"), the more moments of happiness one can experience
> and the greater the possible sum of Lifetime Happiness. What would be
> the implications for SelfSIP if the goal of each individual is to
> maximize Lifepsan, or Survival? (post-script from Max: I have addressed
> this question of Happiness vs. Survival in a recent post).

Again, this was my previous conclusion, that the purpose of life was
to survive. And this was the basis upon which I chose my actions.

I now answer my own question: "What would be the implications for
SelfSIP if the goal of each individual is to maximize...Survival?" It
would be that a person would constantly work at projects designed to
facilitate survival, with little regard to enjoyment as reward for
one's work. Work and effort, without reward, can be depressing and
discouraging (i.e. think of volunteering for a job, without pay, and the
results from which you benefit little from). This sounds much like the
perspective I previously had when I was choosing the activities of my
life. Survival is important, but only for the purpose of experiencing
happiness (the reward for survival). If no reward is experienced, no
purpose exists, and one has no reason or motivation to continue surviving.

> e. (Previously considered) The perceived Lifetime Happiness Actions > of Human
A may greatly reduce the Lifetime Happiness of Human B. For
> example, Human A may find pleasure or happiness in causing great harm
> to other humans,

From what I understand (from personal experience and reading the
SelfSIP material), it is undesirable and against one's best interests
to cause harm to other humans. It is also part of the NSC (I think - I
may be incorrect) that one lives to maximize one's lifetime happiness while
attempting to never be the Violator or detractor of the lifetime
happiness of any other person. However, the purpose of this clause seems
to be only to make the NSC effective. That is, I could think of some
instances where harming others could be of benefit to one, such as when
in competition for resources (such as water, and which currently
happens). This example might have already been considered and handled
in the discussion of a life or death situation when one must place hir
immediate survival as a priority over the survival of others.

Furthermore, if one were to harm others (for enjoyment or some other
reason), one would have to justify such harm to everyone else in a
Freeman society, else s/he be strongly socially-preferenced against.
That is, if it is known that person A derives happiness from harming
others, others will want to strongly preference against person A because
*they* might be hir next victim. Social-preferencing would discourage
such behaviors. Alternatively, those persons who enjoy being harmed
(masochism) might be attracted to person A. Then these people might
engage in a consensual contract for mutual benefit, and no person is
actually harmed or violated.

In conclusion, I still have difficulty imagining a situation which
would refute the effective operation of the NSC.

> or in actions that greatly reduce the happiness of other
> humans (i.e. killing animals or burning down forests). Is Human A
> DisAllowed to participate in those actions that bring Human A happiness
> if those actions decrease the happiness of other humans?

The quick answer would be: "no", as I understand the NSC and SelfSIP.
Killing animals or burning down forests are related to Real Estate or
property. If the forests or animals are the property of another
individual, or if the process of harming these harms someone else (i.e.
burning a forest causes smoke to accumulate on another individual's Real
Estate), *then* the action would be considered a violation. However,
if these things are done without causing any such violation of another
person or hir property, then such actions would not violate the NSC.

--Max

>
> [Meta
> Since this first post of notes that you made some time ago is about
> the purpose
> of life and your previous post clearly states that you have very
> recently had a
> major change in how you view the purpose of life, I think it
> imperative that the
> very first comments to all the above notes should come from *you*
> (more than the
> mere post-script note at the and of d) above). --Paul
> /Meta]

Hello Morelife Yahoo,

Over the past year I have taken notes on my thoughts in response to my
readings of Morelife.org and SelfSIP.org. I have decided that I will
begin posting them to the group for further discussion. This will be the
first in a series of such posts. I am currently considering posting a
single topic at a time, allow time for it to be responded to and
discussed, then, after it seems that immediate discussion has ended, I
will post the next set of notes on a different topic. I am open to
considering other methods of proceeding if anyone has a suggestion.

This post is in response to parts of the Theory of Social Meta Needs
(referred to as "SMN"). This can be found at the following website:
http://www.selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html

In my notes I give a heading name, which refers to the bolded heading in
the left margin at the above website. To eliminate the necessity of
switching between windows, I have quoted the passage my comments are
directed toward, so readers can quickly (re-)read the passage I am
referring to, and have it readily available to make comments to. Keep in
mind that I made these notes to myself, so I did not write with a particular
audience in mind except myself. Also note that these notes were made
some time ago, and I post them without modification. My reasoning for
doing this is that, at the time I made these notes, I had the following
responses to the material I was reading. While my perspectives may have
changed, the usefulness of sharing my thinking processes at that time
has not diminished.

My notes begin immediately below.

Heading: The Purpose of Life

"Although, the physiological pleasure/pain (Happiness seeking) Attribute
that humans retain from their evolutionary origins requires that
psychological egoism18 must be the initial guiding principle of human
Action, just as its counterpart is for other life-forms, the fully
developed analytical faculty of humans necessarily modifies this
principle away from merely directing immediately pleasurable
(hedonistic) Actions, as with most non-human life-forms, toward
directing those wider-seeing, longer-range human Actions whose purpose
is to optimally increase an individual human's total Lifetime Happiness.
Thus, does the thinking of a fully developed human transform
psychological egoism into ethical egoism19 by causing mere instinctive
animal behavior directed toward immediate gratification to become
introspective, thoughtful behavior directed toward his longest-range,
widest-view self-interest, and even to make such behavior mandatory if
he wants to optimally increase his Lifetime Happiness."

Comments on above:

a. The goal here seems to be "optimizing lifetime happiness".  To do so,
humans must learn to think, plan, and act with a *long-term*
perspective, in comparison to the more instinctive short-term,
pleasure-seeking, hedonistic perspective.  There may be a number of
reasons why this seems to be true.

One, many short-term-view, hedonistic actions can have negative
long-term consequences that greatly decrease Possible Future Lifetime
Happiness (i.e. consuming vast quantities of readily-available junk-food
can reduce lifespan and life-quality for the benefit of short-term
consumption pleasure).

Two, violence and aggression, when applied to extract resources from
another human, can have negative long-term implications, especially when
Negative Social Preferencing is applied against the individual
committing such acts. Violence and aggression also cause harm to
individuals - actors which may play some role in the Violator's future
happiness, and may no longer be able to play that role after being harmed.

b.  There seems to be a problem with the personal and subjective
evaluation of "Expected Future Lifetime Happiness" or "Possible Future
Lifetime Happiness".  Because of the subjective nature of this
evaluation, the seeming lack of metrics to conduct an accurate
evaluation, and the unknown variables associated with future events,
this evaluation seems fraught with difficulty, even for the most
diligent Evaluator.

c.  By applying the longest-range, widest-view when attempting to
maximize Lifetime Happiness, a human will minimize the negative
consequences of engaging in short-term, negative, and/or hedonistic
actions.  However, adopting this "longest-rage, widest-view" may require
such a large portion of resources (i.e. time in consideration of
alternative actions) and an extreme application of the practice of
"delayed gratification" that the application of such a view may *reduce*
Total Possible Lifetime Happiness.  This possibility suggests that the
*longest* range, *widest* view (both words using -est suffixes
indicating maximization) may reduce Total Lifetime Happiness because of
the difficulties in implementing such an extreme (i.e. -est suffix)
view.  Yet, there lies a problem in deciding how "long" of a range and
how "wide" of a view to implement, since future events are unknown.  In
short, this is a difficult balancing act. Still, life, and the decisions
required of it, are not necessarily easy.

I will use a personal example to illustrate the above comment regarding
unknown future events.  Note that I may be applying the idea of
"Lifetime Happiness" inappropriately here, as I will be using an example
of the consumption of a favorite food as increasing Lifetime Happiness.

I very much enjoy donuts.  I love the taste of these treats.  There are
a great number of other tasty foods I once enjoyed that I no longer
allow myself to consume, due to their likely negative effect on my
health.  By implementing the "longest-term, widest-view" for maximizing
my Lifetime Happiness, I have chosen to *not* consume these foods,
thereby reducing short-term pleasure with the possibility of increased
health and lifespan.  This increase in health and lifespan will, in my
opinion, allow me to accrue greater Lifetime Happiness than would my
current consumption of these foods.  Alternatively, I might consume very
small portions of such unhealthful but intensely enjoyable foods, with
the intention of (a) maximizing my happiness and (b) minimizing the
negative impact of such a decision.

Regarding the possibility of unknown future events and the resulting
difficulty in applying the longest-rage, widest-view, medical
interventions may exist in the future to reverse the damage done to my
soma from the chronic consumption of the "treats" I describe above.  So,
I may have foregone the happiness of consuming these "treats" when, in
fact, the future may bring about medical technology that would have
rendered "treat consumption" harmless - or relatively so.

However, in refutation of the above comment, there is currently no way
in which to tell the possibility of future events.  Therefore, unknown
events, or the likelihood of an event such as the medical technology
described above, must be carefully considered by the Evaluator when
applying the "longest-rage, widest-view". This goes back to the
"balancing act" problem.

d.  It is asserted in this essay that the primary goal of each human is
to maximize hir "Lifetime Happiness".  A quite related variable to
maximizing  Lifetime Happiness is life Duration (lifespan), which might
also be called Survival.  This is because the longer one's lifespan (the
longer one "survives"), the more moments of happiness one can experience
and the greater the possible sum of Lifetime Happiness.  What would be
the implications for SelfSIP if the goal of each individual is to
maximize Lifepsan, or Survival? (post-script from Max: I have addressed
this question of Happiness vs. Survival in a recent post).

e.  (Previously considered)  The perceived Lifetime Happiness Actions of
Human A may greatly reduce the Lifetime Happiness of Human B.  For
example, Human A may find pleasure or happiness in causing great harm to
other humans, or in actions that greatly reduce the happiness of other
humans (i.e. killing animals or burning down forests).  Is Human A
DisAllowed to participate in those actions that bring Human A happiness
if those actions decrease the happiness of other humans?

[Meta
Since this first post of notes that you made some time ago is about the purpose
of life and your previous post clearly states that you have very recently had a
major change in how you view the purpose of life, I think it imperative that the
very first comments to all the above notes should come from *you* (more than the
mere post-script note at the and of d) above). --Paul
/Meta]

Hello Morelife Yahoo,

The topics of Morelife.org and SelfSIP.org heavily involve the
consideration of each individuals primary purpose in life. This purpose,
as described by the Paul and Kitty on these websites is "the
maximization of lifetime happiness". I have recently considered
submitting an entry to Morelife Yahoo regarding my inability to accept
“the maximization of my lifetime happiness” as the goal of my life. I
had considered doing this for two reasons, since such a post would (1)
begin a discussion about this important topic, and I may be able to
learn the reasoning *why* this is my goal in life, and (2) a public
discussion of my thought-processes might help convince others that this
is the goal of *hir* life, if s/he is not already convinced as such.

However, very recently, after listening to the audio book of Atlas
Shrugged for the 2nd time (specifically during Galt’s speech), I had an
epiphany. Galt’s speech helped me to find the reasoning which supports
the purpose of my life as being the pursuit of maximizing my lifetime
happiness. So, rather than making the topic of this post a *questioning*
of this purpose of life, the topic of this post will be a discussion on
my new understanding and acceptance of this philosophy. Included in this
discussion is a description of my previous philosophical convictions,
and why they were inadequate or otherwise incorrect. I am convinced that
the *process by which* my conclusions have evolved into their current
form may help others, especially those who hold the view that the
purpose of hir life is "to survive"  (which was my previous conclusion).
I am now convinced that it is, in fact, the maximization of lifetime
happiness which is the goal of one's life. I also look forward to
reading comments from others in this group about their experiences and
suggestions for me about my new conclusions.

I had previously concluded that the purpose of life was "to survive". I
likely learned this for several reasons. First, during my undergraduate
studies of international business, the majority of the world, human
population seemed to be struggling to stay alive. It seemed that the
luxuries of developed-country life were an anomaly, and that these
luxuries should be considered an "outlier" or that they didn't represent
the human condition. The reasoning for this conclusion is false. The
average, current state of the human condition has no bearing on the
*purpose* of existence.

Second, and related to the first, I perceived many of the luxuries and
pleasure-seeking activities engaged in by those around me to be
short-term or otherwise self-destructive. I never learned that one can
engage in enjoyable activities with a longest-term, widest-view
thinking. I had concluded that pleasure-seeking activities are, by their
nature, detract from the real purpose of life, which is to survive
(again, I now think this is false).

My previous conclusion about the purpose of life being survival had lead
me to a number of habits in the way I conduct my life. One of these
habits includes my high degree of frugality and "doing without". I had
also made important, long-term decisions based on this flawed
philosophy.  My current decision to pursue longevity research was made
based on this philosophy, thinking that by developing life-extending
interventions, I would be serving the (flawed) purpose of life: to survive.

I have recently concluded that survival, while being important, is not
the purpose of life. By the nature of being human, humans are not
intrinsically motivated to simply *survive*. Survival is not the goal
that humans strive to achieve. Instead, survival is a prerequisite to
that which *is* the purpose of life (the maximization of lifetime
happiness). I think this is why I was confused. I understood that,
without survival, nothing else is possible. However, once a human has
met hir basic needs (ensures survival), a human does not cease activity.
On the contrary, the intrinsic nature of humans is to constantly seek
out a positive subjective experience (defined as “happiness").

Question to readers: Is this the line of reasoning which supports your
version of the purpose of life being the maximization of lifetime
happiness?. Perhaps there is another line of reasoning which I failed to
discover, or perhaps mine (above) is flawed in some way?

Thus, the maximization of lifetime happiness is the purpose of life, and
survival is a prerequisite of achieving this. The relationship between
these two ideas has helped me to better understand my life. I have
experienced this new conclusion as a rational justification for my
seeking happiness. I no longer need to consider pleasure, enjoyment, and
happiness as "luxuries for the weak", or "taking away from my efforts to
survive".

I have much to think about as I integrate this new philosophy into my
decisions, habits, and perspective. First, I have discovered that I have
a lot of thinking to do with regard to discovering those things I enjoy.
I have developed a habit of averting my effort away from
happiness-generating activities and redirecting it toward survival
activities. Because I had not paid very much attention to those
activities and experiences which are enjoyable, I must learn to pay more
attention to what causes me to be happy. As to be expected, this has
changed my perspective on life considerably. For example, I previously
considered that good-tasting food was a luxury, and consumed food on the
basis of its nutritional content, making my enjoyment of the food a
distant secondary consideration. I am now motivated to consider the
happiness and enjoyment which food can bring me. An even more important
issue I must re-consider is my current long-term projects, including the
study of biochemistry for the purpose of longevity research. Living
longer and healthier will certainly give me increased opportunities to
experience happiness, but I must reconsider it in the context of this
new paradigm I am convinced of.

This realization now makes me feel exited and motivated at the prospect
of experiencing happiness and enjoyment in life, since I no longer
consider it a luxury, but instead, my *goal*. This new realization is
very exciting. I have found that this new-found rational justification
for seeking happiness has enabled me to not feel guilty, lazy, or
irresponsible when I seek happiness. Much to the contrary, I have begun
to look at the world as an enormous "playground" where I have
practically unlimited opportunities during which I can enjoy myself. I
know I still have a responsibility to ensure my survival, as each person
does, but it is exciting that there is a much more pleasant goal beyond
mere survival. I notice that I now see the world with more optimism and
motivation. Previously, when thinking that the purpose of life was to
"survive", I sometimes thought of life as a "chore" to look after. It is
much more exciting to think of life as a series of enjoyable
experiences, rather than merely a responsibility to one's self to not die.

--Max Peto

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "kittyaw" <kitty@...> wrote:

<snipped physical and lab test data uploads>

> Two new photo pages - still from when we were in Arizona in the
> Spring - are now in place.

Hi Kitty,

I found both of newest photo pages (from March 09) to be a real
pleasure to view and read.  For example, through your tasteful photos
and educational descriptions of Table Top Preserve, I easily recalled
my favorite emotions and "mental videos" of our trip together with
Oli, Lindsey, and Emily in 2006.

--Jack (David T Jackemeyer)

<snipped diet regimen update>

> We've been mighty busy here in Ontario with property maintenance
> tasks including sawing/splitting logs for our wood burning stove,
> picking various berries (freezing some), gathering wild mushrooms
> (freezing some also because this summer is so bountiful), collecting
> apples and canning apple sauce. So it will be awhile before the
> Supplement Regimen pages and the Ingredient spreadsheet are ready
> for uploading. It's a tedious task to make them all presentable for
> public viewing from the working copies and inventory data kept
> current for our own use - but I'm working on it ;>)
>
> Questions and comments on the content of both websites are welcome
> from those who are qualified to post (and, of course *everyone* is
> welcome to *become* qualified to post!). As usual if any errors of
> commission or omission are found, please email me.
>
> **Kitty
>

Earlier this evening I uploaded our most recent quarterly physical statistics to
MoreLife.org. Additionally, the lab tests reviews for both me and Paul are also
updated - tests done at the end of July. Two new photo pages - still from when
we were in Arizona in the Spring - are now in place.

A short addition to our Diet Regimen page (section of "Our Meals Whenever and
Wherever" detailing "Our current pattern of eating") has been made to make clear
under what circumstances we do snack on our fasting days as well as what time of
day and how big a snack, questions that we are periodically asked.

The above can all be accessed via http://morelife.org/personal/ - and the home
page of course.

We've been mighty busy here in Ontario with property maintenance tasks including
sawing/splitting logs for our wood burning stove, picking various berries
(freezing some), gathering wild mushrooms (freezing some also because this
summer is so bountiful), collecting apples and canning apple sauce. So it will
be awhile before the Supplement Regimen pages and the Ingredient spreadsheet are
ready for uploading. It's a tedious task to make them all presentable for public
viewing from the working copies and inventory data kept current for our own use
- but I'm working on it ;>)

Questions and comments on the content of both websites are welcome from those
who are qualified to post (and, of course *everyone* is welcome to *become*
qualified to post!). As usual if any errors of commission or omission are found,
please email me.

**Kitty

On 08/24/2009 01:26 AM, olehenry1 wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 07/15/2009 01:14 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 07/01/2009 10:51 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This is a response to a portion of message 1964.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have
>>>>>>> never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for
>>>>>>> determining my blood content and their respective
>>>>>>> concentrations. I
>>>>>>> would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits
>>>>>>> (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less
>>>>>>> likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my
>>>>>>> body.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct
>>>>>> process
>>>>>> of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as
>>>>>> is any
>>>>>> puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you
>>>>>> physiologically receive. If the phlebotomist is competent, then
>>>>>> that should be the only negative of the process.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I can recall only competent blood draws, yet I've always
>>>>> experienced some sort of "shut down" by my body.
>>>>>
>
> I can now recall one incompetent phlebotomist...more about this near the
> end of this message.
>
>>>> Since most humans do not experience this and it is hard to even
>>>> imagine
>>>> any physiological cause for it, the experience is almost certainly
>>>> a
>>>> psychosomatic (literally mind-body) result of your mind and the
>>>> anxiety
>>>> within it. But such mind generated causes are ultimately under your
>>>> conscious and reprogrammed subconscious control.
>>>>
>>> I understand that my "anxiety attack" is something I am creating in
>>> subconscious, likely as a response to avoid pain or suffering.
>>> More below...
>>>
>> Its intensity may be connected to some of the vividly recalled
>> experiences that you relate below. You do not have to continue
>> creating it, particularly when you do want to experience the minor
>> pain of the blood draw in order to gain its major benefits.
>
> This last sentence is what I have been "taking ownership" of through
> daily reminders of Paul's statement and by listing the potential
> benefits along side the costs.
> As a physical animal, the pin prick hurts!  But as a big-brained animal,
> I have abilities to look past the pin prick and generate a strategy that
> supports participating in a blood draw in anticipation of future benefits.

Exactly! There is a real sense in which the human brain/mind is at once
several distinct and somewhat independent entities. All of these
entities can be somewhat "controlled" (perhaps a better word than
"ownership" for such an interactive state). Some of these entities are
autonomic and cannot totally be controlled (eg. pain response). Some of
them are rapid (preceding even conscious awareness) which is highly
important for those that warn one of real potential danger. However,
most of these rapid but non-autonomic response entities of the
brain/mind are effectively learned habits (a result of the learning that
takes place as a human grows and develops - and all emotions are
examples of such learned habits) which can be "unlearned" and modified
in the same manner as any other habit. Rationally, any such habit needs
to be modified if the habit caused a decrease in overall value to some
action, which in overall evaluation, apart from that habit response,
optimally increases one's lifetime happiness. (More about the
independent entities approach later).

meta
Snipped portion not needing response.
/meta

>>>> Second, squelch any anxiety by strongly telling yourself what an idiot
>>>> you are to feel that way and how counterproductive it is again because
>>>> of all the benefits of the blood letting and the test results.
>>>>
>>> "How counterproductive", agreed.
>>>
>>> I don't understood why you use "idiot" since the word does not apply
>>> to me, since in present day refers to those with especially abnormally
>>> poor intellects.  The Greek "idiote" referred to one who was static in
>>> hir learning of subjects outside of hir "private station".  I could
>>> become that idiote if I ceased to educate myself; for example, I could
>>> move back to Indiana and live on my father's farm as a
>>> Jack-of-all-trades.
>>>
>>> Why do you choose to use "idiot"?
>>>
>> 1. Most important, please note that I was not calling you an idiot. I
>> was telling you to say to yourself: "What an idiot I am to feel that
>> way", "What a silly emotion to have." or "How foolish to be so
>> concerned and have such a reaction to such a simple procedure which is
>> both overall beneficial and has far less pain attached to it than many
>> things that happen to me more often (stubbed toe, banged elbow or
>> knee, other cuts scrapes, bruises, etc.)"
>>
>> 2. My use of the word "idiot" is always with the meaning 3b from
>> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
>> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 15 Jul.
>> 2009)
>> "a person who fails to exhibit normal or usual sense, discrimination,
>> or
>> judgment especially at a particular time or in respect to a particular
>> subject <I don't know why I was such an /idiot/> <a perfect /idiot/
>> about budgeting>
>> Note particularly, the phrase "at a particular time or in respect to a
>> particular subject". I never use the word for a person as a whole.
>
> I did not conclude that you were calling me such nor using the word to
> describe me as a whole.  And if I were to witness your verbal use of
> "idiot", I know well that you are likely in an emotionally charged state
> and describing the irrational thoughts and behavior, rather than the
> whole being.

I am pleased that you understand that now, since when I am "emotionally
charged" (as you well phrased it), I do not take the time to phrase my
words nearly as well as is needed for full comprehension and as I almost
always do when writing.

>> 3. I rarely ever use the word these days. I only did so here as a way
>> to emphasis to you the message that when you feel the anxiety, your
>> conscious part of mind should very *strongly* chastise the emotional
>> subconscious part of your mind and tell it to: "stop being so foolish"
>> and "stop acting inconsistently with what I (the conscious) knows is
>> best for me". This is what I mean by squelching, denying, scolding
>> and refusing to sanction your emotional response of anxiety.
>
> In my experiences, once anxiety begins, I respond by reasoning that I do
> not sanction further anxiety, yet it still comes (probably with less
> power each time).

Yes, habits ( whether of the emotional type or not) take time to unlearn
and the more deeper, earlier ingrained and rapid the habit, the longer
such reprogramming will take.

> I predict a long-term contribution with this practice.
> Further, since beginning university studies in 1996, I've been reducing
> strong chastising behavior because I understood there to be insufficient
> quantitative or qualitative benefits:drawbacks ratios.  Instead, my
> practice has been to calmly address the problem through 1) timely and
> time-consuming discovery/introspection of my thoughts and actions,
> 2) determination whether the thoughts and actions conflicted with my
> esteemed values, 3) estimation of whether the conflict (problem) was
> severe enough to dedicate energy/time to, and whether the conflict was
> easily addressable (probably due to prior "game plan" set up to address
> that very problem), then 4) "self talk" in an effort to a) try again
> using different thought process and actions or b) repeat reminders of
> the idea enough times in hopes that desired future changes in thoughts
> and actions would occur.
>
> What are the benefits to strongly chastising and scolding the emotional
> subconscious part over *or* in-addition-to diligently addressing and
> redirecting the emotional subconscious part?
>
> Without good data nor vivid experience (naivety), I suppose the former
> would have a faster effect.

This is a good question which definitely needs some psychological
research (maybe there is some - if someone would care to do the work
then I would be highly receptive to finding out). From the point of
view of my own analysis and understanding of human brain/mind/body
operation, as long as the psyche involved is not overly delicate (ie,
it already has a strong self-esteem), I think that the self-chastising
will most definitely speed up the unlearning and reprogramming
process. My reasoning relates to the description posed above of the
brain/mind being essentially several somewhat independent entities. If
that is true then chastising is a form of internal social
preferencing. It is the conscious mind making an evaluation of some
other one of the independent entities, and, just like any other
person, that entity has its own self-esteem and does not want to be
negatively evaluated, particularly not by someone (another internal
entity) whom it respects. Another way to look at this, particularly
for reprogramming an emotion, is that that emotional entity will be
more responsive to another emotion (scolding/chastisement).

>> 4. The Greek meaning to which you refer is effectively obsolete in
>> current English language usage. However, since I do like to keep my
>> word usages close to root meanings, I will try hard to replace all
>> usages of "idiotic" with either "foolish", "silly", or, perhaps best
>> of all, "irrational" - because inconsistent.
>
> Increasingly, I too am curious about the root meanings, which is greatly
> aided by my use of Merriam Webster's Unabridged Online Dictionary
> http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/
> and the Online Etymology Dictionary.
> http://www.etymonline.com/

Thanks for the link. I had not used that one, but it is now in my bookmarks.

>>>> Think about all the times that you have cut, scraped or
>>>> otherwise caused your skin to be punctured and bleed
>>>> profusely and how these did not cause you
>>>> to have this same shut down due to anxiety.
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the suggestion of considering examples, of which I realize
>>> if and only if I watched the puncture event did I react with anxiety.
>>> All other times I react as you describe:
>>>
>>>> In fact, likely quite the
>>>> opposite, your reaction was either to ignore it if small
>>>> (sometimes not
>>>> even to consciously be aware of its existence until much later,
>>>> particularly if you were intent on a particular task while the
>>>> cut/scrape occurred) or, if large, to immediately take action to stem
>>>> the blood flow and patch the wound. Why should there be any difference
>>>> (except from a foolish mind) between the exact same thing being caused
>>>> by an intentional act rather than a chance accident or error of
>>>> carelessness.
>>>>
>>> Great suggestions for consideration (intentional vs not).
>>>
>> So use this fact also to remind yourself how foolish you are being
>> when you feel anxiety before and during a blood draw. If you scold
>> your emotional subconscious hard enough for long enough and tell to it
>> to stop behaving this way, then it will eventually do so.
>
> Addressed and questioned above.

To which I answered above. And see how well my previously described
method above fits that reasoned answer just now provided above. Of
course, just as one should never tell a child to change some behavior
merely "because I say so", so you should never try to change a habit
without having fully elucidated the reasons for doing so and constantly
reiterating these to yourself.

>>>>> I have attended two blood draws within the past year, one where the
>>>>> needle was very small and the phlebotomist very competent, one
>>>>> where the needle was relatively large and the phlebotomist
>>>>> new but fairly steady.
>>>>>
>>>>> I definitely had a greater physical response (much like the one
>>>>> described above) to the draw with a larger needle.
>>>>>
>>>> You are making a major mistake by even looking at the needles or any
>>>> other mechanics of the draw. I can do this with interest and without
>>>> anxiety problems and so I do this to get added benefit from the
>>>> procedure - partly to myself to be able to do a venipuncture for IV
>>>> purposes, if I ever need to. However, Kitty, even though a former
>>>> registered nurse, is still a little squeamish about having herself
>>>> intentionally pricked and purposefully does not watch the mechanics of
>>>> the procedure but rather keeps her eyes and mind on something else.
>>>> Perhaps long after you have stopped this anxiety attack from occurring
>>>> during blood draws, then you will be able to once more view the
>>>> mechanics and gain the added benefits of doing so.
>>>>
>>> Your last sentence is my hope!
>>>
>>>> [I agree with Paul. The best thing I would suggest under your
>>>> circumstances, which are similar reactions to what I experienced in
>>>> the
>>>> past, is to *not* look at the phlebotomist preparing for or actually
>>>> doing the procedure. I converse with hir on other or even related
>>>> matters, but purposely do not look.
>>>>
>>> Funny thing is that until recently, I thought this technique was my
>>> evasion of reality, so I decided to cut the small talk, etc., instead
>>> taking interest in the mechanics by watching with deep interest and
>>> asking the professionals about the strategies/methods.  Maybe I "took
>>> too large of a bite".
>>>
>> Yes, you tried to get your emotional subconscious (which has irrational
>> behavior to this particular event) to run before it was even crawling
>> correctly. Think of this way - if you are capable of rational action
>> toward reality, then it should never be evaded, but rather faced head on.
>> However, to the extent that you are not capable of facing the full
>> reality of something then it may be necessary to circumvent, ignore or
>> intentionally evade it until you are capable of fully facing it and
>> reacting effectively to it. Note the difference between intentional
>> evasion, which remains under your control and can later be altered
>> when it is useful to do so, and unintentional habitual or subconscious
>> evasion which is always negative (mainly because you don't even know
>> that it is happening and therefore are totally missing whatever it is
>> that you are evading).
>
> Yes I agree, and until the very recent past, I naively placed both types
> of evasion into [one negative category] which I think led me to "bite
> off more than I could chew" in more than one area of my lifestyle.

Aha! I think that I know at least one other person who is guilty of not
distinguishing intentional from unintentional evasion (the former is
probably better termed "rational avoidance", generally temporary, but
not always or necessarily so).

>>>> This method and the others that I took when
>>>> I first joined Paul have enabled me to have venipunctures for
>>>> multiple tubes of blood without any of the awful sensations - and even
>>>> blacking out - that occurred in the past. I don't spend any time
>>>> thinking about the actual procedure itself - I think that this too is
>>>> important. Maybe sometime in the future I will look, but I'm not
>>>> especially motivated to doing so. Everything goes quite well now and
>>>> that is my interest.
>>>>
>>> Do you think about the procedure when far from having a blood draw?
>>>
>> [I think of it only in regard to planning what day and approximate
>> time so that it fits appropriately with our eating. I do not at all
>> think about the venipuncture itself. I know from experience that if I
>> get it done with a butterfly and that even if the phlebotomist is not
>> the best, the procedure will not be unduly uncomfortable. What really
>> bothers me is the probing for a vein by a less experienced person or,
>> if a butterfly is not used, the movement every time the test tube is
>> changed out for another one. This last is many times when we have a
>> large set of tests. But I've had no real anxiety episodes since using
>> Paul's method. The blackouts occurred in previous years - I used to
>> dread going to get lithium levels every 6 weeks and that was only 1
>> tube. **Kitty]
>>
>>>> Another suggestion, is requesting that a draw, which will require
>>>> multiple test tubes for samples, be done using a butterfly.
>>>>
>>> Interesting, thanks for the suggestion -- I will inquire.
>
> I decided to make a visit to the local Mesa, AZ LabCorp for my a.m.
> blood draw (no caloric intake for 15 hrs, no exercise for 42 hrs), which
> is to be assessed per LEF's $189-sale-price Male Panel:
> http://tiny.cc/iJ03z
>
> The night before, I had a stressful time falling asleep, taking over 1.5
> hours to initially fall asleep, then waking throughout the night.  I
> actually did not think much about the blood draw that I planned to
> complete in the morning; instead, my brain was concerned with EVERYTHING
> else!
>
> Without an alarm, I woke at 8:20am, shaved, showered, packed my bags for
> work, and brought ice water and a book in case of a long line at the
> LabCorp; I left the house at 9am.
>
> Arriving to a mostly empty parking lot and only nine people in the
> waiting room and no line for signing in, I did so, and within 5
> minutes, was called; in fact I was the first to be called since I had
> arrived.  Fast service, a plus :)
>
> {Anxiety creeps up to 5%}
> A female named Joe P was assigned my draw.  She left the door to the
> room open, which felt good because in an 8 x 8ft room, I might have felt
> restrained.
> (On second thought, I might have enjoyed the enhanced focus that comes
> with privacy.)
> I requested a butterfly-style needle and tubing -- Joe hesitated and
> said she was not well-practiced with the butterfly.  I thought for a
> moment, "fine, first and foremost, I want her to be confident and calm".
>
> {Anxiety 10% -- things are not going according to plan}
> So I suggested an ordinary needle and tubing would be fine, in fact,
> that *her choice* of apparatus would bring me most comfort.
> But she responded, "No, no, if you'd like a butterfly, then we'll do the
> butterfly."
>
> OK, whatever, just do your job and I'll do mine!
>
> {Anxiety 15% -- can I trust this person?}
> I stated out loud that I had a little trouble in the past controlling my
> response to blood draws, but that I was more confident now that I was
> thinking of the plethera of benefits of such a procedure coupled to a
> small cost, the prick of a needle.
>
> I avoided all visual contact with the apparatus as she neared and
> strapped on the tourniquet, drawing from my right arm.  Small prick and
> an increase in {Anxiety 20% -- feeling the needle prick, but not
> imagining entry}, so I continued to think about the relative gain versus
> the small cost of minimal pain PLUS the fact that this was a controlled
> situation, not some accidental puncture wound...
>
> "You're all done", said Joe.
>
> Wow, that was fast!  Yippee!  I am a champion!
> I glanced over at the two tubes of blood and commented to Joe that in
> the past, the tubes were a little smaller, and *five* in number.
> Just as I was leaving the room, she called me back in -- oops, only did
> half the draw!
>
> {IDIOT! --  Oops!  That slipped out...  I'm angry and would like her to
> step down.  Anxiety bumps up to 25%}
> So, I sat back down and requested the left arm, where she found a new
> vein...and failed!  I did not look, but I could not avoid her nervous
> call to the supervising nurse -- "We have a bleeder" coupled with my
> now throbbing left arm.
>
> {This MUST be a joke!  Why would she say THAT out loud?  Anxiety up to
> 50%, doubling as I don't trust Joe to improve at this point and both
> arms are throbbing.}
>
> I'm getting pretty flustered, but before I can bolt for the door to
> escape whatever wrath lay before me, the supervisor glides in, expertly
> eyes the appropriate vein, and without more than a expert's nod, slips
> the third butterfly almost perfectly between nerve endings -- I felt no
> new pain.
>
> Supervisor says, "Take care of this one -- I've got to go."
>
> {No, please don't go... at least don't leave me here with her!  Anxiety
> caps at 50%}
>
> Needless to say, my chest was full of anxiety.  I kept breathing and
> making small talk as Joe wrapped up the draw, without further incident.
>
> I was out of there!  I still managed to walk out with a smirk on my face
> but only because of the unusual timing and circumstances surrounding my
> experience, where I intended to simplify my blood draw to a few
> manageable details.
>
> Subsequent, I drove to work and really worked on my self to appreciate
> the valuable information from this and future blood draws.  I HAVE NO
> NEED FOR THE ANXIETY!  I am uninjured!!
> Nevertheless, the anxiety took awhile to decrease as my arms pitifully
> throbbed (slightly) painful reminders of the draw(s).
>
> When I phoned Kitty, I described some of these details to her and shared
> one of my heartiest laughs of 2009 while discussing the ridiculous
> parts along with the important growth.
> This was an important part of my experience, thank you Kitty :)

That was a great (and funny) description! You did an excellent job of
managing it and I strongly congratulate you on a job well done and an
important lesson learned.

[For others, the phone call from Jack was not for the purpose of
telling me about this related experience but something totally
unrelated and at the end he mentioned that he had had the blood draw
done (a day or two before as I recall). He then asked if he should
just wait to write about it for the group or would I like to hear the
details. I was definitely interested in hearing how it all went - and
Jack has related most of what I remember. But Jack, what about your
exit from the "back room" into the lobby displaying your 3 band-aids
and warning those waiting about the ordeal? ;>) I forget what term you
used to describe the tech who was responsible - ?vampire?.

My understanding during our phone conversation about the lab draw
"adventure" was that there was nothing amusing about it at the time.
It was only afterward during your relating of it that you could look
back - somewhat with relief and satisfaction that you'd managed to
block the rising anxiety, from my interpretation - and you could laugh
at the near calamitous events. I know that I would not consider it
funny - and told you I didn't - that the technician really was not
well practiced in using a butterfly. But the entire episode and how
you related it brought out the humor - and many times I have found
that laughing at a situation that is not life threatening or major
asset losing is better than getting angry. This is especially true
when there are other individuals involved over whom you have little if
any control.

You did all the right things, kept your anxiety level under control
and proved to yourself that you can do just that - avoid a panic
attack. This then becomes evidence that you can do it again - and with
other similar situations too, though the exact techniques will likely
be different. **Kitty]

meta
Snipped portion not responded to.
/meta

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 07/15/2009 01:14 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
>
> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/01/2009 10:51 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is a response to a portion of message 1964.
> >>>>> An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have
> >>>>> never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for
> >>>>> determining my blood content and their respective
> >>>>> concentrations. I
> >>>>> would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits
> >>>>> (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less
> >>>>> likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my
> >>>>> body.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct
> >>>> process
> >>>> of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as
> >>>> is any
> >>>> puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you
> >>>> physiologically receive. If the phlebotomist is competent, then
> >>>> that should be the only negative of the process.
> >>>
> >>> I can recall only competent blood draws, yet I've always
> >>> experienced some sort of "shut down" by my body.

I can now recall one incompetent phlebotomist...more about this near the
end of this message.

> >> Since most humans do not experience this and it is hard to even
> >> imagine
> >> any physiological cause for it, the experience is almost certainly
> >> a
> >> psychosomatic (literally mind-body) result of your mind and the
> >> anxiety
> >> within it. But such mind generated causes are ultimately under your
> >> conscious and reprogrammed subconscious control.
> >
> > I understand that my "anxiety attack" is something I am creating in
> > subconscious, likely as a response to avoid pain or suffering.
> > More below...
>
> Its intensity may be connected to some of the vividly recalled
> experiences that you relate below. You do not have to continue
> creating it, particularly when you do want to experience the minor
> pain of the blood draw in order to gain its major benefits.

This last sentence is what I have been "taking ownership" of through
daily reminders of Paul's statement and by listing the potential
benefits along side the costs.
As a physical animal, the pin prick hurts!  But as a big-brained animal,
I have abilities to look past the pin prick and generate a strategy that
supports participating in a blood draw in anticipation of future benefits.

> >>>> Any "sickening feeling of
> >>>> being sucked dry" is merely your own emotional (psychological)
> >>>> baggage
> >>>> (it is a very tiny amount of your total blood, so the whole idea
> >>>> of
> >>>> being "sucked dry" is simply nonsense) which you can and would
> >>>> best work to eliminate.
> >>>>
> >>> I have tried lying in bed at night and envisioning the mechanics
> >>> of the
> >>> draw, and to date I have been surprised at how anxious I get right
> >>> there in the bed, tensing up, breathing shallow and quickly.
> >>>
> >> First, quit even imagining the "mechanics" of the draw. Simply
> >> dwell
> >> on all the peripheral events involved and the benefits of the
> >> whole.
> >
> > OK, I'll start here, but do you mean altogether?

meta
<changed from "all together" to altogether>
/meta

> > I planned to continue learning the "mechanics", only stopping before
> > or during a draw.  I have enjoyed reading about and envisioning how
> > the skin organ and vein are disturbed by the entry of the needle,
> > followed by platelet plug formation and blood coagulation at the
> > vessel walls, etc.
>
> Jack, why is it that if I leave any detail out you always miss my
> meaning? (This is a rhetorical question, not requiring an answer, but
> merely for you to think about.)

Very little was missed -- I came to the same conclusion as you describe
below, that I should continue learning the application to humans in
general, and stopping when the blood draw was on myself.
I asked the question above in case your suggested method began with a
period of temporary but complete refrain.

> Perhaps the following written above would have enabled you to
> understand:
> "First, quit even imagining the "mechanics" of the draw *on yourself*.
> When you are having blood drawn do not think of the physical procedure
> with respect to yourself, do not watch the needle, tubes, etc, rather
> dwell on all the peripheral events involved and the benefits of the
> whole."
>
> Yes, it is always beneficial to learn about any physiological
> operation of the body. But when you are doing the learning, approach it
> as if it applies to humans in general not yourself.
>
> [When I was learning to start intravenous infusions, I practiced
> getting the feel of lower arm and hand veins on others and myself. But
> I did not imagine inserting the needle into my own veins. Even now I
> can view and palpate the veins on my arms and note which ones are good
> for IVs (if that were ever needed - last time was when I had the
> ureteral stone Jan 2003). But I do not envision the puncture of skin
> and vein. I do not see any point in getting this graphic on *myself*
> and I do not think it is a good idea for you to do it for *yourself*
> either. **Kitty]

Understood.

> >> Second, squelch any anxiety by strongly telling yourself what an idiot
> >> you are to feel that way and how counterproductive it is again because
> >> of all the benefits of the blood letting and the test results.
> >
> > "How counterproductive", agreed.
> >
> > I don't understood why you use "idiot" since the word does not apply
> > to me, since in present day refers to those with especially abnormally
> > poor intellects.  The Greek "idiote" referred to one who was static in
> > hir learning of subjects outside of hir "private station".  I could
> > become that idiote if I ceased to educate myself; for example, I could
> > move back to Indiana and live on my father's farm as a
> > Jack-of-all-trades.
> >
> > Why do you choose to use "idiot"?
>
> 1. Most important, please note that I was not calling you an idiot. I
> was telling you to say to yourself: "What an idiot I am to feel that
> way", "What a silly emotion to have." or "How foolish to be so
> concerned and have such a reaction to such a simple procedure which is
> both overall beneficial and has far less pain attached to it than many
> things that happen to me more often (stubbed toe, banged elbow or
> knee, other cuts scrapes, bruises, etc.)"
>
> 2. My use of the word "idiot" is always with the meaning 3b from
> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 15 Jul.
> 2009)
> "a person who fails to exhibit normal or usual sense, discrimination,
> or
> judgment especially at a particular time or in respect to a particular
> subject <I don't know why I was such an /idiot/> <a perfect /idiot/
> about budgeting>
> Note particularly, the phrase "at a particular time or in respect to a
> particular subject". I never use the word for a person as a whole.

I did not conclude that you were calling me such nor using the word to
describe me as a whole.  And if I were to witness your verbal use of
"idiot", I know well that you are likely in an emotionally charged state
and describing the irrational thoughts and behavior, rather than the
whole being.

> 3. I rarely ever use the word these days. I only did so here as a way
> to emphasis to you the message that when you feel the anxiety, your
> conscious part of mind should very *strongly* chastise the emotional
> subconscious part of your mind and tell it to: "stop being so foolish"
> and "stop acting inconsistently with what I (the conscious) knows is
> best for me". This is what I mean by squelching, denying, scolding
> and refusing to sanction your emotional response of anxiety.

In my experiences, once anxiety begins, I respond by reasoning that I do
not sanction further anxiety, yet it still comes (probably with less
power each time).  I predict a long-term contribution with this practice.
Further, since beginning university studies in 1996, I've been reducing
strong chastising behavior because I understood there to be insufficient
quantitative or qualitative benefits:drawbacks ratios.  Instead, my
practice has been to calmly address the problem through 1) timely and
time-consuming discovery/introspection of my thoughts and actions, 2)
determination whether the thoughts and actions conflicted with my
esteemed values, 3) estimation of whether the conflict (problem) was
severe enough to dedicate energy/time to, and whether the conflict was
easily addressable (probably due to prior "game plan" set up to address
that very problem), then 4) "self talk" in an effort to a) try again
using different thought process and actions or b) repeat reminders of
the idea enough times in hopes that desired future changes in thoughts
and actions would occur.

What are the benefits to strongly chastising and scolding the emotional
subconscious part over *or* in-addition-to diligently addressing and
redirecting the emotional subconscious part?

Without good data nor vivid experience (naivety), I suppose the former
would have a faster effect.

> 4. The Greek meaning to which you refer is effectively obsolete in
> current English language usage. However, since I do like to keep my
> word usages close to root meanings, I will try hard to replace all
> usages of "idiotic" with either "foolish", "silly", or, perhaps best
> of all, "irrational" - because inconsistent.

Increasingly, I too am curious about the root meanings, which is greatly
aided by my use of Merriam Webster's Unabridged Online Dictionary
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/
and the Online Etymology Dictionary.
http://www.etymonline.com/

> >> Think about all the times that you have cut, scraped or
> >> otherwise caused your skin to be punctured and bleed
> >> profusely and how these did not cause you
> >> to have this same shut down due to anxiety.
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestion of considering examples, of which I realize
> > if and only if I watched the puncture event did I react with anxiety.
> > All other times I react as you describe:
> >
> >> In fact, likely quite the
> >> opposite, your reaction was either to ignore it if small
> >> (sometimes not
> >> even to consciously be aware of its existence until much later,
> >> particularly if you were intent on a particular task while the
> >> cut/scrape occurred) or, if large, to immediately take action to stem
> >> the blood flow and patch the wound. Why should there be any difference
> >> (except from a foolish mind) between the exact same thing being caused
> >> by an intentional act rather than a chance accident or error of
> >> carelessness.
> >>
> > Great suggestions for consideration (intentional vs not).
>
> So use this fact also to remind yourself how foolish you are being
> when you feel anxiety before and during a blood draw. If you scold
> your emotional subconscious hard enough for long enough and tell to it
> to stop behaving this way, then it will eventually do so.

Addressed and questioned above.

> >>> I have attended two blood draws within the past year, one where the
> >>> needle was very small and the phlebotomist very competent, one
> >>> where the needle was relatively large and the phlebotomist
> >>> new but fairly steady.
> >>>
> >>> I definitely had a greater physical response (much like the one
> >>> described above) to the draw with a larger needle.
> >>>
> >> You are making a major mistake by even looking at the needles or any
> >> other mechanics of the draw. I can do this with interest and without
> >> anxiety problems and so I do this to get added benefit from the
> >> procedure - partly to myself to be able to do a venipuncture for IV
> >> purposes, if I ever need to. However, Kitty, even though a former
> >> registered nurse, is still a little squeamish about having herself
> >> intentionally pricked and purposefully does not watch the mechanics of
> >> the procedure but rather keeps her eyes and mind on something else.
> >> Perhaps long after you have stopped this anxiety attack from occurring
> >> during blood draws, then you will be able to once more view the
> >> mechanics and gain the added benefits of doing so.
> >
> > Your last sentence is my hope!
> >
> >> [I agree with Paul. The best thing I would suggest under your
> >> circumstances, which are similar reactions to what I experienced in
> >> the
> >> past, is to *not* look at the phlebotomist preparing for or actually
> >> doing the procedure. I converse with hir on other or even related
> >> matters, but purposely do not look.
> >
> > Funny thing is that until recently, I thought this technique was my
> > evasion of reality, so I decided to cut the small talk, etc., instead
> > taking interest in the mechanics by watching with deep interest and
> > asking the professionals about the strategies/methods.  Maybe I "took
> > too large of a bite".
>
> Yes, you tried to get your emotional subconscious (which has irrational
> behavior to this particular event) to run before it was even crawling
> correctly. Think of this way - if you are capable of rational action
> toward reality, then it should never be evaded, but rather faced head on.
> However, to the extent that you are not capable of facing the full
> reality of something then it may be necessary to circumvent, ignore or
> intentionally evade it until you are capable of fully facing it and
> reacting effectively to it. Note the difference between intentional
> evasion, which remains under your control and can later be altered
> when it is useful to do so, and unintentional habitual or subconscious
> evasion which is always negative (mainly because you don't even know
> that it is happening and therefore are totally missing whatever it is
> that you are evading).

Yes I agree, and until the very recent past, I naively placed both types
of evasion into [one negative category] which I think led me to "bite
off more than I could chew" in more than one area of my lifestyle.

> >> This method and the others that I took when
> >> I first joined Paul have enabled me to have venipunctures for
> >> multiple tubes of blood without any of the awful sensations - and even
> >> blacking out - that occurred in the past. I don't spend any time
> >> thinking about the actual procedure itself - I think that this too is
> >> important. Maybe sometime in the future I will look, but I'm not
> >> especially motivated to doing so. Everything goes quite well now and
> >> that is my interest.
> >
> > Do you think about the procedure when far from having a blood draw?
>
> [I think of it only in regard to planning what day and approximate
> time so that it fits appropriately with our eating. I do not at all
> think about the venipuncture itself. I know from experience that if I
> get it done with a butterfly and that even if the phlebotomist is not
> the best, the procedure will not be unduly uncomfortable. What really
> bothers me is the probing for a vein by a less experienced person or,
> if a butterfly is not used, the movement every time the test tube is
> changed out for another one. This last is many times when we have a
> large set of tests. But I've had no real anxiety episodes since using
> Paul's method. The blackouts occurred in previous years - I used to
> dread going to get lithium levels every 6 weeks and that was only 1
> tube. **Kitty]
>
> >> Another suggestion, is requesting that a draw, which will require
> >> multiple test tubes for samples, be done using a butterfly.
> >
> > Interesting, thanks for the suggestion -- I will inquire.

I decided to make a visit to the local Mesa, AZ LabCorp for my a.m.
blood draw (no caloric intake for 15 hrs, no exercise for 42 hrs), which
is to be assessed per LEF's $189-sale-price Male Panel:
http://tiny.cc/iJ03z

The night before, I had a stressful time falling asleep, taking over 1.5
hours to initially fall asleep, then waking throughout the night.  I
actually did not think much about the blood draw that I planned to
complete in the morning; instead, my brain was concerned with EVERYTHING
else!

Without an alarm, I woke at 8:20am, shaved, showered, packed my bags for
work, and brought ice water and a book in case of a long line at the
LabCorp; I left the house at 9am.

Arriving to a mostly empty parking lot and only nine people in the
waiting room and no line for signing in, I did so, and within 5
minutes, was called; in fact I was the first to be called since I had
arrived.  Fast service, a plus :)

{Anxiety creeps up to 5%}
A female named Joe P was assigned my draw.  She left the door to the
room open, which felt good because in an 8 x 8ft room, I might have felt
restrained.
(On second thought, I might have enjoyed the enhanced focus that comes
with privacy.)
I requested a butterfly-style needle and tubing -- Joe hesitated and
said she was not well-practiced with the butterfly.  I thought for a
moment, "fine, first and foremost, I want her to be confident and calm".

{Anxiety 10% -- things are not going according to plan}
So I suggested an ordinary needle and tubing would be fine, in fact,
that *her choice* of apparatus would bring me most comfort.
But she responded, "No, no, if you'd like a butterfly, then we'll do the
butterfly."

OK, whatever, just do your job and I'll do mine!

{Anxiety 15% -- can I trust this person?}
I stated out loud that I had a little trouble in the past controlling my
response to blood draws, but that I was more confident now that I was
thinking of the plethera of benefits of such a procedure coupled to a
small cost, the prick of a needle.

I avoided all visual contact with the apparatus as she neared and
strapped on the tourniquet, drawing from my right arm.  Small prick and
an increase in {Anxiety 20% -- feeling the needle prick, but not
imagining entry}, so I continued to think about the relative gain versus
the small cost of minimal pain PLUS the fact that this was a controlled
situation, not some accidental puncture wound...

"You're all done", said Joe.

Wow, that was fast!  Yippee!  I am a champion!
I glanced over at the two tubes of blood and commented to Joe that in
the past, the tubes were a little smaller, and *five* in number.
Just as I was leaving the room, she called me back in -- oops, only did
half the draw!

{IDIOT! --  Oops!  That slipped out...  I'm angry and would like her to
step down.  Anxiety bumps up to 25%}
So, I sat back down and requested the left arm, where she found a new
vein...and failed!  I did not look, but I could not avoid her nervous
call to the supervising nurse -- "We have a bleeder" coupled with my
now throbbing left arm.

{This MUST be a joke!  Why would she say THAT out loud?  Anxiety up to
50%, doubling as I don't trust Joe to improve at this point and both
arms are throbbing.}

I'm getting pretty flustered, but before I can bolt for the door to
escape whatever wrath lay before me, the supervisor glides in, expertly
eyes the appropriate vein, and without more than a expert's nod, slips
the third butterfly almost perfectly between nerve endings -- I felt no
new pain.

Supervisor says, "Take care of this one -- I've got to go."

{No, please don't go... at least don't leave me here with her!  Anxiety
caps at 50%}

Needless to say, my chest was full of anxiety.  I kept breathing and
making small talk as Joe wrapped up the draw, without further incident.

I was out of there!  I still managed to walk out with a smirk on my face
but only because of the unusual timing and circumstances surrounding my
experience, where I intended to simplify my blood draw to a few
manageable details.

Subsequent, I drove to work and really worked on my self to appreciate
the valuable information from this and future blood draws.  I HAVE NO
NEED FOR THE ANXIETY!  I am uninjured!!
Nevertheless, the anxiety took awhile to decrease as my arms pitifully
throbbed (slightly) painful reminders of the draw(s).

When I phoned Kitty, I described some of these details to her and shared
one of my heartiest laughs of 2009 while discussing the ridiculous
parts along with the important growth.
This was an important part of my experience, thank you Kitty :)

--Jack (David Thomas Jackemeyer)

> >> This is a
> >> very small bore needle attached to flexible tubing that enables the
> >> phlebotomist to change test tubes without disturbing the needle in the
> >> vein. I regularly request this since the sensation at the venipuncture
> >> site when the test tube is changed is not at all pleasant to me and I
> >> think it has in the past contributed to the anxiousness I have
> >> experienced. Phlebotomists do not want a patient to pass out, so if
> >> you firmly request a butterfly for that reason, they will almost
> >> always readily comply. Yes, this extends the time it takes to complete
> >> the withdrawal of blood - but not greatly - and a phlebotomist in a
> >> hurry may balk. But if you insist, s/he will not refuse to comply.
> >> **Kitty]
> >>
> >>> Since many years ago, I have always prepared myself with very
> >>> positive
> >>> thoughts about the usefulness of the draw along with the interesting
> >>> physics of pressure differences between vein and tube/needle, plus I
> >>> always watch the needle enter and leave.
> >>>
> >> At least for the time being until the anxiety has been eliminated, you
> >> would do best to totally quit thinking about and watching the
> >> mechanics of the draw.

<snipped remainder about living as a stranger in one's one experience>

I thought this discussion would be relevant for this Morelife Yahoo
group for several reasons. First, it is important that I update my
identity with this group, as required by the group policies. Related to
this, I thought this message would be an interesting illustration of a
person's (my) rejection of anonymity and continued practice of openness.
Furthermore, there are likely many people who have experiences that are
similar to the ones I describe below. My message below would be useful
for these people (and likely others) to think about regarding name
changes, personal identity, anonymity, and openness.

I have recently changed my name from Steven Curtis Floyd Jr to Maximus
Victus Peto (pronounced “PEE-toh”). Changing one's name (especially for
a male not being married) is an unusual thing for a person to do. Thus,
it is important that I explain *why* I have changed my name. Changing
one's name might be interpreted as an attempt at dishonesty, fraud, or
offense. I want to make this name-change, and my explanation, public for
all to read, question, and understand, so my intentions will be perceived
as they truly are: an honest desire for a personal identity that is, to
me, meaningful, purposeful, and inspiring.

My previous name, Steven Curtis Floyd Jr, is the same name as my father
(he is Steven Curtis Floyd Sr.). For quite some time I have been discontent
with having the same name as my father. There are several reasons I have
for changing my name.

First, and most importantly, I have changed my name because I think a
person's name should say something about the person. In my case, I chose
the name Maximus Victus Peto because these name-components have meanings
in Latin that are part of who I am - the characteristics I try to
embody. A name is a label: it is what the rest of humanity knows you by.
If one never interacts with another human, there would be no need for
s/he to have a name. Because of this, I thought it was appropriate to
choose a name that is meaningful and inspiring to me, as well as
indicative to others of some of my personal goals and values:

Maximus: (Latin) "Greatest"
Victus: (Latin) "Life-giving" or "nourishing"
Peto: (Latin) "To strive, to aim at, to try for, to attack"

Second, my father and I have been routinely confused when it comes to
things like financial documents, government documents, credit reports,
and insurance policies. Once, when I was renewing my Michigan driver's
license, the clerk at the secretary of state's office gave me a license
with a birth date of 1960 (did I really look 40+ years old during my
early 20's?). Furthermore, on my credit report, every year for the past
5 years I have had to write letters to credit bureaus for them to remove
my father's credit cards from my credit report. These mistakes seem to
appear on my credit report for no apparent reason except for errors in
the credit-reporting systems. Additionally, getting quotes for auto or
home insurance, companies frequently use my father's birth date and
information to calculate my premiums. All of these things have made
using my father's name very inconvenient.

I know that many people are reluctant to recognize a person's new name
(I know this from personal experience with this name change so far). It
is difficult to adjust to something new, especially when "the old" has
been a certain way for a long time. I do not expect for some individuals
to ever feel comfortable with my new name, and I do not expect
everyone
to support my name change. But I have two things to say about this.
First: those who choose to use my new name when they refer to me will
earn my gratitude. It will make me glad to see that they support this
name change, since any good friend supports hir (his/her) friends in
important, harmless life changes such as this one. Second: it is
helpful in my getting used to my new name for others to call me by
this name, since I'm still getting used to it myself! *laughs*

--Max Peto (Steve Floyd Jr)

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Max Peto <maximus.peto@...> wrote:
>
> I was doing a little reading today about citrulline. I haven't yet
> concluded if these two articles suggest that citrulline intake should
> be avoided, or if perhaps arginine is modified to citrulline and
> arginine is the ultimate cause. Still, these two abstracts make me
> question the idea of deliberately consuming extra citrulline. These two
> articles suggest that citrulline may modify synovial fluid proteins,
> and these proteins then provoke an immune-response, which may be part
> of the cause of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). The second article is a
> review on this topic.
>
> PMID: 11665966 - Specific presence of intracellular citrullinated
> proteins in rheumatoid arthritis synovium: relevance to antifilaggrin
> autoantibodies.
>
> PMID: 15574347 - Citrullinated proteins in rheumatoid arthritis.

[Max's message subject relates to our usage of citrulline, shown in
our separate supplement regimens as one of the "Meal Cocktail"
ingredients - http://morelife.org/personal/health/his-regimen.html
and http://morelife.org/personal/health/her-regimen.html

Our explanation for substituting it for arginine was part of the
Changes for 4/30/08 thru 6/30/08 -
http://morelife.org/personal/health/his-regimen_changes.html
- http://pmid.us/17662090 **Kitty]

Citrulline is not one of the amino acids which can be formed into
proteins by gene expression, whereas arginine is formed into proteins
by gene expression. Therefore the only method of formation of
citrullinated proteins is as quoted from the second abstract:
"Citrullinated proteins that are produced by enzymatic deimination of
arginine residues in proteins".

For this reason, consumption of citrulline will have no more effect on
the occurrence of citrullinated proteins than would consumption of
arginine or ornithine (both of which are interconvertible which
citrulline through the urea cycle). (Actually this is no effect at all
since the amount of arginine formed into proteins is highly unrelated
to the amount of arginine consumed in the diet.) Therefore, I see no
evidence against consuming citrulline based on these papers about the
relationship of citrullinated proteins to rheumatoid arthritis.

--Paul

I was doing a little reading today about citrulline. I haven't yet
concluded if these two articles suggest that citrulline intake should
be avoided, or if perhaps arginine is modified to citrulline and
arginine is the ultimate cause. Still, these two abstracts make me
question the idea of deliberately consuming extra citrulline. These two
articles suggest that citrulline may modify synovial fluid proteins,
and these proteins then provoke an immune-response, which may be part
of the cause of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). The second article is a
review on this topic.

PMID: 11665966 - Specific presence of intracellular citrullinated
proteins in rheumatoid arthritis synovium: relevance to antifilaggrin
autoantibodies.

PMID: 15574347 - Citrullinated proteins in rheumatoid arthritis.

--Max Peto

On 07/15/2009 01:14 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

Meta
Snipped meta comments.
/Meta

> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/2009 10:51 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
>>
>>> This is a response to a portion of message 1964.
>>>>> An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have
>>>>> never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for
>>>>> determining my blood content and their respective concentrations. I
>>>>> would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits
>>>>> (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less
>>>>> likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my body.
>>>>
>>>> I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct
>>>> process
>>>> of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as is any
>>>> puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you
>>>> physiologically receive. It the phlebotomist is competent, then that
>>>> should be the only negative of the process.
>>>
>>> I can recall only competent blood draws, yet I've always experienced
>>> some sort of "shut down" by my body.
>>>
>> Since most humans do not experience this and it is hard to even imagine
>> any physiological cause for it, the experience is almost certainly a
>> psychosomatic (literally mind-body) result of your mind and the anxiety
>> within it. But such mind generated causes are ultimately under your
>> conscious and reprogrammed subconscious control.
>
> I understand that my "anxiety attack" is something I am creating in
> subconscious, likely as a response to avoid pain or suffering.  More
> below...

Its intensity may be connected to some of the vividly recalled
experiences that you relate below. You do not have to continue
creating it, particularly when you do want to experience the minor
pain of the blood draw in order to gain its major benefits.

>>>> Any "sickening feeling of
>>>> being sucked dry" is merely your own emotional (psychological) baggage
>>>> (it is a very tiny amount of your total blood, so the whole idea of
>>>> being "sucked dry" is simply nonsense) which you can and would
>>>> best work to eliminate.
>>>>
>>> I have tried lying in bed at night and envisioning the mechanics of the
>>> draw, and to date I have been surprised at how anxious I get right
>>> there in the bed, tensing up, breathing shallow and quickly.
>>>
>> First, quit even imagining the "mechanics" of the draw. Simply dwell
>> on all the peripheral events involved and the benefits of the whole.
>
> OK, I'll start here, but do you mean all together?
> I planned to continue learning the "mechanics", only stopping before
> or during a draw.  I have enjoyed reading about and envisioning how
> the skin organ and vein are disturbed by the entry of the needle,
> followed by platelet plug formation and blood coagulation at the
> vessel walls, etc.

Jack, why is it that if I leave any detail out you always miss my
meaning? (This is a rhetorical question, not requiring an answer, but
merely for you to think about.)
Perhaps the following written above would have enabled you to understand:
"First, quit even imagining the "mechanics" of the draw *on yourself*.
When you are having blood drawn do not think of the physical procedure
with respect to yourself, do not watch the needle, tubes, etc, rather
dwell on all the peripheral events involved and the benefits of the whole."

Yes, it is always beneficial to learn about any physiological
operation of the body. But when you are doing the learning approach it
as if it applies to humans in general not yourself.

[When I was learning to start intravenous infusions, I practiced
getting the feel of lower arm and hand veins on others and myself. But
I did not imagine inserting the needle into my own veins. Even now I
can view and palpate the veins on my arms and note which ones are good
for IVs (if that were ever needed - last time was when I had the
ureteral stone Jan 2003). But I do not envision the puncture of skin
and vein. I do not see any point in getting this graphic on *myself*
and I do not think it is a good idea for you to do it for *yourself*
either. **Kitty]

>> Second, squelch any anxiety by strongly telling yourself what an idiot
>> you are to feel that way and how counterproductive it is again because
>> of all the benefits of the blood letting and the test results.
>
> "How counterproductive", agreed.
>
> I don't understood why you use "idiot" since the word does not apply
> to me, since in present day refers to those with especially abnormally
> poor intellects.  The Greek "idiote" referred to one who was static in
> hir learning of subjects outside of hir "private station".  I could
> become that idiote if I ceased to educate myself; for example, I could
> move back to Indiana and live on my father's farm as a Jack-of-all-trades.
>
> Why do you choose to use "idiot"?

1. Most important, please note that I was not calling you an idiot. I
was telling you to say to yourself: "What an idiot I am to feel that
way", "What a silly emotion to have." or "How foolish to be so
concerned and have such a reaction to such a simple procedure which is
both overall beneficial and has far less pain attached to it than many
things that happen to me more often (stubbed toe, banged elbow or
knee, other cuts scrapes, bruises, etc.)"

2. My use of the word "idiot" is always with the meaning 3b from
/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 15 Jul. 2009)
"a person who fails to exhibit normal or usual sense, discrimination, or
judgment especially at a particular time or in respect to a particular
subject <I don't know why I was such an /idiot/> <a perfect /idiot/
about budgeting>
Note particularly, the phrase "at a particular time or in respect to a
particular subject". I never use the word for a person as a whole.

3. I rarely ever use the word these days. I only did so here as a way
to emphasis to you the message that when you feel the anxiety, your
conscious part of mind should very *strongly* chastise the emotional
subconscious part of your mind and tell it to: "stop being so foolish"
and "stop acting inconsistently with what I (the conscious) knows is
best for me". This is what I mean by squelching, denying, scolding
and refusing to sanction your emotional response of anxiety.

4. The Greek meaning to which you refer is effectively obsolete in
current English language usage. However, since I do like to keep my
word usages close to root meanings, I will try hard to replace all
usages of "idiotic" with either "foolish", "silly", or, perhaps best
of all, "irrational" - because inconsistent.

>> Think
>> about all the times that you have cut, scraped or otherwise caused your
>> skin to be punctured and bleed profusely and how these did not cause you
>> to have this same shut down due to anxiety.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion of considering examples, of which I realize
> if and only if I watched the puncture event did I react with anxiety.
> All other times I react as you describe:
>
>> In fact, likely quite the
>> opposite, your reaction was either to ignore it if small (sometimes not
>> even to consciously be aware of its existence until much later,
>> particularly if you were intent on a particular task while the
>> cut/scrape occurred) or, if large, to immediately take action to stem
>> the blood flow and patch the wound. Why should there be any difference
>> (except from a foolish mind) between the exact same thing being caused
>> by an intentional act rather than a chance accident or error of
>> carelessness.
>>
> Great suggestions for consideration (intentional vs not).

So use this fact also to remind yourself how foolish you are being
when you feel anxiety before and during a blood draw. If you scold
your emotional subconscious hard enough for long enough and tell to it
to stop behaving this way, then it will eventually do so.

>>> I have attended two blood draws within the past year, one where the
>>> needle was very small and the phlebotomist very competent, one
>>> where the
>>> needle was relatively large and the phlebotomist new but fairly steady.
>>>
>>> I definitely had a greater physical response (much like the one
>>> described above) to the draw with a larger needle.
>>>
>> You are making a major mistake by even looking at the needles or any
>> other mechanics of the draw. I can do this with interest and without
>> anxiety problems and so I do this to get added benefit from the
>> procedure - partly to myself to be able to do a venipuncture for IV
>> purposes, if I ever need to. However, Kitty, even though a former
>> registered nurse, is still a little squeamish about having herself
>> intentionally pricked and purposefully does not watch the mechanics of
>> the procedure but rather keeps her eyes and mind on something else.
>> Perhaps long after you have stopped this anxiety attack from occurring
>> during blood draws, then you will be able to once more view the
>> mechanics and gain the added benefits of doing so.
>
> Your last sentence is my hope!
>
>> [I agree with Paul. The best thing I would suggest under your
>> circumstances, which are similar reactions to what I experienced in the
>> past, is to *not* look at the phlebotomist preparing for or actually
>> doing the procedure. I converse with hir on other or even related
>> matters, but purposely do not look.
>
> Funny thing is that until recently, I thought this technique was my
> evasion of reality, so I decided to cut the small talk, etc., instead
> taking interest in the mechanics by watching with deep interest and
> asking the professionals about the strategies/methods.  Maybe I "took
> too large of a bite".

Yes, you tried to get your emotional subconscious (which has irrational
behavior to this particular event) to run before it was even crawling
correctly. Think of this way - if you are capable of rational action
toward reality, then it should never be evaded, but rather faced head on.
However, to the extent that you are not capable of facing the full
reality of something then it may be necessary to circumvent, ignore or
intentionally evade it until you are capable of fully facing it and
reacting effectively to it. Note the difference between intentional
evasion, which remains under your control and can later be altered
when it is useful to do so, and unintentional habitual or subconscious
evasion which is always negative (mainly because you don't even know
that it is happening and therefore are totally missing whatever it is
that you are evading).

>> This method and the others that I
>> took when I first joined Paul have enabled me to have venipunctures for
>> multiple tubes of blood without any of the awful sensations - and even
>> blacking out - that occurred in the past. I don't spend any time
>> thinking about the actual procedure itself - I think that this too is
>> important. Maybe sometime in the future I will look, but I'm not
>> especially motivated to doing so. Everything goes quite well now and
>> that is my interest.
>
> Do you think about the procedure when far from having a blood draw?

[I think of it only in regard to planning what day and approximate
time so that it fits appropriately with our eating. I do not at all
think about the venipuncture itself. I know from experience that if I
get it done with a butterfly and that even if the phlebotomist is not
the best, the procedure will not be unduly uncomfortable. What really
bothers me is the probing for a vein by a less experienced person or,
if a butterfly is not used, the movement every time the test tube is
changed out for another one. This last is many times when we have a
large set of tests. But I've had no real anxiety episodes since using
Paul's method. The blackouts occurred in previous years - I used to
dread going to get lithium levels every 6 weeks and that was only 1
tube. **Kitty]

>> Another suggestion, is requesting that a draw, which will require
>> multiple test tubes for samples, be done using a butterfly.
>
> Interesting, thanks for the suggestion -- I will inquire.
>
>> This is a
>> very small bore needle attached to flexible tubing that enables the
>> phlebotomist to change test tubes without disturbing the needle in the
>> vein. I regularly request this since the sensation at the venipuncture
>> site when the test tube is changed is not at all pleasant to me and I
>> think it has in the past contributed to the anxiousness I have
>> experienced. Phlebotomists do not want a patient to pass out, so if
>> you firmly request a butterfly for that reason, they will almost
>> always readily comply. Yes, this extends the time it takes to complete
>> the withdrawal of blood - but not greatly - and a phlebotomist in a
>> hurry may balk. But if you insist, s/he will not refuse to comply.
>> **Kitty]
>>
>>> Since many years ago, I have always prepared myself with very positive
>>> thoughts about the usefulness of the draw along with the interesting
>>> physics of pressure differences between vein and tube/needle, plus I
>>> always watch the needle enter and leave.
>>>
>> At least for the time being until the anxiety has been eliminated, you
>> would do best to totally quit thinking about and watching the mechanics
>> of the draw.
>>
>> Jack, having observed for some years now, both your actions and your
>> descriptions of your thoughts and feelings, it appears to me that you
>> have a strongly ingrained approach to yourself as an outside spectator
>> viewing the strange but very interesting actions of another person. In
>> fact, you are so fascinated by the activities of this other person
>> (actually yourself in this case) that you do not wish to interfere and
>> cause any changes to that other person. IOW, rather than directly
>> experiencing the life you are living, you act as a vicarious and
>> dilettante spectator of your own life.
>
> I agree that at times I have practiced delightful examination of my
> activities,

I too am (and always have been) highly analytical of my thoughts and
actions, but I would never call this a "delightful" examination.
Rather it is strictly for the purpose of ascertaining, understanding
and modifying for the better, if necessary and to the extent that that
can be done. The only times that I actually "delight" in something
about myself is when I accomplish things that I consider worthwhile or
even just difficult and when my body reacts in a thoroughly healthy
and capable manner to some event. I remember an incident many years
ago when I had not had the flu for a very long time and I was actually
pleased to see my body react positively and normally to getting it.

[Jack, the way you describe "delightful examination of [your]
activities" sounds like taking part in a spectator sport. **Kitty]

> since I have become interested in dealing with two
> difficulties: 1) making sure my presentations were palatable and 2)
> discovering actions that conflicted with my intentions.
> For an example regarding 1), when I've given a presentation of something
> important to me, I am often nervous that
> a) I am considered far beneath those in attendance, and

Jack, you need to get it strongly into your head that you are not
"beneath" any other person nor is anyone "beneath" you. There are things
that you know and understand which no one else does and for any other
person there are things which s/he knows and understands which you do not.

> b) none of them (know how to) care to participate in my development.

What you are missing here is that it is only right and proper for others
to be primarily interested in their own knowledge and development.
However, if they rationally and most efficiently pursue that objective,
then the actions that they take will automatically contribute to your
knowledge and development. I also do not "care to participate in [your]
development". I am only taking actions which aid your development so
that I will have a friend who is better developed and will return values
to me in various forms and ways, some of which will hopefully even aid
my own development.
Once again the purpose is maximizing lifetime happiness. Development of
oneself as a person is only an important and necessary means to that end.

> In class, at a lab meeting, and at Meetup groups, I get the sense that
> most are inwardly obsessed and socially careless.  Since I notice this
> attitude often, I want to do my best to not exaggerate the distance
> between myself and them by replacing a set of poor habits that are
> related to protecting myself from embarrassing jesters (stemming from
> middle and high school experiences).

I am baffled about how all the above inter-relate.
1) How do you *reasonably and surely* "get the sense that most are inwardly
obsessed and socially careless"?
2) Why are you trying to assess others as a group? They are all
individuals with enormous variations of egoism, social attitudes and
social actions of all kinds. Concentrate on those who seem to have
qualities that you find interesting and to your own benefit, and
ignore the others.
3) What is the connection between "inwardly obsessed" and "socially
careless"?
4) How do these two characteristics (to the extent that they exist)
relate to "exaggerate the distance between myself and them"? - Note
again that you are lumping everyone else into a collective who is
going to act as one toward you, when in fact, each of the others
around you acts totally as an individual in hir relationship to you.
Lumping people together like this is a certain way to not be ready to
gain anything positive from some individual one of them.
5) How is any of the above related to "a set of poor habits that are
related to protecting myself from embarrassing jesters (stemming from
middle and high school experiences)"?
6) Why were you embarrassed by these clowns, rather than just telling
them what idiots they were? I can only remember two incidents of
embarrassment from my school years and they were both due to high
school teachers chiding, in one case, an uncharacteristic foolishness
and, in the other, a harmless habit in front of the whole class.

Note: All the above are rhetorical questions, not requiring answers here, but
merely for you to think about.

> Instead of self-protection, I hope redirect my focus toward reading
> the audience well

Any audience is composed of individuals. One cannot "read" an audience
even as well as one can "read" one person (and that is not much at all
either). All that one can do is to present to a stereotype of what one
expects and/or wants the typical person in the audience to be. I say
this as a teacher of many, many years of many types of courses.

[I am getting the impression that you view yourself as always "on
stage", as if in some performance. However the facts of reality are
that wherever you and whatever you are doing (short of actually being
part of some entertainment for others) very few people around you are
actually examining you at all. This is because most people are mainly
concerned about themselves, as it is right and proper that they should
be. **Kitty]

> and coupling this with a presentation that draws
> them (as many as possible) in for a deeply meaningful exchange,

Again you are going way overboard. You are never going to have a
"deeply meaningful exchange" with a whole group of people at once. At
best, you may provide some information that is "deeply meaningful" to
a few of them, but whether or not it is "deeply meaningful" is more up
to them than it is to you. A few of those few may return some "deeply
meaningful" information as comments. However, depending on the subject
matter, there may be nothing "deeply meaningful" to possibly be
communicated at all. In addition, what is "deeply meaningful" in your
consideration may not be so in the consideration of most others, or
perhaps even of anyone who is listening to you.

> both in terms of fully addressing the subject

Unless a subject is very narrow, small and simple, it can never be
"fully addressed" within any verbal presentation.

> and my own personal growth in
> presenting information for consideration.

Your personal growth is mostly dependent on you rather than your
listeners or readers, except perhaps for some valuable comments if you
are so lucky as to get them.

> To address this, I watch myself and look for distracting qualities;

I don't see how you can know what is "distracting" to others since
that is a very subjective characteristic. Instead just be yourself and
seek to attract similar others.

> I also attempt to model others who I consider to be inviting and
> intriguing.

It is essential to first analyze just why and how such people are
"inviting and intriguing". Only if their "inviting and intriguing"
characteristics are rationally and honestly based and presented, are
such role models positive to emulate.

>  I do gain delight in real-time self-reflection.

As I explained before, I find it strange to label the benefit of a
psychologically healthy self-analysis as a "delight".

> It is possible that I spend too much time doing this and also for the
> wrong reasons (e.g. to make sure I look pop-culturally attractive).

Once again, be yourself (if you really have a self of which you are
proud). Act as you consider to be appropriate and effective and ignore
the cultural notions, particularly the trendy-pop ones.

> Vicariously, I highly doubt;  the concept suggests that I am
> developing a second personality, one that can mostly independently
> judge the original.  In addition to doubt, I am confused why you have
> chosen this word; if you have the interest and time, will you
> elucidate?

Vicarious:
*1* *:* having the function of a substitute *:* serving instead of
someone or something else *:* acting for a principal *:* representing or
taking the place of something primary or original *: DELEGATED
<memory is /vicarious/ experience in which there is all the emotional
value of actual experience -- John Dewey>
*2* *:* performed or suffered by one person as a substitute for another
or to the benefit or advantage of another *: SUBSTITUTIONARY
</vicarious/ sacrifice>
*3* *:* experienced or realized through imaginative or sympathetic
participation in the experience of another <was getting a /vicarious/
kick out of watching a fellow female preening herself over the
capitulation of the male -- Helen Howe>
/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/ .
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (16 Jul. 2009).

In the context of yourself it means that you have a somewhat "split
personality". One part of you gets great delight (jovial amusement) in
watching the other part of you (as if it were another person) and for
that reason, does not attempt to change the other part of you, since
doing so would spoil the continuing delightful enjoyment. This is how
you appear to me.

[As I noted above, your descriptions remind me of someone who is watching
hirself perform, always assessing for a better *performance*. **Kitty]

>> I urge you to do your utmost to
>> stop this approach. Get fully involved with and fully connected to
>> your life instead of merely viewing its passing scene. Life is for fully
>> living and directly experiencing rather than for amused vicarious
>> titillation. It may be okay to view the lives of others as merely actors
>> on a big stage (although to the extent that their actions also affect
>> you this too is not conducive to increasing your lifetime happiness),
>> but it is most certainly a grave and anti-life error to view your own
>> life that way.
>
> Intuitively, I think I had been doing both, fully living and delightfully
> studying my responses.

You can't simultaneously do both effectively. The second is bound to
inhibit the first.

[It seems to me that one can reasonably examine one's own past actions
or an ongoing situation, but it is not possible to effectively examine
*at the very time* of engaging in some action or exchange with
another. If, during an exchange, a person is paying strong attention
to hir own actions, thoughts and words, then s/he is not really
listening to and noting the behavior of the other person. And
conversely, if that same person is giving hir undivided attention to
the other person's actions and/or words, then s/he is not at that time
examining hir own behavior, thoughts, emotions, etc. **Kitty]

> I am fascinated that I do become so deeply engaged in some activities
> whereas others are sleep-inducing (yawns, disinterest, much reduced
> excitement for the moment).  More surprising is that I can create a
> philosophy that discourages most reasoning for participation in an
> activity, say playing basketball, and then demand of myself that I
> cease a particular action for two years -- yet -- that activity,
> basketball, might bring me hours of continuous joy, even after the two
> year drought!

Again I don't understand this "fascinated" relating to something about
which you ought to instead be puzzled, concerned and even unhappy at
the inconsistency.

The above shows that your new ideas (your newly created philosophy of
life) has not yet been fully integrated - your emotions are still not
consistent with your consciously held convictions. "Creating" a
philosophy does not *integrate* it fully into your mind. Consciously
reasoning out why some actions will be more long-run beneficial than
others (if that is what you mean) does not automatically teach and
train all parts of your mind to act in accord with these new ideas.
Rather your mind is a highly complex interconnection of somewhat
independent parts (using computer language, I call them background
subprocessors), the conscious reasoning part being only the one of
them that you are directly aware and in control of. (Although the
later is also debatable since conscious awareness has been shown to
arise milliseconds after some other clearly connected brain response,
so perhaps the conscious is merely a form of presenter of what some
other part of the mind considers to be the most important current
information of which it should be aware.)

Only rooting out and modifying emotional attachments to the previous
philosophy, now deemed incorrect, will enable such total integration.
This applies to both old positive emotions for things that you no
longer consciously value as much and old negative emotions ("yawns,
disinterest, much reduced excitement") for things which you now value
highly.

[I don't understand why you had been berating yourself for playing
some basketball and then denied yourself that pleasure for 2 years. A
couple hours a week isn't any obsession and its good physical
activity. It sure beats spectator sports that so many spend many more
hours on weekly.

We have lots of foods that we enjoy eating but we do not do so
chronically or even periodically because we are convinced that doing
so would be harmful. But we do eat them once or twice a year - because
we enjoy them and we are highly confident that this frequency is not
detrimental to us. I suppose that we could eliminate them entirely but we do not
think it is overall cost productive. Food tastes (and other sensual pleasures)
are not directly substitutable one for another.

Another related thought - even thinking excessively can be detrimental if the
person then avoids actually doing things physical, activity which is necessary
for health maintenance. Both mental and physical activities are needed to
maintain overall good health. **Kitty]

> Likewise, I can create a philosophy that brings to the top the most
> important reasoning for participation in an activity such as learning
> about my body/health/wellness, and then demand of myself that I
> practice the related activities for two years -- yet-- I will cease
> that activity 100% the day after two years and feel no loss!

This makes no sense at all to me. If the knowledge gained and the
practices undertaken during those two years is of benefit to you how
can you not feel a loss (at least a concern for your ongoing health)
at not continuing such practices and more learning to make them even
more beneficial.

The remark above also applies to this - you haven't integrated fully
into your mind (Branden's word is "owned") the ideas that your
conscious reason considers to be most correct and beneficial for you.

> I like to watch and analyze myself now and then to discover the secrets
> to my failures and successes.

It is clear that you have been watching far too much and analyzing the
reasons for your inconsistent behavior far too little.

>>> I typically am slightly tense
>>> just before the needle goes in, then I wait a little bit (breath,
>>> breath), then a rush of something comes over my body accompanied by
>>> emphysema-like shortness of breath and I feel warned that I am in
>>> danger
>>> ("sucked dry" is what I used before, but it's not clearly related to
>>> blood loss, maybe something to do with "invasion" too -- hard to say
>>> because there are no relevant thoughts prior to or during).
>>>
>> Have you never had a splinter or other foreign object "invade" your body
>> accidentally or due to carelessness? When this occurred did you feel
>> the same anxiety of "invasion" over that occurrence?
>
> Only if I visually witnessed the puncture -- to this day, I can
> vividly recall two 15-18 year-old acquaintances of mine wrestling for
> control of a tool they each found in the basement of their home -- it
> had a long wooden handle, like that of a garden hoe and the end
> equipped with a metal hook.  I visually witnessed the hook end enter
> (1/4 to 1/2 inch) and leave the right calf of the older (brother).
> Even though it happened to someone else, I experienced the suddenly
> intense response.
>
> I can recall one vivid visual removal of 1/2 inch of Honey Locust thorn
http://www.mitzenmacher.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/thorn.jpg
> from the area just below my knee cap. That caused quite a horrified
> reaction as I yanked it out and immediately after as I comprehended
> the entry and removal of the thorn.
>
> All other foreign objects (splinters, scratches, etc) that I do not
> see enter, do not bother me a bit (besides some pain).  All rougher
> damage that I do see, such as deep scratches, smaller thorns with
> barbs, splinters, etc. do not bother me either.

Then think about the inessential difference (the end result of a
wound, loss of blood and tissue healing requirement is the same) and
tell yourself strongly how silly you are for making such a distinction.

>> If you did not
>> (as I am pretty sure is the case) then your mind is just being foolish
>> to react differently to the exact same occurrence happening in a
>> controlled manner rather than by chance. Tell yourself that and try
>> your best to eliminate it every time you have that emotion. (Note that
>> I am not talking here about a major stab wound or other trauma which
>> can result in both great pain and immediate major blood loss, both of
>> which will physiologically cause immediate blood pressure reduction
>> and possible loss of consciousness, but rather the scrapes and cuts
>> that a person as active as yourself gets as a part of everyday living,
>> particularly for someone who uses tools.)
>>
> I agree that I have been acting counter to my values, and for some
> unknown reasons, treating similar occurrences very differently, which
> is wrong.

The "unknown reason" is that you still have not understood the concept
of integrating, and making internally consistent, your consciously
held desires/values with your emotional reactions. Your emotions were
all programmed by your values and experiences of your past, and they
can be reprogrammed to react differently and consistently with your
new ideas, values and desires. You are ultimately the ruler of your
emotions. Your emotions are not there to rule you. Their purpose is to
be both tools of cognition and the means by which you experience the
positives and negatives of the external world as it relates to your
values.

> I do not consider myself foolish nor idiotic however.  IMO, these two
> terms should be reserved for one who cannot improve hir intellect.

It is up to you if you do not wish to apply such terms to yourself in
particular aspects. I have always applied them to myself whenever I do
foolish, idiotic or stupid things. That is the way that I chastise
myself and impress on myself the need to not do such a thing again.

[I can readily say that I consider 2 points in my life when I was
foolish. The first was when I was 16 and a junior in high school, I
took without questions the guidance counselor's statement that physics
was not a field for women. I don't even recall considering that I
should discuss it with my father (I do recall though that this was a
period in time when he was very involved with getting a new career
started after retiring from the Navy - retirement pay was not going to
pay all the bills.) But many years later I looked back and thought how
foolish I'd been at the time. Even much later than that when I
mentioned it to my Dad in the late 1980s, he was so surprised that I
hadn't told him. His comment was that "we'd have found some way to get
you that kind of education."
The second incident was one I acknowledged fairly soon afterward -
that was in not taking my Dad's advice about the fellow I was dating
and then got engaged to right after completing my nursing education.
Dad was right about Rudy and I was wrong, but I at least didn't keep
on being so foolish as to marry him.

Of course I've done some silly things on occasion and even said so out
loud. Mostly these have been as a result of not paying close
attention. **Kitty]

> Those who can improve intellect yet lack in judgment and act contrary
> to their values can be described with words such as naive and immature.

It is not improvement in your "intellect" that is needed here. But if
you wish to scold yourself by applying the terms "naive" or "immature"
to yourself when you catch yourself in an emotion which is contrary to
your consciously held values, then that should work fine too.

> The last "note" is understood.
>
>>> When this first happened to me (my first blood draw in many years,
>>> between 12 and 16 years ago), I was naive about the whole process.
>>> Again, I watched the needle go in and was slightly tense from the pain
>>> but really just naive, and suddenly in a few seconds, that same rush
>>> came over me.  I ended up blacking out (sweating profusely and reality
>>> almost disappeared into a small round dot), followed by recovery
>>> within
>>> minutes, though I was still weak in the knees from the novelty.
>>>
>>> I was shocked and interested in why it happened.  "Low sugar" and
>>> "sudden drop in blood pressure", were suggested, with only the blood
>>> pressure drop making any sense to me.
>>> Is it possible that my initial anxiety causes a drop in blood pressure,
>>> further escalating my anxiety, like a feedback loop?
>>
>> The anxiety attack is sufficiently intense to initiate release of blood
>> pressure decreasing hormones. No feedback was necessary and did not
>> likely occur because the lower BP could not cause any immediate
>> psychological anxiety. It is the opposite of the fight or flight effect,
>> which increases heart rate and BP.
>>
>>>> As with any other irrational emotion, you work to
>>>> reprogram yourself so that it no longer occurs. You do this by first
>>>> having at your mind's edge, all the positive reasons why getting blood
>>>> drawn is beneficial to you and even the benefits of the process itself
>>>> (enjoying the interesting mechanics of it: the competence of your body
>>>> pumping out the blood to fill the tubes, the competent work of the
>>>> phlebotomist and the technically neat way that such a blood draw
>>>> can be
>>>> accomplished, the friendly chatting with hir, particularly if s/he is
>>>> someone who you see regularly, the way your own competent body
>>>> quickly seals and heals the puncture).
>>>>
>>> These are VERY helpful, thank you.  I am practicing these perspectives
>>> and learning more details of the healing puncture.
>>>
>> Except note that I have now changed my recommendations to totally cease
>> any thinking about or interest in the mechanics of the procedure, at
>> least until you have eliminated all anxiety.
>
> Noted.
>
>>> I have a blood draw for LEF/Labcorp to accomplish this month...
>>>
>>>> So as soon as this "sickening
>>>> feeling" occurs you tell yourself what an idiot you are to feel this
>>>> way, you strongly squelch and deny the feeling (effectively tell it to
>>>> "get lost and do not bother me any more"), you then concentrate on
>>>> all the
>>>> short and long range positives of the procedure and its end results.
>>>>
>>> Thank you -- I will practice this as well, maybe even write it on an
>>> index card for reminders in case I distract myself with other
>>> thoughts.
>>> I have not been well-focused in past personal blood draws thus
>>> inviting hazard to the outcome, so being prepared and maintaining
>>> focus will help.
>>>
>> Not just focus, but also distraction of your thoughts away from the
>> mechanics of the blood draw.
>>
>>> (Thanks for the word "hazard" -- I gained it from your exchange
>>> with Chad)
>>>
>> Good, both to the word and to the news that you read the exchange.
>>
>>>> If
>>>> you keep doing this, then in time the emotion will be eradicated
>>>> and you
>>>> will be *free* of it (similar to the way your immune system rids your
>>>> body of a pathogen - an inconsistent emotion is a pathogen of the
>>>> mind).
>>>>
>>> "Pathogen of the mind" -- I will remember this :)
>>>
>> It is another one of those potentially problematic metaphors, but in
>> this case I think it is a sufficiently accurate correspondence to be
>> useful.
>>
>>>> Actually, I have been through all this before in past posts on the
>>>> subject of changing emotional habits, so I am surprised that you
>>>> did not
>>>> realize that those posts about other emotions and emotions in general
>>>> apply to this one also. You must sometime get to the point where you
>>>> fully understand that your emotions do not come out of nowhere and are
>>>> not in control of you, but rather they are products of your values and
>>>> rational thoughts and are totally under your control with respect to
>>>> making them consistent with those values and thoughts.
>>>>
>>> I recognized the similar methods and have been practicing a few as I
>>> described above.  However, I have not *strongly* squelched or denied
>>> feelings before, as I always thought of them as interesting in
>>> addition
>>> to debilitating.  I gained some happiness from considering the strange
>>> phenomenon,
>>>
>> These last two sentences, in the light of my previous experiences with
>> you, are what caused me to think that you are far too much a vicarious
>> spectator of your own life events rather than a direct experiencer of
>> those events. I say "far too much" because some such self analysis and
>> introspection is definitely both enjoyable and useful - I have certainly
>> done lots of that and continue to do so. However, because it is almost
>> always done afterward the events being recollected and analyzed, my
>> self observation and analysis does not prevent me from also directly
>> experiencing my life events, but rather helps me to put them into
>> perspective, to understand them and to help/modify them to be more
>> successful in similar future circumstances.
>>
> I am glad that you are thinking about me and offering critical
> analyses for my consideration.  I expand/explain a little above and I
> have no intention of brushing aside your comments; instead, I am
> deliberately considering what you have shared and looking for
> opportunities to practice directly experiencing events coupled with an
> awareness to postpone introspection to afterward.
> Thank you for the suggestions!

Yes Jack, I am still trying to get my ideas through to you. I have not
totally given up on you, even though I fear that we are so extremely
different from each other that we will never be able to be kindred
spirits. So I am far from certain that I will ever see a return of
value of the kind that I mostly want from others. I do not mean this
comment to be any criticism of you or to even suggest that you are not
a responsible returner of value - it is only that you are not (and I
strongly suspect that you never will be) capable of returning the
types of values that I most desire.

>>> but I also realize that I have missed out on much more
>>> happiness regarding future blood draws.
>>>
>> I hope you will now give some thought to this being a symptom of more
>> "missing out" than of merely the benefits from blood draws.
>>
> I am thinking about it.

That is good, but you need to do more than just "think about it".

--Paul

Meta
Hi Paul
Hi Kitty,

When I preview this message, it's a mess!  I have not changed any
settings in either Yahoo Groups nor Thunderbird Compose.  Any thoughts?
Possibly the preview is inaccurate and you will receive a well-groomed
message...

-Jack

[Except that your response lines were not ended by hard returns (Yahoo
seems to have stopped inserting these for a text only group), which
are easy enough to insert, the formatting, as received in Kitty's
email notice and in the group queue, is perfect. --Paul]
/Meta

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 07/01/2009 10:51 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
> > This is a response to a portion of message 1964.
> >
> >>> An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have
> >>> never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for
> >>> determining my blood content and their respective concentrations. I
> >>> would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits
> >>> (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less
> >>> likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my body.
> >>>
> >> I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct
> >> process
> >> of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as is any
> >> puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you
> >> physiologically receive. It the phlebotomist is competent, then that
> >> should be the only negative of the process.
> >>
> > I can recall only competent blood draws, yet I've always experienced
> > some sort of "shut down" by my body.
>
> Since most humans do not experience this and it is hard to even imagine
> any physiological cause for it, the experience is almost certainly a
> psychosomatic (literally mind-body) result of your mind and the anxiety
> within it. But such mind generated causes are ultimately under your
> conscious and reprogrammed subconscious control.

I understand that my "anxiety attack" is something I am creating in
subconscious, likely as a response to avoid pain or suffering.  More below...

> >> Any "sickening feeling of
> >> being sucked dry" is merely your own emotional (psychological) baggage
> >> (it is a very tiny amount of your total blood, so the whole idea of
> >> being "sucked dry" is simply nonsense) which you can and would
> >> best work to eliminate.
> >>
> > I have tried lying in bed at night and envisioning the mechanics of the
> > draw, and to date I have been surprised at how anxious I get right
> > there in the bed, tensing up, breathing shallow and quickly.
>
> First, quit even imagining the "mechanics" of the draw. Simply dwell
> on all the peripheral events involved and the benefits of the whole.

OK, I'll start here, but do you mean all together?
I planned to continue learning the "mechanics", only stopping before
or during a draw.  I have enjoyed reading about and envisioning how
the skin organ and vein are disturbed by the entry of the needle,
followed by platelet plug formation and blood coagulation at the
vessel walls, etc.

> Second, squelch any anxiety by strongly telling yourself what an idiot
> you are to feel that way and how counterproductive it is again because
> of all the benefits of the blood letting and the test results.

"How counterproductive", agreed.

I don't understood why you use "idiot" since the word does not apply
to me, since in present day refers to those with especially abnormally
poor intellects.  The Greek "idiote" referred to one who was static in
hir learning of subjects outside of hir "private station".  I could
become that idiote if I ceased to educate myself; for example, I could
move back to Indiana and live on my father's farm as a Jack-of-all-trades.

Why do you choose to use "idiot"?

> Think
> about all the times that you have cut, scraped or otherwise caused your
> skin to be punctured and bleed profusely and how these did not cause you
> to have this same shut down due to anxiety.

Thanks for the suggestion of considering examples, of which I realize
if and only if I watched the puncture event did I react with anxiety.
All other times I react as you describe:

> In fact, likely quite the
> opposite, your reaction was either to ignore it if small (sometimes not
> even to consciously be aware of its existence until much later,
> particularly if you were intent on a particular task while the
> cut/scrape occurred) or, if large, to immediately take action to stem
> the blood flow and patch the wound. Why should there be any difference
> (except from a foolish mind) between the exact same thing being caused
> by an intentional act rather than a chance accident or error of
> carelessness.

Great suggestions for consideration (intentional vs not).

> > I have attended two blood draws within the past year, one where the
> > needle was very small and the phlebotomist very competent, one
> > where the
> > needle was relatively large and the phlebotomist new but fairly steady.
> >
> > I definitely had a greater physical response (much like the one
> > described above) to the draw with a larger needle.
>
> You are making a major mistake by even looking at the needles or any
> other mechanics of the draw. I can do this with interest and without
> anxiety problems and so I do this to get added benefit from the
> procedure - partly to myself to be able to do a venipuncture for IV
> purposes, if I ever need to. However, Kitty, even though a former
> registered nurse, is still a little squeamish about having herself
> intentionally pricked and purposefully does not watch the mechanics of
> the procedure but rather keeps her eyes and mind on something else.
> Perhaps long after you have stopped this anxiety attack from occurring
> during blood draws, then you will be able to once more view the
> mechanics and gain the added benefits of doing so.

Your last sentence is my hope!

> [I agree with Paul. The best thing I would suggest under your
> circumstances, which are similar reactions to what I experienced in the
> past, is to *not* look at the phlebotomist preparing for or actually
> doing the procedure. I converse with hir on other or even related
> matters, but purposely do not look.

Funny thing is that until recently, I thought this technique was my
evasion of reality, so I decided to cut the small talk, etc., instead
taking interest in the mechanics by watching with deep interest and
asking the professionals about the strategies/methods.  Maybe I "took
too large of a bite".

> This method and the others that I
> took when I first joined Paul have enabled me to have venipunctures for
> multiple tubes of blood without any of the awful sensations - and even
> blacking out - that occurred in the past. I don't spend any time
> thinking about the actual procedure itself - I think that this too is
> important. Maybe sometime in the future I will look, but I'm not
> especially motivated to doing so. Everything goes quite well now and
> that is my interest.

Do you think about the procedure when far from having a blood draw?

> Another suggestion, is requesting that a draw, which will require
> multiple test tubes for samples, be done using a butterfly.

Interesting, thanks for the suggestion -- I will inquire.

> This is a
> very small bore needle attached to flexible tubing that enables the
> phlebotomist to change test tubes without disturbing the needle in the
> vein. I regularly request this since the sensation at the venipuncture
> site when the test tube is changed is not at all pleasant to me and I
> think it has in the past contributed to the anxiousness I have
> experienced. Phlebotomists do not want a patient to pass out, so if
> you firmly request a butterfly for that reason, they will almost
> always readily comply. Yes, this extends the time it takes to complete
> the withdrawal of blood - but not greatly - and a phlebotomist in a
> hurry may balk. But if you insist, s/he will not refuse to comply.
> **Kitty]
>
> > Since many years ago, I have always prepared myself with very positive
> > thoughts about the usefulness of the draw along with the interesting
> > physics of pressure differences between vein and tube/needle, plus I
> > always watch the needle enter and leave.
>
> At least for the time being until the anxiety has been eliminated, you
> would do best to totally quit thinking about and watching the mechanics
> of the draw.
>
> Jack, having observed for some years now, both your actions and your
> descriptions of your thoughts and feelings, it appears to me that you
> have a strongly ingrained approach to yourself as an outside spectator
> viewing the strange but very interesting actions of another person. In
> fact, you are so fascinated by the activities of this other person
> (actually yourself in this case) that you do not wish to interfere and
> cause any changes to that other person. IOW, rather than directly
> experiencing the life you are living, you act as a vicarious and
> dilettante spectator of your own life.

I agree that at times I have practiced delightful examination of my
activities, since I have become interested in dealing with two
difficulties: 1) making sure my presentations were palatable and 2)
discovering actions that conflicted with my intentions.
For an example regarding 1), when I've given a presentation of something
important to me, I am often nervous that
a) I am considered far beneath those in attendance, and
b) none of them (know how to) care to participate in my development.
In class, at a lab meeting, and at Meetup groups, I get the sense that
most are inwardly obsessed and socially careless.  Since I notice this
attitude often, I want to do my best to not exaggerate the distance
between myself and them by replacing a set of poor habits that are
related to protecting myself from embarrassing jesters (stemming from
middle and high school experiences).
Instead of self-protection, I hope redirect my focus toward reading
the audience well and coupling this with a presentation that draws
them (as many as possible) in for a deeply meaningful exchange, both
in terms of fully addressing the subject and my own personal growth in
presenting information for consideration.

To address this, I watch myself and look for distracting qualities; I
also attempt to model others who I consider to be inviting and
intriguing.  I do gain delight in real-time self-reflection.

It is possible that I spend too much time doing this and also for the
wrong reasons (e.g. to make sure I look pop-culturally attractive).

Vicariously, I highly doubt;  the concept suggests that I am
developing a second personality, one that can mostly independently
judge the original.  In addition to doubt, I am confused why you have
chosen this word; if you have the interest and time, will you
elucidate?

> I urge you to do your utmost to
> stop this approach. Get fully involved with and fully connected to
> your life instead of merely viewing its passing scene. Life is for fully
> living and directly experiencing rather than for amused vicarious
> titillation. It may be okay to view the lives of others as merely actors
> on a big stage (although to the extent that their actions also affect
> you this too is not conducive to increasing your lifetime happiness),
> but it is most certainly a grave and anti-life error to view your own
> life that way.

Intuitively, I think I had been doing both, fully living and delightfully
studying my responses.
I am fascinated that I do become so deeply engaged in some activities
whereas others are sleep-inducing (yawns, disinterest, much reduced
excitement for the moment).  More surprising is that I can create a
philosophy that discourages most reasoning for participation in an
activity, say playing basketball, and then demand of myself that I
cease a particular action for two years -- yet -- that activity,
basketball, might bring me hours of continuous joy, even after the two
year drought!

Likewise, I can create a philosophy that brings to the top the most
important reasoning for participation in an activity such as learning
about my body/health/wellness, and then demand of myself that I
practice the related activities for two years -- yet-- I will cease
that activity 100% the day after two years and feel no loss!

I like to watch and analyze myself now and then to discover the secrets
to my failures and successes.

> > I typically am slightly tense
> > just before the needle goes in, then I wait a little bit (breath,
> > breath), then a rush of something comes over my body accompanied by
> > emphysema-like shortness of breath and I feel warned that I am in
> > danger
> > ("sucked dry" is what I used before, but it's not clearly related to
> > blood loss, maybe something to do with "invasion" too -- hard to say
> > because there are no relevant thoughts prior to or during).
>
> Have you never had a splinter or other foreign object "invade" your body
> accidentally or due to carelessness? When this occurred did you feel
> the same anxiety of "invasion" over that occurrence?

Only if I visually witnessed the puncture -- to this day, I can
vividly recall two 15-18 year-old acquaintances of mine wrestling for
control of a tool they each found in the basement of their home -- it
had a long wooden handle, like that of a garden hoe and the end
equipped with a metal hook.  I visually witnessed the hook end enter
(1/4 to 1/2 inch) and leave the right calf of the older (brother).
Even though it happened to someone else, I experienced the suddenly
intense response.

I can recall one vivid visual removal of 1/2 inch of Honey Locust thorn
http://www.mitzenmacher.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/thorn.jpg
from the area just below my knee cap. That caused quite a horrified
reaction as I yanked it out and immediately after as I comprehended
the entry and removal of the thorn.

All other foreign objects (splinters, scratches, etc) that I do not
see enter, do not bother me a bit (besides some pain).  All rougher
damage that I do see, such as deep scratches, smaller thorns with
barbs, splinters, etc. do not bother me either.

> If you did not
> (as I am pretty sure is the case) then your mind is just being foolish
> to react differently to the exact same occurrence happening in a
> controlled manner rather than by chance. Tell yourself that and try
> your best to eliminate it every time you have that emotion. (Note that
> I am not talking here about a major stab wound or other trauma which
> can result in both great pain and immediate major blood loss, both of
> which will physiologically cause immediate blood pressure reduction
> and possible loss of consciousness, but rather the scrapes and cuts
> that a person as active as yourself gets as a part of everyday living,
> particularly for someone who uses tools.)

I agree that I have been acting counter to my values, and for some
unknown reasons, treating similar occurrences very differently, which
is wrong.
I do not consider myself foolish nor idiotic however.  IMO, these two
terms should be reserved for one who cannot improve hir intellect.
Those who can improve intellect yet lack in judgment and act contrary
to their values can be described with words such as naive and immature.

The last "note" is understood.

> > When this first happened to me (my first blood draw in many years,
> > between 12 and 16 years ago), I was naive about the whole process.
> > Again, I watched the needle go in and was slightly tense from the pain
> > but really just naive, and suddenly in a few seconds, that same rush
> > came over me.  I ended up blacking out (sweating profusely and reality
> > almost disappeared into a small round dot), followed by recovery
> > within
> > minutes, though I was still weak in the knees from the novelty.
> >
> > I was shocked and interested in why it happened.  "Low sugar" and
> > "sudden drop in blood pressure", were suggested, with only the blood
> > pressure drop making any sense to me.
> > Is it possible that my initial anxiety causes a drop in blood pressure,
> > further escalating my anxiety, like a feedback loop?
>
> The anxiety attack is sufficiently intense to initiate release of blood
> pressure decreasing hormones. No feedback was necessary and did not
> likely occur because the lower BP could not cause any immediate
> psychological anxiety. It is the opposite of the fight or flight effect,
> which increases heart rate and BP.
>
> >> As with any other irrational emotion, you work to
> >> reprogram yourself so that it no longer occurs. You do this by first
> >> having at your mind's edge, all the positive reasons why getting blood
> >> drawn is beneficial to you and even the benefits of the process itself
> >> (enjoying the interesting mechanics of it: the competence of your body
> >> pumping out the blood to fill the tubes, the competent work of the
> >> phlebotomist and the technically neat way that such a blood draw
> >> can be
> >> accomplished, the friendly chatting with hir, particularly if s/he is
> >> someone who you see regularly, the way your own competent body
> >> quickly seals and heals the puncture).
> >
> > These are VERY helpful, thank you.  I am practicing these perspectives
> > and learning more details of the healing puncture.
>
> Except note that I have now changed my recommendations to totally cease
> any thinking about or interest in the mechanics of the procedure, at
> least until you have eliminated all anxiety.

Noted.

> > I have a blood draw for LEF/Labcorp to accomplish this month...
> >
> >> So as soon as this "sickening
> >> feeling" occurs you tell yourself what an idiot you are to feel this
> >> way, you strongly squelch and deny the feeling (effectively tell it to
> >> "get lost and do not bother me any more"), you then concentrate on
> >> all the
> >> short and long range positives of the procedure and its end results.
> >>
> > Thank you -- I will practice this as well, maybe even write it on an
> > index card for reminders in case I distract myself with other
> > thoughts.
> > I have not been well-focused in past personal blood draws thus
> > inviting hazard to the outcome, so being prepared and maintaining
> > focus will help.
>
> Not just focus, but also distraction of your thoughts away from the
> mechanics of the blood draw.
>
> > (Thanks for the word "hazard" -- I gained it from your exchange
> > with Chad)
>
> Good, both to the word and to the news that you read the exchange.
>
> >> If
> >> you keep doing this, then in time the emotion will be eradicated
> >> and you
> >> will be *free* of it (similar to the way your immune system rids your
> >> body of a pathogen - an inconsistent emotion is a pathogen of the
> >> mind).
> >>
> > "Pathogen of the mind" -- I will remember this :)
>
> It is another one of those potentially problematic metaphors, but in
> this case I think it is a sufficiently accurate correspondence to be
> useful.
>
> >> Actually, I have been through all this before in past posts on the
> >> subject of changing emotional habits, so I am surprised that you
> >> did not
> >> realize that those posts about other emotions and emotions in general
> >> apply to this one also. You must sometime get to the point where you
> >> fully understand that your emotions do not come out of nowhere and are
> >> not in control of you, but rather they are products of your values and
> >> rational thoughts and are totally under your control with respect to
> >> making them consistent with those values and thoughts.
> >>
> > I recognized the similar methods and have been practicing a few as I
> > described above.  However, I have not *strongly* squelched or denied
> > feelings before, as I always thought of them as interesting in
> > addition
> > to debilitating.  I gained some happiness from considering the strange
> > phenomenon,
>
> These last two sentences, in the light of my previous experiences with
> you, are what caused me to think that you are far too much a vicarious
> spectator of your own life events rather than a direct experiencer of
> those events. I say "far too much" because some such self analysis and
> introspection is definitely both enjoyable and useful - I have certainly
> done lots of that and continue to do so. However, because it is almost
> always done afterward the events being recollected and analyzed, my
> self observation and analysis does not prevent me from also directly
> experiencing my life events, but rather helps me to put them into
> perspective, to understand them and to help/modify them to be more
> successful in similar future circumstances.

I am glad that you are thinking about me and offering critical
analyses for my consideration.  I expand/explain a little above and I
have no intention of brushing aside your comments; instead, I am
deliberately considering what you have shared and looking for
opportunities to practice directly experiencing events coupled with an
awareness to postpone introspection to afterward.
Thank you for the suggestions!

> > but I also realize that I have missed out on much more
> > happiness regarding future blood draws.
>
> I hope you will now give some thought to this being a symptom of more
> "missing out" than of merely the benefits from blood draws.

I am thinking about it.

--David Jackemeyer

> > --David Jackemeyer
> > (left the remainder for context and review)
>
> I also left it in for now.
>
> --Paul

<snipped the remainder previously left in>

[Meta
I apologize for not getting to this sooner, but Yahoo did not send us
a notice of a new message waiting as it usually does and neither I nor
Kitty have looked at the group in the last 3 days. We will have to
check more often from now on even if we do not get a notice.
/Meta --Paul]

Paul,

I figured if anyone would know, you would.  Is the potential for rapamycin as
promising as this article suggests?

http://www.physorg.com/news166279683.html

Mark Patterson

[Thanks for posting this Mark.

Yes, this positive rapamycin lifespan study is very interesting, but
for those of us who have been closely following the literature on
everything related to life extension, it was not at all surprising.
Rapamycin is not really an "antibiotic" as some people have stated,
but is rather an inhibitor of cell growth. That is why it is in trials
as a possible anti-cancer therapeutic and it is also the reason for
great caution by a healthy person towards it - it will inhibit the
growth and multiplication of immune cells and may greatly inhibit the
immune response necessary to combat any infection. Many of the same
pathway effects of taking rapamycin (which inhibits a major pathway
regulated by an enzyme called mTOR) can be obtained by many other
supplements and by caloric restriction (CR) or intermittent fasting
(IF). For details on this and several news stories about the rapamycin
study see the thread on sci.life-extension: http://tinyurl.com/nq66jy

BTW, you will notice a major difference in the amount of life
extension quoted in the different stories. The link that you gave
above misinterpreted the study results and used the percentages of
extension of the remaining life at the late age (60 weeks) at which
the rapamycin cohort began taking it. The true figures for total life
extension were 9% for males and 14% for females - a small but still
amazing amount considering that 60 weeks for a mouse is equivalent to
about 60 years for a human. Furthermore, few CR studies have shown
that large an extending when started that late in the life of the
animal under study.

I first got onto rapamycin when mTOR inhibition kept turning up and
showing itself to be a good thing (if not done so strongly that
immunity is also inhibited). Among other things mTOR inhibition and
autophagy promotion are closely related. To find out more about this
read the papers of "Blagosklonny MV" who has been promoting autophagy
and rapapmycin for many years.

Note that the use of rapamycin and the inhibition of mTOR is
completely contrary to the notion of taking hGH for anti-aging
purposes. It has always been my stand that yes, taking hGH will likely
increase the quality of life for a person who has already let hirself
become sarcopenic and generally feeble, and it may even thereby extend
hir lifespan moderately beyond what it would have been if s/he had
remained in the previous state. However, for an already healthy person
who takes all possible steps to not become sarcopenic and feeble, its
use is operating in the wrong direction to the biological pathways
alterations that will extend lifespan.

The bottom line on rapamycin is that I am already doing many things
that are working in the same biochemical pathway direction as the
inhibition of mTOR by rapamycin and because of the immune suppressing
potential, I am still not in any hurry to get some and start taking
it. I will continue to follow the research and after a few more
studies, hopefully some relating to immunity, I will likely consider
trying out a small dosage along with everything else.

Additionally, it should be noted that also this past week was released
the latest results on the rhesus monkey lifespan study, which results
clearly shows that calorie restriction (CR) is highly effective in a
moderately long lived primate (about 1/3 the lifespan of a human).
What these stories do not emphasize, unfortunately, is that
intermittent fasting (IF) has been shown to have the same or better
effects than CR (albeit not as often studied), without the need for
such extreme CR. I and Kitty fast one day out of every three as well
as moderately restrict total calories - we have been doing this for
just over 1 year now. The beauty of IF fasting is that you can get to
feel really full on those days when you do eat. So IMO, IF is a far
more quality of life enhancing method of life extension.  --Paul]

[One of several recent articles on the calorie restricted rhesus
monkeys - http://tinyurl.com/kq99v2 in Science News. **Kitty]

On 07/01/2009 10:51 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
> This is a response to a portion of message 1964.
>
>>> An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have
>>> never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for
>>> determining my blood content and their respective concentrations. I
>>> would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits
>>> (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less
>>> likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my body.
>>>
>> I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct process
>> of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as is any
>> puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you
>> physiologically receive. It the phlebotomist is competent, then that
>> should be the only negative of the process.
>>
> I can recall only competent blood draws, yet I've always experienced
> some sort of "shut down" by my body.

Since most humans do not experience this and it is hard to even imagine
any physiological cause for it, the experience is almost certainly a
psychosomatic (literally mind-body) result of your mind and the anxiety
within it. But such mind generated causes are ultimately under your
conscious and reprogrammed subconscious control.

>> Any "sickening feeling of
>> being sucked dry" is merely your own emotional (psychological) baggage
>> (it is a very tiny amount of your total blood, so the whole idea of
>> being "sucked dry" is simply nonsense) which you can and would best work
>> to eliminate.
>>
> I have tried lying in bed at night and envisioning the mechanics of the
> draw, and to date I have been surprised at how anxious I get right there
> in the bed, tensing up, breathing shallow and quickly.

First, quit even imagining the "mechanics" of the draw. Simply dwell
on all the peripheral events involved and the benefits of the whole.
Second, squelch any anxiety by strongly telling yourself what an idiot
you are to feel that way and how counterproductive it is again because
of all the benefits of the blood letting and the test results. Think
about all the times that you have cut, scraped or otherwise caused your
skin to be punctured and bleed profusely and how these did not cause you
to have this same shut down due to anxiety. In fact, likely quite the
opposite, your reaction was either to ignore it if small (sometimes not
even to consciously be aware of its existence until much later,
particularly if you were intent on a particular task while the
cut/scrape occurred) or, if large, to immediately take action to stem
the blood flow and patch the wound. Why should there be any difference
(except from a foolish mind) between the exact same thing being caused
by an intentional act rather than a chance accident or error of
carelessness.

> I have attended two blood draws within the past year, one where the
> needle was very small and the phlebotomist very competent, one where the
> needle was relatively large and the phlebotomist new but fairly steady.
>
> I definitely had a greater physical response (much like the one
> described above) to the draw with a larger needle.

You are making a major mistake by even looking at the needles or any
other mechanics of the draw. I can do this with interest and without
anxiety problems and so I do this to get added benefit from the
procedure - partly to myself to be able to do a venipuncture for IV
purposes, if I ever need to. However, Kitty, even though a former
registered nurse, is still a little squeamish about having herself
intentionally pricked and purposefully does not watch the mechanics of
the procedure but rather keeps her eyes and mind on something else.
Perhaps long after you have stopped this anxiety attack from occurring
during blood draws, then you will be able to once more view the
mechanics and gain the added benefits of doing so.

[I agree with Paul. The best thing I would suggest under your
circumstances, which are similar reactions to what I experienced in the
past, is to *not* look at the phlebotomist preparing for or actually
doing the procedure. I converse with hir on other or even related
matters, but purposely do not look. This method and the others that I
took when I first joined Paul have enabled me to have venipunctures for
multiple tubes of blood without any of the awful sensations - and even
blacking out - that occurred in the past. I don't spend any time
thinking about the actual procedure itself - I think that this too is
important. Maybe sometime in the future I will look, but I'm not
especially motivated to doing so. Everything goes quite well now and
that is my interest.

Another suggestion, is requesting that a draw, which will require
multiple test tubes for samples, be done using a butterfly. This is a
very small bore needle attached to flexible tubing that enables the
phlebotomist to change test tubes without disturbing the needle in the
vein. I regularly request this since the sensation at the venipuncture
site when the test tube is changed is not at all pleasant to me and I
think it has in the past contributed to the anxiousness I have
experienced. Phlebotomists do not want a patient to pass out, so if
you firmly request a butterfly for that reason, they will almost
always readily comply. Yes, this extends the time it takes to complete
the withdrawal of blood - but not greatly - and a phlebotomist in a
hurry may balk. But if you insist, s/he will not refuse to comply. **Kitty]

> Since many years ago, I have always prepared myself with very positive
> thoughts about the usefulness of the draw along with the interesting
> physics of pressure differences between vein and tube/needle, plus I
> always watch the needle enter and leave.

At least for the time being until the anxiety has been eliminated, you
would do best to totally quit thinking about and watching the mechanics
of the draw.

Jack, having observed for some years now, both your actions and your
descriptions of your thoughts and feelings, it appears to me that you
have a strongly ingrained approach to yourself as an outside spectator
viewing the strange but very interesting actions of another person. In
fact, you are so fascinated by the activities of this other person
(actually yourself in this case) that you do not wish to interfere and
cause any changes to that other person. IOW, rather than directly
experiencing the life you are living, you act as a vicarious and
dilettante spectator of your own life. I urge you to do your utmost to
stop this approach. Get fully involved with and fully connected to
your life instead of merely viewing its passing scene. Life is for fully
living and directly experiencing rather than for amused vicarious
titillation. It may be okay to view the lives of others as merely actors
on a big stage (although to the extent that their actions also affect
you this too is not conducive to increasing your lifetime happiness),
but it is most certainly a grave and anti-life error to view your own
life that way.

> I typically am slightly tense
> just before the needle goes in, then I wait a little bit (breath,
> breath), then a rush of something comes over my body accompanied by
> emphysema-like shortness of breath and I feel warned that I am in danger
> ("sucked dry" is what I used before, but it's not clearly related to
> blood loss, maybe something to do with "invasion" too -- hard to say
> because there are no relevant thoughts prior to or during).

Have you never had a splinter or other foreign object "invade" your body
accidentally or due to carelessness? When this occurred did you feel
the same anxiety of "invasion" over that occurrence? If you did not
(as I am pretty sure is the case) then your mind is just being foolish
to react differently to the exact same occurrence happening in a
controlled manner rather than by chance. Tell yourself that and try
your best to eliminate it every time you have that emotion. (Note that
I am not talking here about a major stab wound or other trauma which
can result in both great pain and immediate major blood loss, both of
which will physiologically cause immediate blood pressure reduction
and possible loss of consciousness, but rather the scrapes and cuts
that a person as active as yourself gets as a part of everyday living,
particularly for someone who uses tools.)

> When this first happened to me (my first blood draw in many years,
> between 12 and 16 years ago), I was naive about the whole process.
> Again, I watched the needle go in and was slightly tense from the pain
> but really just naive, and suddenly in a few seconds, that same rush
> came over me.  I ended up blacking out (sweating profusely and reality
> almost disappeared into a small round dot), followed by recovery within
> minutes, though I was still weak in the knees from the novelty.
>
> I was shocked and interested in why it happened.  "Low sugar" and
> "sudden drop in blood pressure", were suggested, with only the blood
> pressure drop making any sense to me.
> Is it possible that my initial anxiety causes a drop in blood pressure,
> further escalating my anxiety, like a feedback loop?

The anxiety attack is sufficiently intense to initiate release of blood
pressure decreasing hormones. No feedback was necessary and did not
likely occur because the lower BP could not cause any immediate
psychological anxiety. It is the opposite of the fight or flight effect,
which increases heart rate and BP.

>> As with any other irrational emotion, you work to
>> reprogram yourself so that it no longer occurs. You do this by first
>> having at your mind's edge, all the positive reasons why getting blood
>> drawn is beneficial to you and even the benefits of the process itself
>> (enjoying the interesting mechanics of it: the competence of your body
>> pumping out the blood to fill the tubes, the competent work of the
>> phlebotomist and the technically neat way that such a blood draw can be
>> accomplished, the friendly chatting with hir, particularly if s/he is
>> someone who you see regularly, the way your own competent body
>> quickly seals and heals the puncture).
>
> These are VERY helpful, thank you.  I am practicing these perspectives
> and learning more details of the healing puncture.

Except note that I have now changed my recommendations to totally cease
any thinking about or interest in the mechanics of the procedure, at
least until you have eliminated all anxiety.

> I have a blood draw for LEF/Labcorp to accomplish this month...
>
>> So as soon as this "sickening
>> feeling" occurs you tell yourself what an idiot you are to feel this
>> way, you strongly squelch and deny the feeling (effectively tell it to
>> "get lost and do not bother me any more"), you then concentrate on
>> all the
>> short and long range positives of the procedure and its end results.
>>
> Thank you -- I will practice this as well, maybe even write it on an
> index card for reminders in case I distract myself with other thoughts.
> I have not been well-focused in past personal blood draws thus
> inviting hazard to the outcome, so being prepared and maintaining focus
> will help.

Not just focus, but also distraction of your thoughts away from the
mechanics of the blood draw.

> (Thanks for the word "hazard" -- I gained it from your exchange with Chad)

Good, both to the word and to the news that you read the exchange.

>> If
>> you keep doing this, then in time the emotion will be eradicated and you
>> will be *free* of it (similar to the way your immune system rids your
>> body of a pathogen - an inconsistent emotion is a pathogen of the mind).
>>
> "Pathogen of the mind" -- I will remember this :)

It is another one of those potentially problematic metaphors, but in
this case I think it is a sufficiently accurate correspondence to be
useful.

>> Actually, I have been through all this before in past posts on the
>> subject of changing emotional habits, so I am surprised that you did not
>> realize that those posts about other emotions and emotions in general
>> apply to this one also. You must sometime get to the point where you
>> fully understand that your emotions do not come out of nowhere and are
>> not in control of you, but rather they are products of your values and
>> rational thoughts and are totally under your control with respect to
>> making them consistent with those values and thoughts.
>>
> I recognized the similar methods and have been practicing a few as I
> described above.  However, I have not *strongly* squelched or denied
> feelings before, as I always thought of them as interesting in addition
> to debilitating.  I gained some happiness from considering the strange
> phenomenon,

These last two sentences, in the light of my previous experiences with
you, are what caused me to think that you are far too much a vicarious
spectator of your own life events rather than a direct experiencer of
those events. I say "far too much" because some such self analysis and
introspection is definitely both enjoyable and useful - I have certainly
done lots of that and continue to do so. However, because it is almost
always done afterward the events being recollected and analyzed, my
self observation and analysis does not prevent me from also directly
experiencing my life events, but rather helps me to put them into
perspective, to understand them and to help/modify them to be more
successful in similar future circumstances.

> but I also realize that I have missed out on much more
> happiness regarding future blood draws.

I hope you will now give some thought to this being a symptom of more
"missing out" than of merely the benefits from blood draws.

> --David Jackemeyer
> (left the remainder for context and review)

I also left it in for now.

--Paul

>> [I was a person who for many years dreaded venipunctures and even
>> fingersticks  - to the point that I actually felt faint when they took
>> place. (Having been a nurse for 16 years didn't change this.) I knew
>> that this was a psychological reaction but also knew no way to really
>> get rid of the awful emotional reaction/physiological sensations that
>> occurred. I went through the process because I was well aware of the
>> importance and physical benefit to me; I just tried to not look or
>> even think about it and hope that I wouldn't pass out.
>>
>> It wasn't too long after joining Paul that the periodic fingersticks
>> for fasting blood glucose started - he'd been doing it for years. I
>> couldn't bring myself to prick my own finger but let Paul do it to me
>> - while I was lying in bed because the first couple times I felt
>> faint. With explanation by Paul as to how to take control of these
>> (and other) emotions (and Paul has improved his explanation since
>> then), I began to do just that. Within a couple weeks I was sticking
>> myself with the automatic gadget without any sickening fear. (Changing
>> the lancet at the first indication that it's beginning to get dull -
>> it then starts to hurt - makes a big difference.)
>>
>> I still don't watch the phlebotomist do the actual draw on me - though
>> I don't mind watching Paul get stuck and had little problem doing
>> numerous venipunctures on others for starting infusions when I was a
>> nurse. But I no longer get faint, even when the phlebotomist is not
>> the very best and misses my excellent veins.
>>
>> I know from personal experience that ridding oneself of these
>> pathogenic emotional responses (as Paul has newly named them) can be
>> done - this experience above is just one where I've succeeded. Maybe
>> some others on the group will share their experiences. **Kitty]
>>
>>
>>> Instead of comfortably avoiding blood drawings, I ought to seek them,
>>> possibly even participate in training to learn to safely and
>>> effectively draw from myself.
>>>
>> Any puncture to the body is a chance for infection and should never be
>> done intentionally unless there is a good overall benefit from its
>> occurrence. With respect to doing it to yourself, while it would always
>> be beneficial to learn such a technique, and you could perhaps draw
>> your own blood from a leg vein, it would be both difficult and possibly
>> error prone (harmful to yourself) to draw blood from your own arm
>> (injecting a fluid is far easier than drawing/removing blood).
>>
>>
>>> With the right schedule and attitude, I think I could eventually lean
>>> toward drawing blood rather than avoiding it.
>>>
>> You will never do so without conscious action to eliminate your
>> irrational negative emotions (not to say that negative emotions are
>> always irrational or that positive ones are always rational) about it
>> and replace them with positive ones. You will never succeed for very
>> long at any attempt to act counter to your emotions. Rather you will
>> only succeed in such action if you eliminate the negative emotion and
>> replace it with a positive one. Put another way, you cannot for long
>> make yourself do anything that you do not feel good about, and it is
>> folly to try, because the ultimate result will only be a feeling of
>> failure and a resultant loss of self-esteem.
>>

This is a response to a portion of message 1964.

> > An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have
> > never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for
> > determining my blood content and their respective concentrations. I
> > would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits
> > (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less
> > likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my body.
>
> I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct process
> of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as is any
> puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you
> physiologically receive. It the phlebotomist is competent, then that
> should be the only negative of the process.

I can recall only competent blood draws, yet I've always experienced
some sort of "shut down" by my body.

> Any "sickening feeling of
> being sucked dry" is merely your own emotional (psychological) baggage
> (it is a very tiny amount of your total blood, so the whole idea of
> being "sucked dry" is simply nonsense) which you can and would best work
> to eliminate.

I have tried lying in bed at night and envisioning the mechanics of the
draw, and to date I have been surprised at how anxious I get right there
in the bed, tensing up, breathing shallow and quickly.
I have attended two blood draws within the past year, one where the
needle was very small and the phlebotomist very competent, one where the
needle was relatively large and the phlebotomist new but fairly steady.

I definitely had a greater physical response (much like the one
described above) to the draw with a larger needle.

Since many years ago, I have always prepared myself with very positive
thoughts about the usefulness of the draw along with the interesting
physics of pressure differences between vein and tube/needle, plus I
always watch the needle enter and leave.  I typically am slightly tense
just before the needle goes in, then I wait a little bit (breath,
breath), then a rush of something comes over my body accompanied by
emphysema-like shortness of breath and I feel warned that I am in danger
("sucked dry" is what I used before, but it's not clearly related to
blood loss, maybe something to do with "invasion" too -- hard to say
because there are no relevant thoughts prior to or during).

When this first happened to me (my first blood draw in many years,
between 12 and 16 years ago), I was naive about the whole process.
Again, I watched the needle go in and was slightly tense from the pain
but really just naive, and suddenly in a few seconds, that same rush
came over me.  I ended up blacking out (sweating profusely and reality
almost disappeared into a small round dot), followed by recovery within
minutes, though I was still weak in the knees from the novelty.

I was shocked and interested in why it happened.  "Low sugar" and
"sudden drop in blood pressure", were suggested, with only the blood
pressure drop making any sense to me.
Is it possible that my initial anxiety causes a drop in blood pressure,
further escalating my anxiety, like a feedback loop?

> As with any other irrational emotion, you work to
> reprogram yourself so that it no longer occurs. You do this by first
> having at your mind's edge, all the positive reasons why getting blood
> drawn is beneficial to you and even the benefits of the process itself
> (enjoying the interesting mechanics of it: the competence of your body
> pumping out the blood to fill the tubes, the competent work of the
> phlebotomist and the technically neat way that such a blood draw can be
> accomplished, the friendly chatting with hir, particularly if s/he is
> someone who you see regularly, the way your own competent body
> quickly seals and heals the puncture).

These are VERY helpful, thank you.  I am practicing these perspectives
and learning more details of the healing puncture.

I have a blood draw for LEF/Labcorp to accomplish this month...

> So as soon as this "sickening
> feeling" occurs you tell yourself what an idiot you are to feel this
> way, you strongly squelch and deny the feeling (effectively tell it to
> "get lost and do not bother me any more"), you then concentrate on
> all the
> short and long range positives of the procedure and its end results.

Thank you -- I will practice this as well, maybe even write it on an
index card for reminders in case I distract myself with other thoughts.
  I have not been well-focused in past personal blood draws thus
inviting hazard to the outcome, so being prepared and maintaining focus
will help.

(Thanks for the word "hazard" -- I gained it from your exchange with Chad)

> If
> you keep doing this, then in time the emotion will be eradicated and you
> will be *free* of it (similar to the way your immune system rids your
> body of a pathogen - an inconsistent emotion is a pathogen of the mind).

"Pathogen of the mind" -- I will remember this :)

> Actually, I have been through all this before in past posts on the
> subject of changing emotional habits, so I am surprised that you did not
> realize that those posts about other emotions and emotions in general
> apply to this one also. You must sometime get to the point where you
> fully understand that your emotions do not come out of nowhere and are
> not in control of you, but rather they are products of your values and
> rational thoughts and are totally under your control with respect to
> making them consistent with those values and thoughts.

I recognized the similar methods and have been practicing a few as I
described above.  However, I have not *strongly* squelched or denied
feelings before, as I always thought of them as interesting in addition
to debilitating.  I gained some happiness from considering the strange
phenomenon, but I also realize that I have missed out on much more
happiness regarding future blood draws.

--David Jackemeyer
(left the remainder for context and review)

> [I was a person who for many years dreaded venipunctures and even
> fingersticks  - to the point that I actually felt faint when they took
> place. (Having been a nurse for 16 years didn't change this.) I knew
> that this was a psychological reaction but also knew no way to really
> get rid of the awful emotional reaction/physiological sensations that
> occurred. I went through the process because I was well aware of the
> importance and physical benefit to me; I just tried to not look or
> even think about it and hope that I wouldn't pass out.
>
> It wasn't too long after joining Paul that the periodic fingersticks
> for fasting blood glucose started - he'd been doing it for years. I
> couldn't bring myself to prick my own finger but let Paul do it to me
> - while I was lying in bed because the first couple times I felt
> faint. With explanation by Paul as to how to take control of these
> (and other) emotions (and Paul has improved his explanation since
> then), I began to do just that. Within a couple weeks I was sticking
> myself with the automatic gadget without any sickening fear. (Changing
> the lancet at the first indication that it's beginning to get dull -
> it then starts to hurt - makes a big difference.)
>
> I still don't watch the phlebotomist do the actual draw on me - though
> I don't mind watching Paul get stuck and had little problem doing
> numerous venipunctures on others for starting infusions when I was a
> nurse. But I no longer get faint, even when the phlebotomist is not
> the very best and misses my excellent veins.
>
> I know from personal experience that ridding oneself of these
> pathogenic emotional responses (as Paul has newly named them) can be
> done - this experience above is just one where I've succeeded. Maybe
> some others on the group will share their experiences. **Kitty]
>
>
> > Instead of comfortably avoiding blood drawings, I ought to seek them,
> > possibly even participate in training to learn to safely and
> > effectively draw from myself.
>
> Any puncture to the body is a chance for infection and should never be
> done intentionally unless there is a good overall benefit from its
> occurrence. With respect to doing it to yourself, while it would always
> be beneficial to learn such a technique, and you could perhaps draw
> your own blood from a leg vein, it would be both difficult and possibly
> error prone (harmful to yourself) to draw blood from your own arm
> (injecting a fluid is far easier than drawing/removing blood).
>
> > With the right schedule and attitude, I think I could eventually lean
> > toward drawing blood rather than avoiding it.
>
> You will never do so without conscious action to eliminate your
> irrational negative emotions (not to say that negative emotions are
> always irrational or that positive ones are always rational) about it
> and replace them with positive ones. You will never succeed for very
> long at any attempt to act counter to your emotions. Rather you will
> only succeed in such action if you eliminate the negative emotion and
> replace it with a positive one. Put another way, you cannot for long
> make yourself do anything that you do not feel good about, and it is
> folly to try, because the ultimate result will only be a feeling of
> failure and a resultant loss of self-esteem.

On 06/23/2009 10:51 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 06/18/2009 07:41 AM, freechad480 wrote:
>>
>>> Stability Requirement
>>> "[S]uch increase [in Lifetime Happiness] also will be most easily
>>> achieved within an Environment that is very stable or at most undergoes
>>> relatively small Changes of certain Parameters in a cyclical or
>>> otherwise predictable manner." [1]  The reviewer agrees that a stable,
>>> predictable environment will best increase the Lifetime Happiness
>>> of the individuals located inside.
>>
>> Meta
>> The above should read "I agree that a stable ... ". Anything else
>> is a subterfuge.
>> /Meta
>>
> I, Chad Nelson, am a reviewer of your material.

If that is the case then you are doing a very poor and incomplete job.
What you are doing is no more than anyone does who comments very
selectively without reading related material. What I did in my comments
on the Mises.org article that attracted you was *much* more of a review
of that article than what you have done here so far. However, I did
not sign myself as "Reviewer", mainly because I consider that doing so
could reasonably be taken as pretentious.

[I have never seen any commenter to an article at mises.org or any other
website/blog close their posted entry regarding an article/essay or the
website in general with "Reviewer, John Doe" or "Jane Doe, Reviewer".
**Kitty]

> Calling myself what I am is only natural.

You are confusing "describing" yourself with "titling" yourself.
*Describing* yourself as a reviewer would be okay *if* you actually
were doing a real review. However, you are "titling" yourself as a
"reviewer" which is not the same thing at all. Most titles are not
granted to oneself (except by narcissistic people), but rather are
granted by others to a person. Even the title "Owner" is taken because
others have accepted the claim of ownership of the person using it,
thereby granting hir the use of such a title. You might also find it
instructive to google "referring to oneself in the third person" and
"titling" oneself, and read some of the hits.

> I reviewed this document.  Therefore, I am a reviewer.

You are not a reviewer accurately in "description" because of your
selectivity and misunderstandings. You are not a reviewer in "title"
because others have not granted you the privilege to call yourself a
reviewer of the SelfSIP writings.

> Paul you know who I am.  There is no deception, trickery,
> or subterfuge.

The "subterfuge", (not the best adjective, "pretense" or even
"imposture" would be better), involved does not relate to your identity,
but rather to your assumption of unentitled status and position.

It would be like if I put PhD after my name when I never completed
either of my PhD efforts. Although I am entitled to call myself
Professor Wakfer, since I was given that rank by the University of
Toronto, I have no desire to use it since I wish to persuade only by
logic and reason rather than by any academic or authority status. Even
those many people who sign themselves PhD (ABD) are being pretentious,
because they have not completed their PhD (ABD means "all but
dissertation"). I could truthfully put that twice after my name, but I
purposefully do not.

[Interestingly, all postal mail to Paul from the University of
Toronto, comes addressed to Professor David Paul Wakfer. They continue
to use that title even though Paul has never requested it. **Kitty]

> Now whether my reviews are useful is a matter up for debate.

Yes, but that is a totally independent and separable matter.

>>> The question, therefore, becomes what
>>> possible solutions exist for achieving such an environment?  Put another
>>> way, any solution that purports to increase the Lifetime Happiness must
>>> establish a measurable stability criteria.  Yes, the goal is to
>>> constantly increase stability, but there is a cut-off point as we
>>> asymptotically approach one hundred percent stability where we say
>>> this level is "good enough".  A measurable stability criteria is an
>>> amalgamation of various factors e.g. harm / unit time, environmental
>>> fluctuations / unit time, various human system fluctuations / unit
>>> time, etc.  Human system fluctuations are related to the physical and
>>> non-physical attributes of the human under obeservation.  Also worth
>>> pointing out is that short-term and long-term stability can be
>>> considered once such metrics are defined.
>>>
>> Meta
>> Once again a "we" can't do anything! Only individuals think, choose and
>> act. In particular "we" do not "asymptotically approach one hundred
>> percent stability", although perhaps a Society as a whole does that
>> according to some appropriate measure and system-wide process. In
>> addition, there is no "we" to say that "this level is "good enough"".
>> There are only individuals making individual evaluated choices and
>> thereby setting the stability level of their self-ordered society.
>>
> The term "we" was used very loosely here, and was not intended to
> imply a collective.

No word should ever be used "loosely", particularly when it has such
power to cloud minds with faulty notions. But certainly this can be
done inadvertently - my writing is not without such incorrect usages,
although almost never anymore with the first person plural.

[A careful reading of Paul's essay, "Collectivism in Language:
Its Effects on Valid Reasoning", is highly recommended.
http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/we.html  **Kitty]

> This is a micro- not macro- approach.  I agree
> that macro-level planning fails.

I think that both "micro-" and "macro-" do not adequately describe the
stabilizing feedback of cooperating elements of a System causing optimal
self-order as measured by the lifetime happiness metric. But perhaps
they are appropriate to describe some parts of the whole effect.

> I agree that individuals not groups
> make decisions, but systems like Wal-Mart can be developed that
> satisfy the needs of many individuals with diverse wants.  The
> assertion is that such a system could be developed at the community
> level.  The system could exist and the happiness of each individual
> could be enabled through stability and other factors.

The above is all correct, but irrelevant to your usage of "we" above.
Please see the definition of "System" in the Natural Social Contract,
of which a "Society" is a subtype.

>> /Meta
>
>> Many metrics could be defined to measure such stability (stock market
>> indexes are one such) and perhaps will be done and prove to be valuable
>> for aiding Freemen to optimize the self-ordered stability of their
>> society. But you are completely missing the point that there is little
>> purpose to any such measurement tool beforehand because a society of
>> full liberty will be naturally self-ordered and stabilized, to whatever
>> degree that its inhabitants decide, by means of their voluntary
>> interactions rather than ordered from the top or by pseudo-external
>> authorities. (In the Freeman Society there are no institutions or
>> authorities in the sense of organizations or people with any special
>> powers (except for the excellence of their products, services,
>> knowledge and reasoning abilities.)
>
> Disagree.  Knowledge of the direction in which you wish to point
> beforehand is crucial.

If you are saying that the detailed operations of a society needs to be
worked out and described fully enough so that one can be assured that
living in it will more enable a person to increase hir lifetime
happiness than living in the current society, *before* one starts
attempting to create such a society, then I could not agree more. But
that would simply be stating what I have already emphasized dozens of
places in my writing and specifically on SelfSIP.org.

If you are saying that "I" (the "you" in your sentence above) or even
people in general thinking of such a future society (replacing "you" in
your sentence with "one") need to determine beforehand the stability
parameters of a society, then you are incorrect on both counts. The
society will determine its own state of stability by means of the
rational interactions of its members, just as such cooperative feedback
mechanisms will determine all other parameters of that System as a
whole. This will happen in exactly the same way that participants in a
fully free market, jointly by their market actions alone, determine
the relative amounts of goods and services that are produced. No
"external" determination is needed, wanted or effective. This is why I
have stated that I have effectively extended the ideas and methods of
praxeology to social systems.

[I do not think that it is conducive to optimal written exchange,
especially on substantive matters, for a person to write simply the word
"Disagree" after the conclusion of a moderate sized paragraph composed
by someone else. Even the the following single sentence does not make it
at all clear to what of all Paul wrote Chad is disagreeing. It promotes
confusion and waste of time for readers to have to try to decipher what
Chad means. Perhaps he is saying that only the direction is "crucial"
and the actual goal is superfluous. But how specific or loose can the
"direction" be "to point" when the goal/object is not known? **Kitty]

> It would be inappropriate to arbitrarily
> assert that X property violations / year should be the goal.

And where do you get the idea that any such thing is planned or even
mentioned? Yes that or anything like it would be totally inappropriate
for anyone to attempt to "set" a priori. Self-ordering systems simply
do not work that way. That method is only used by social planners.

> Rather
> the goal is to establish a community that reduces the likelihood of
> property violations.

Of course - otherwise the goal of optimally increasing one's lifetime
happiness would not be attainable for all. In fact, that likelihood
should be reduced to near zero (and then only accidents) or else the
social ordering methods are not yet optimal. And even more, the
asymptotic goal for actual occurrence of all violations should always
be zero (for a more detailed explanation see below).

> The individuals in the community can determine
> what the acceptable property violation rate is and this can be
> measured after the fact.  This may vary from individual to individual.

Any rational person will determine that the only *acceptable* rate is
*zero*. Yes, this ideal will be impossible to reach, but nothing less
should ever be held to be acceptable. Otherwise, one will no longer be
trying to optimize one's rate of increase of lifetime happiness - which
lack would be irrational by definition. You need to start thinking of
the idea of asymptotically approaching ideal goals that are only ideal
because of the vagaries of chance, and can in reality be approached as
closely as one wishes given sufficient time, effort and knowledge.
Unbounded lifespans are one such ideal. Certainly no one will ever live
forever. However, given enough time, knowledge and effort, eventually
there will be no clear upper bound to the length of a human's lifespan.

> It should also be mentioned that while each individual has their own
> unique threshold generalizations can be made about a group of
> individuals.

Meta
It is mentally and subconsciously distortional to clear and logical
thought to use the clearly plural "their" as a third person singular
pronoun (and I don't care how many websites are now doing this nor how
many English profs and editors are recommending it - the determination
of validity is not a democratic process). If you want to use a gender
neutral pronoun then use "s/he" in writing and "he or she" in speaking.
For the objective or possessive form in writing use "hir" or "hirs".
/Meta

> Generalizations can also be determined about the sort of
> environment that one should seek to create.  Just like generalizations
> can be made about Wal-Mart shoppers.  I know what Wal-Mart does, and
> I know why most people like it.

Since you cannot possibly "know" most people who shop at Wal-Mart, the
latter part of your last statement cannot be correct. This is separate
from the first part of that sentence which I also doubt, since Wal-Mart
is far too complex an operation for you to adequately "know" what it does.

[All that most people know about a company is what it sells - product(s)
or service(s), and then most times not all types. Very few people know
all that a company (or even a sole proprietor) "does" in order to make
those products/services available to others. Only a person who has
been in a broad managerial position of a similar company has a fairly
strong understanding of what is involved.
As regards "why" people "like" a specific company, this requires a
well-constructed survey in order to provide meaningful data. In the
absence of such data, one can only claim conjecture, as to why people
shop at a particular establishment, and not knowledge. **Kitty]

>>> Achieving Stability
>>> Once stability is clearly understood, methods need to be devised for
>>> achieving and maintaining stability within the framework of the
>>> "Social Meta-Needs". [1]
>>>
>> It appears that you missed the whole point of a self-ordering society
>> without  any external or top-down ordering authorities and
>> institutions. Think of it like the self-ordering homeostasis of a
>> lifeform or of a simple pendulum or of the solar system. No one tells
>> these systems how to behave. They automatically regulate themselves
>> to keep a certain level of stability.
>>
> The point is NOT the establishment of a top-down authority, but rather
> the point is to provide an environment that conduces the establishment
> and growth of free communities.

Of course. That is the program of getting from here to there. However,
just calling the destination society a "free community" is not at all
helpful since every individual will have a different interpretation of
what that means. A clear and precise definition of the meaning and
operations of a "free community" is exactly what the theory of Social
Meta-Needs, the Natural Social Contract and Social Preferencing
jointly accomplish.

As far as "providing an environment" to promote the establishment of a
Freemen Society, or at least some stepping stones in that direction,
that is the purpose of promoting Social Preferencing, non-anonymity
and the personal responsibility enhancement of value for value
exchange methods. Your idea of helping such people find kindred
spirits can greatly aid this provision of an environment enabling
positive change.

[Again, I consider Chad's submitted "review" of the Social Meta-Needs
theory essay in regards to "achieving stability" as highly premature. He
has admittedly read none of the NSC (and their annotations) prior to the
the latest group of postings and has a limited understanding of Social
Preferencing - the twin frameworks of Social Meta-Needs. Were he to be
asking questions, in this case as to how stability would be achieved, it
would be far more conducive to the discussion and eliminate the need
to address numerous both faulty assumptions and incorrect conclusions.
Yes, one properly should be reviewing/studying a technical document and
not simply reading it as one does a novel, if the purpose is to truly
understand the contents and assess it against one's currently held ideas
of reality. This entails making notes of comments and questions for
oneself and possibly the author or other natural authority on the
subject upon completion of the reading or at least a major portion,
especially if one is confused by or in disagreement with
conclusions/recommendations by the author. **Kitty]

>> Yet too much stability is sometimes
>> harmful. You may not realize that one of the signs of heart disease is
>> that the heart beat is too rhythmical. You are still thinking like a
>> socialist planner who knows better how society works than does the
>> system of society itself as a response solely to the voluntary rational
>> actions of all its members. Are you perhaps a closet Technocrat? -
>> http://en.technocracynet.eu/
>>
> What is being proposed in a flexible framework that becomes what it
> needs to be in order to satisfy the individual within its' boundaries.

What you are missing is the highly important *reality* of human
characteristics, requirements and the consequent behaviors needed to
achieve the human lifetime happiness purpose. An optimal social system
is not merely what its members "need in order to satisfy themselves",
because that sort of direct approach simply won't achieve its purpose.

> When the term stability is used it should not be assumed that it means
> calmness or a lack of perturbation.

Stability normally means a small relative change of the parameters
characterizing the point of stability of a system from their average
values. Calmness of water would be stability of water, as opposed to
very high waves.

> It means what the individuals inside of the environment want it to mean.

I don't say this very often, but that *is* just plain silly. If you
applied that to all words then meaning itself would disappear. And how
on earth would you get everyone to agree anyway?
Furthermore, the current society is already a society in which the level
of stability is what its members want (if that is what you mean by
"want it to mean". The problem is that the vast majority of the
members of current societies do not understand that something better
can be done and particularly do not understand how to do it.

> The point is that a
> formula for successful implementation of such a social structure is
> possible.

What "social structure" are you talking about here? You have as yet
only the vaguest idea just what my proposed social structure really
is, so I do not see how you can yet reasonably think that it is
"possible".

> A plant cannot grow in the winter unless a greenhouse is
> developed that provides an environment for growth.  My assertion is
> that liberty and freedom cannot grow unless such "greenhouses" are
> developed.

Your irrelevant metaphors are totally inapplicable and useless. You
have been demonstrating a significant lack of understanding of the
essentials of an appropriate metaphor. Additionally, you do not appear
to understand that metaphors do not prove anything and have limited
explanatory value (none if they are not a good isomorphism to the
original).

> Pay me to live in a stable place where you get to rule
> yourself within the bounds of a voluntary social contract.

The above makes absolutely no sense to me.

[I don't understand it either. **Kitty]

> There is a chicken and egg issue here.  Which comes first the
> environment for freedom and liberty or the desire within an individual
> to be free and liberated?

Neither. First of all must come the understandings of the meanings of
Freedom and Liberty (remember that these are not equivalent, as I have
explained in the NSC and its annotation for their definitions). Next
must come a detailed explanation of why these are desirable (necessary
for optimal lifetime happiness to be possible) rather than merely
desiring *security* of person/property/income. Only then can a desire
for them be formulated and only then can an environment where they
will be maximized be determined and sought to be attained.

> Which comes first the desire for a decent
> quality product at a cheap price or Wal-Mart?  I assert that the two
> are interlinked.

Ignoring your inappropriate Wal-Mart metaphor, the *desire* for freedom
and liberty is only linked to the environment providing it for those
people who do not have sufficient imagination. I seek those who do have
sufficient imagination.

> No, I am not a Socialist Planner, and no I am not a Technocrat.

It is good that you say so, but I am yet to be convinced.

--Paul

On 06/23/2009 03:13 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> Throughout many of the writings on SelfSIP.org tools like Social
> Preferencing, Honesty, and Anonymity are referred to as if they are
> ends as opposed to means.

This is not true. It may only appear that way because you have still
not read the essential parts of SelfSIP in the order and manner which
is indicated.

From the entry page:

<<
It is recommended that the Sections of the Self-Sovereign Individual
Project be explored in the order given below since the ideas and
thoughts introduced in the earlier documents are preparatory in building
toward the more advanced discussions of the later documents. However, it
may be advantageous to read the Declaration of Individual Independence
in the Achievement Section (3rd below) immediately after the Critiques
Section (1st below), since much of the basis for the Theory of Social
Meta-Needs in the Fundamentals Section (2nd below) was first written there.

     * Critiques of Government Founding Documents and Historically
       Influential Political Writings
       <http://selfsip.org/critiques/index.html>
     * The Philosophical Basis of a Stable Ordered Society
       <http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/index.html> Improved 2/17/09
     * Founding Documents Generating a Stable Ordered Society of
       Self-Sovereign Individuals
       <http://selfsip.org/solutions/index.html> Improved 2/17/09
     * Program of Implementation of the Project Goals
       <http://selfsip.org/implementations/index.html> Incomplete
     * Dialogues, Critiques and Commentaries Concerning other Viewpoints
       <http://selfsip.org/dialogues/index.html> Improved 6/7/09
     * Focus on Freedom <http://selfsip.org/focus/index.html> Improved
       4/20/09
<<

From the preface of the Social Meta-Needs page:

<<
*For the first time reader* it is probably best to *not* use the links
from these technical terms, but instead, simply attempt to understand
such a word or phrase to have the vernacular meaning that seems
appropriate to the context in which it is used. After in this manner
obtaining some understanding of the ideas presented in this treatise,
the reader will then be better positioned to understand the need for the
specialized definitions of such words, when these are pursued on a
second reading. Since the meanings and usages of these technical terms
are usually significantly different (often subtly so) from any
vernacular usages (even though related in meaning), these meanings and
the need for them will require this kind of circular learning approach
to be fully appreciated. It is my intention, and my hope, that this
approach will enable the reader to understand the deep and novel
ramifications of the Theory of Social Meta-Needs, and to give it
serious consideration as a basis for optimal human society.<<

Note in the above the description of a highly incremental approach to
understanding it.

From the Achievement section index page:

<<It is particularly important to read the
Critiques of Revered Founding Documents and Historical Writings
<http://selfsip.org/critiques/index.html> before proceeding to the
documents and essays in this section. This is partly because the ideas
were developed and the writing was done in that order. Thus, by jumping
ahead you will not have the background information explained in previous
pages with which to fully understand and digest the ideas of a page in
another Section. Instead, if you first read the Critiques Section
<http://selfsip.org/critiques/index.html>, you will be more prepared and
able to grasp the points being made in the pages of this Section and to
understand the full reasoning for each new idea as you encounter and
strive to assimilate it. However, while it is probably best to read the
Declaration of Individual Independence immediately after the Critiques
Section, it is also probably best to read the Theory of Social
Meta-Needs <http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html> in the
Fundamentals Section <http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/index.html> before
reading in full detail its partial implementation by the Natural Social
Contract.

We (Paul and Kitty Antonik Wakfer <http://morelife.org/personal/>) refer
to the documents and essays of this section as "solution achievement"
because we are convinced that they provide the clearest, most consistent
solution (in the sense of a set of operating principles and methods) to
the problem of social order without compromise of individual liberty
which has ever been devised. Obviously then they must contain many
original, "outside the box" concepts presented for the first time
anywhere from such an integrated viewpoint. Because we are convinced
that it is pointless to begin a journey until one's destination is
fully determined and understood, the operating principles and methods
contained in these solution achievement documents and essays are the
necessary second stage (after determining that a journey away from one's
present location must be undertaken) of the /Self-Sovereign Individual
Project/ - A program to achieve freedom from government coercion for
those who understand it, want it, and are responsible enough to live it.
The material presented in the other Sections (Freedom Dialogues and
Commentaries <http://selfsip.org/dialogues/index.html> and Focus on
Freedom <http://selfsip.org/focus/index.html>) should be viewed as
adjunctive aids to understanding.<<

Special Note at the top of the Natural Social Contract:

<<The reader will only be able to understand this document if s/he has
first read the essay entitled "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for
Optimal Interaction"
<http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html> and then begins
this document by reading the section entitled "Introduction: Purpose,
Terminology and Internal Conventions" (immediately below), concurrent
with or followed by reading its separate explanatory and elucidating
annotation (which can be accessed by clicking on the shaded title of the
Introduction).

*For the first time reader* it is probably best to *not* use the links
from the capitalized words to their definitions and also to skip the
large Definitions Section immediately below this Introduction Section.
Instead, for a first reading it is *strongly* suggested that the reader
simply attempt to use the vernacular meaning of a capitalized word which
seems appropriate to the context in which it is used in this document,
and to begin reading at the Whereas Section
<http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#whereas_section> which is the
beginning of the heart of the Natural Social Contract and all its
contract clauses. After in this manner obtaining a glimmer of what the
Natural Social Contract is about and how it operates, the reader will
then be in a better position to delve into the full nuances of the
definitions and their meanings within the contract clauses. Even though
related, the meanings and usages of the linked capitalized words are
often quite significantly different than any of their vernacular usages,
and such differences will only become fully clear by using a circular
approach to learning. Only by doing so will it be possible to fully
understand the meaning and operation of the Natural Social Contract.<<

Moreover the Social Meta-Needs treatise makes very clear the only
possible end goal of any human's life in its section The Purpose of Life:

<<The nature of my Existence as a human being is such that that
Existence would not be consistent (and thus would not Exist as what it
is - what evolution has wrought it to be) if my life purpose were not
to optimally increase my Lifetime Happiness.<<

The concluding sentence of a long annotation to the Natural Social
Contract containing a multifaceted discussion of happiness:

<<Therefore, the *accumulation* of /Happiness/ to optimally increase
/Lifetime Happiness/ must actually be what each human seeks.<<

> A tool is amoral.  It is the use of the
> tool that can be determined useful or not useful.

I totally agree and have always made clear the difference between means
and ends. However, social interaction "means" are highly different from
personal "tools" (your metaphor is once again highly inappropriate).
My argument is that all three of the social interaction means that you
named (Social Preferencing, Honesty, and Anonymity) are always positive
to practice with Freemen. In the current society where a person may be
dealing with those who would Violate hir, they are definitely means that
should only be employed as appropriate so that one does not incur net
irreparable harm.

> The title "Anonymity – Hazard, Not Protection" [3] could have just as
> easily been "Automobile – Hazard, Not Transportation" or "Openness -
> Hazard, Not Pathway to Freedom and Liberty".  Beginning with the title
> the paper misses the point that anonymity like automobiles is simply
> a tool.

I disagree. It is you who do not understand that the meaning of "hazard"
is more "chance of harm" than "definite harm":
2 a : an adverse chance (as of being lost, injured, or defeated) :
DANGER PERIL <the discovery of atomic fission brought into /hazard/
the industrial potential of any state which could not destroy its
enemy before it was itself destroyed -- H.J.Laski>
b : a thing or condition that might operate against success or safety
: a possible source of peril, danger, duress, or difficulty <a coast
visited by frequent dense fogs and mountains subject to violent storms
constitute /hazard//s /to air travel -- /American Guide Series:
California/>
c : a condition that tends to create or increase the possibility of loss
3 a : the effect of unpredictable, unplanned, and unanalyzable forces
in determining events : CHANCE <men and women danced together, women
danced together, men danced together, as /hazard/ had brought them
together -- Charles Dickens>
b : an event occurring without design, forethought, or direction :
ACCIDENT <looked like a fugitive, who had escaped from something in
clothes caught up at /hazard/ -- Willa Cather>

And besides, a title of an article, even more than an abstract of a
paper, is necessarily brief and may contain words that need further
explanation (which so many English words do and moreso as time goes on
and more and more of them are used in ways highly distorted from their
root meanings and original usages), which explanation is provided
within the text of the article.

> Anonymity, Automobile, and Openness can be used to harm others

This is incorrect both in principle and in degree, but the reason for
your error is because you do not yet understand the nature of "harm",
which is again because you have not yet read the NSC, its definitions
and its annotations. Neither the practice nor the non-practice of
anonymity and openness can cause Responsible Harm to anyone - any such
practice or non-practice cannot result in a Violation of anyone (except
if contrary to the requirements of some Valid Contract). However,
automobiles are Material Existents, which are fully capable of being
used as tools of Responsible Harm to others, whether intentionally,
accidentally or negligently.

> or to get away with harming others.

I am not sure what you mean by "get away with" here. Of course I know
the expression, but it is essentially describing an act of deceit and/or
subterfuge that it takes great pains to always notice, and then to place
squarely out in the open, just so that the perpetrator does *not* "get
away with" such an act. One important and beneficial (particularly for
others) kind of public social interaction is to never let a person
"get away with" anything!

> The usage of the tool must be the object that is considered hazardous
> or not.

Again you misunderstand the meaning of "hazardous". Rather it should be
replaced above by "harmful".

> An automobile is not a hazard.  An intoxicated driver behind
> the wheel of a car is a hazard.

Again this is a false difference. There are many people who I would
rather have drive by me in an intoxicated state than have many others
drive by me completely sober. Both are potentially but not necessarily
harmful to persons or property near them.

> [3] Anonymity - Hazard, Not Protection; Limitation, not Enhancement,
> Author: Paul Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/focus/anonymity.html
>
> [Correction:
> Kitty was the sole author of the article "Anonymity - Hazard not
> Protection".
> As explained on the index page of the "Focus on Freedom" section and
> previously in this discussion: "The articles in this section are
> written by Kitty Antonik Wakfer, and where indicated by Paul Antonik
> Wakfer". --Paul]
>
> Reviewer, Chad Nelson
>
> [Disclaimer: Chad Nelson has no position or authority as a "Reviewer"
> of any material on this group. He is merely a reviewer in the same
> manner and has precisely the same commenting status as anyone else
> posting here. --Paul]

--Paul

Continued from pt 1.

On 06/23/2009 02:55 AM, freechad480 wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 06/17/2009 07:03 PM, freechad480 wrote:
>>
>> For each of us our closest relationships are with persons with whom we
>> agree on the essentials - the very closest for each of us is the
>> other, as stated earlier. Specifically in regard to our philosophical
>> ideas and processes, we seek first only those people who are at a
>> sufficient intellectual level to understand and promote them. We fully
>> realize that most people will only join in when they see that it works
>> for others. They are the type of people to whom the adage "I will
>> believe it when I see it" applies.
>>
> As far as Aaron was concerned, was the objective to determine whether
> he was a candidate for a close relationship; or was it that he was a
> candidate for incremental conversion?  It seems like there is an all
> or nothing approach being taken.  How can one grow if the expectation
> is that other humans must "jump to my level of awareness" or "get out
> of my life"?  Requiring an instantaneous response is not practical.

The purpose of the email was as I stated far above. Your questions here
would likely never have been written had I responded initially rather
than Paul and done so as here.

[Your questions above are totally chasing a straw man. Neither of us are
doing any of those things, nor have we done them for many decades. --Paul]

>>> These comments tie in to four
>>> different writings discovered on your site.  Consider the following:
>>>
>>> "The strong Identification methods described and promoted on this page
>>> are assumed to be operating in a Freeman Society where the vast
>>> majority of InterActing individuals are Freemen or dependents of
>>> Freemen and the purpose of this Identification is both to prevent such
>>> Violations by ensuring that they are fully Restituted and to bring the
>>> discriminatory pressure of Social Preferencing to bear on other types
>>> of behavior that is not conducive to optimally increasing the Lifetime
>>> Happiness of all Freemen together." [2]
>>>
>> The quotation above has effectively been taken "out of context". It is
>> the last part of a section right at the start of the page explaining
>> its purpose, whose prior text reads:
>>
>> "The creators of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project (Paul and Kitty
>> Antonik Wakfer) are well aware that some of the strong Identification
>> Required by the NSC and the additional Personal openness described and
>> promoted in this page might be unadvisable and perhaps even personally
>> dangerous to implement in the current social context of rampant
>> Violational activities particularly, and worst of all, including those
>> of all governments." (hyperlinks removed for text readability)
>>
>> That prior text shows that the total situation, particularly including
>> *full personal openness*, is what I am describing as being essential
>> for a Freeman Society. Nothing in the text suggests that strong negative
>> social preferencing should not be practiced, and cannot also be highly
>> effective, in the current society, even though some degree of
>> non-openness may well be important to protect oneself from the State
>> and others violence perpetrators who are effectively spawned by the
>> State, and for that reason will be fully acceptable (ie not negatively
>> socially preferenced) in the current society.
>>
> I agree that this quote was taken out of context my apologies.  In
> this case I disagree with using strong social preferencing outside
> of the context of a "Freeman Society".

First let us be clear that you are referring to "strong *negative*
social preferencing" since "strong *positive* social preferencing" would
be public testimonials of fully identified individuals/organizations
by fully identified authors of those testimonials (which is done
purposefully and profusely on LinkedIn and greatly appreciated by its
members).
Secondly, since there is no "Freeman Society" as of this time - I and
Paul cannot reasonably consider ourselves that society, not even with
the interactions we have with a couple of individuals who are in
fairly close agreement with our ideas (relative to all other persons).
Therefore by your statement, the use of negative social preferencing is
never acceptable until such a society has been able (somehow?!?) to come
into existence. This method of nonviolent action for social change is
extremely important and has been practiced historically - again I
suggest that you do some study in this area.

> Strong social preferencing reduces the desire for openness.

Your conclusion that "strong [negative] social preferencing reduces the
desire for openness" may be true for some individuals on whom it is
directed. However it has been shown (as demonstrated in Sharp's
extensive research) that it has effected a desired change in behavior of
many in regards to their offensive actions. And that is the purpose of
strong negative social preferencing - to change the behavior, even if
it does not initially or at all change the person's thinking regarding
that offensive (to others) behavior.

>>> Attention should be called to the assertion that within the context
>>> of a Freeman Society, "the discriminatory pressure of Social
>>> Preferencing" [2] should be brought to bear on certain types of
>>> behavior.  This discriminatory pressure should be used very carefully
>>> outside of the context of a Freeman Society.
>>>
>> Remember that the first purpose of the current text on SelfSIP.org is
>> to theoretically found and describe the operation of the Freeman
>> Society. It is only Kitty's writings which are the beginning first
>> small steps of using some of the Freemen Society methods within the
>> current society in order to get people to begin thinking more
>> correctly and make some headway towards the achievement of the Freeman
>> Society - ie the "getting from here to there" part of the project. I
>> myself have not yet begun that portion because I have not yet had
>> adequate vetting of the Freeman Society theory and structure.
>> Nevertheless even I am tired of waiting and am working to implement
>> the concept of value for value, which we initially did not think was
>> as essential for the Freeman Society optimal operation as we now do,
>> and which I think can be used fruitfully within the current society to
>> start people thinking and acting responsibly in the right direction.
>>
>> Moreover, please remember that apart from Kitty's examples of negative
>> social preferencing in the current society, *all* other writing about
>> social preferencing (both negative and positive) on SelfSIP applies to
>> the Freeman Society. You are mixing the two! The fact that social
>> preferencing has problems with its negative usage in the current
>> society bears no relationship to its usage in the Freeman Society
>> which is where it needs to be first considered in order to determine
>> whether and to what extent it is the crucial and practical effector
>> of the social order.
>>
>> Moreover, I must ask you, if some form of strong negative social
>> preferencing is not to be used, then just how do you propose that
>> people be influenced sufficiently to change their thinking towards
>> that needed for a Freeman Society? Calmly talking to and writing for
>> people is simply not sufficient for most people to cause such major
>> changes in thinking. Strong non-violent action of all possible forms
>> will be absolutely necessary in many situations in order to promote
>> such change. Once again, I strongly urge you to read the writings of
>> the non-violent theoretician Gene Sharp, specifically his book series:
>> _The politics of Nonviolent Action_ and also the review of all such
>> actions in the 20th century _A Force More Powerful_ by Peter Ackerman
>> and Jack Duvall.
>>
> "Meeting a person where they are" is a more effective than the
> technique of negative social preferencing with little negligible
> incrementalism.

"Meeting a person where they are" is a method of opening a discourse -
it cannot be contrasted with negative social preferencing because it
is not even comparable! I think you are mixing up various methods for
bringing about changes in the current society into what we describe as
the Freeman Society, based on the principles of Social Meta-Needs with
the frameworks of Social Preferencing and the Natural Social Contract.
There are *many* methods that can and ought to be used for this [long]
process of change. That was a major reason I wrote another article this
past April - Tax/Regulation Protests are Not Enough: Relationship of
Self-Responsibility and Social Order
<http://selfsip.org/focus/protestsnotenough.html>

I and Paul are seeking individuals who are of the level of
openmindedness that they can fairly readily grasp the meanings and value
of the new and radical method of human interaction that is Social
Meta-Needs, which includes Social Preferencing as the ultimate effector
of social order. Those who make the necessary paradigm shift in thinking
and therefore come to highly value this theory and its goal society -
including of course Social Preferencing and the NSC - will hopefully
include individuals who can and are anxious to demonstrate their
understanding and goals to others, many of whom are less initially
openminded. Our methods with the highly openminded are obviously quite
different in various respects than are the methods used by those who
direct their interactions toward people who are far less openminded
(most of whom we do not work with at all).

Meta
Snipped Paul's thanks for bringing an error in word usage to his
attention, now fixed.
/Meta

>> Meta
>> Kitty will respond separately to some of the below when she feels like
>> doing so. Chad, your comments appear to portray Kitty as some kind of
>> unfeeling, brazen vixen, when, in fact, nothing could be further from
>> the truth. She is the kindest, most concerned human being that I have
>> ever encountered. She is also the most open, honest and unwaveringly
>> principled person that I have ever encountered.
>>
> It concerns me that self-defense is being implemented here.  What is
> being defended against?  Did I launch an attack?  Is it aggressive to
> mention the names of the actors in open communication to them about
> their actions?  What is being employed here is honesty.  At no point
> were the words "unfeeling, brazen vixen" used.  Please do not
> manufacture words that were not and will not be written about Kitty.
> Her email to Aaron struck me as meticulously thought out and deeply
> sincere.

It is actually quite strange to me, after all your highly negative
criticism of my email to Aaron, that you say now that it "struck [you]
as meticulously thought out and deeply sincere". This is even with your
"second thought" that the post title should have been "Ineffective
Utilization..." rather than "Indiscriminate Utilization..." Your initial
message was so highly critical of my email that it actually would not
be odd that people would conclude that you thought the writer of that
email to be someone totally insensitive to the feelings of others. And
had I written simply the quoted paragraph that you included in your
message, it would be reasonable for you and others to wonder greatly
if this were not the case. The fact that your "review" was so worded,
could easily be construed as arising from a conclusion that I was/am
such an insensitive person.

[My text above was not meant to convey (nor did I even think that it was
true) that you actually thought Kitty had the negative characteristics
that I listed or intentionally meant to portray her that way. That
should have been clear from my words "your comments appear to portray".
My description of Kitty was merely to inform you and some others of her
real character. Many readers of this group already know that Kitty is
not as you appeared to portray her, from reading many of her writings
here and on the Kitty Reflects section of morelife.org, so I was not
concerned that they might be misled. --Paul]

> [Meta
> Note that I put your comment to my meta comments within my original
> meta tags and this meta comment about that situation within additional
> meta tags.
> /Meta --Paul]
>
>> /Meta
>>> The reason for this is demonstrated on another page that records
>>> email communication between Kitty and her Nephew.
>>> During the email communication "discriminatory
>>> pressure" [2] is applied outside of the context of a Freeman Society
>>> and the results are disappointing.

Here again, Chad, you have forgotten - or ignored - the purpose of the
article in which the email to Aaron was included *as an example* that I
do not simply write ivory tower philosophically based recommendations.
  From the first paragraph of the article (and stated far above):
"However, even currently when governments are everywhere, the tool of
social preferencing can be used against those who actually do the harm
in the name of governments, and if practiced by enough people would be
highly effective."
Whether or not I wrote the optimum email to Aaron to persuade him to
cease his Air Force position is something entirely different. It was
only my intention to inform him - after a considerable delay - of why we
had several times driven within 50 miles of his home and not made any
attempts to visit. I did not expect that what I wrote initially would
change his way of thinking - obviously that a career as an officer in
the Air Force was beneficial to him. I did think that I would receive a
message that defended his continuation in the AF in one of the standard
manners, probably protection of citizens against foreign government
threats.

>>> Consider the following excerpt
>>> from Aaron's response, "If not seeing or contacting me is some form of
>>> protest then you are welcome to do it. But to write such a hateful
>>> email out of the blue is completely uncalled for." [5] Aaron does not
>>> know what hit him because he is at a different level of awareness than
>>> Kitty and Paul.  What hit Aaron?  This message from Kitty Antonik
>>> Wakfer,
>>>
>>> "Aaron, you may have been wondering why I (and Paul) have not stopped
>>> in to see you since your move to St. Louis since we drive through it
>>> at least 4 times yearly. It has not been an oversight or because we
>>> are lazy. I have purposely avoided opportunities to visit with you
>>> since Madison's christening in New Jersey in September 2002. Had Paul
>>> and I been successful in timing our drive through St. Louis for Mary's
>>> arrival at the airport in July, we would have unavoidably been in your
>>> company for that time. However it was our intention not to visit her
>>> in your home." [4]
>>>
>> It makes no sense to term any of the above as the application of
>> "discriminatory pressure". Kitty's word are nothing but a purely
>> honest and open attempt to make all intentions very clear and to be
>> certain that nothing is misunderstood (as is so often the case in most
>> relationships). The rest of the message, which you do not quote, was a
>> patient and reasoned attempt to explain to Aaron the reasons for these
>> intentions. That Aaron considered the message to be "hateful" is
>> simply the irrational workings of his mind. Perhaps you think that
>> there was some close relationship between Kitty and Aaron which Kitty
>> was peremptorily severing without any warning. However, the truth is
>> that the relationship was merely the standard casual one of relatives
>> wherein very little of substance is ever discussed.
>>
> Why did Aaron consider the email hateful even though Kitty's
> intentions were pure?  One may intend to do one thing and end up with
> an undesired result.  Feedback is the key to improvement.  If you do
> not get the results you want, then it is important to determine why
> and modify the inputs.  Sometimes my wife starts an argument with me.
> Now I could sit there and say my wife always likes to start arguments,
> or I could ask what can I do to decrease the likelihood that my wife
> will start an argument with me?

Had I not responded to Aaron's reply to me - or not made any of the
subsequent exchange public - then your comments above would be
appropriate and even useful. But that is not the case and you did not
even make reference to my further correspondence. Part of my first
follow-up email:

<<Your conclusion that my email was "hateful" is absolutely mind
boggling. My email to you was very carefully constructed with all of my
reasoning following a sound logical train from its foundation (the full
body of which would require reading of the Social Meta Needs theory -
link provided - but which it appears that you did not do) to the
consequences of those ideas, my email to you - and similar action for
any other government enforcer or enforcement supporter I know. This was
not a spur of the moment, lightly pulled-together message equivalent to
participating in an anti-war protest rally. I have never been a part of
such a mob-like activity, which I consider of much less value than
reasoned attempts to influence. And most of all, there was no emotion of
hate by me at any time in writing any portion of my email to you or any
of the writing that I do. Hate is a wasteful emotion. Quite the opposite
in fact, I want no harm whatsoever to come to you - by what others may
do or by what you might do yourself.<<

Additionally, this section with the lone quote is another example of
where your "review" is not such at all (at least not comprehensive in
any manner), but rather criticism of selected portions of an article.
You included none of the rest of the email which is at least 5 times the
length of this starting paragraph and provides my reasons for this
avoidance of him (weak negative social preferencing). And to leave out,
at least reference to, the last few sentences before my signature is
definitely painting a very negative picture of me for anyone who read
your post without reading the entire article by me:

<<I want no harm to come to you.

I would like to know that you will in the future (after you have well
familiarized yourself with the concepts) make choices to maximize your
lifetime happiness using the widest viewing longest range thinking.
Looking back over the few emails you and I have had, I came across a
line from you (8/5/02) which is encouraging in this respect, "However
it's the sign of a mature individual who can see the big picture
and not be pressured into doing something foolish."

**Kitty<<

Lastly, your comparison of your continued interactions with your wife
and a desire on your part to "decrease the likelihood that [your] wife
will start an argument with [you]" with an exchange of emails between
me and a military participating nephew with whom I had not had
communications and had avoided visiting is extremely weak. The
relationship between you and your wife bears no similarity to that of
me and that nephew.

>>> The reviewer read the email message and found himself in agreement
>> Meta
>> I consider it to be an avoidance of personal responsibility technique,
>> and perhaps even arrogant, to refer to yourself in the third person as
>> "the reviewer" and I do not sanction such behavior. In future, please
>> use "I" when you are describing your own actions. --Paul]
>> /Meta
>>
> Interpret it how you will.  I (Chad Nelson) am the reviewer.  I am
> just being honest.  Some people interpret the use of the word `I' the
> same way.

As stated before, I think your comments were not at all that which would
be described as an article review. It was no more than, and in some
respects actually less, than the quality of the comments at the mises.
blog following a daily article. And I have never seen any of the
commenters there sign their comment "Reviewer, John Doe" or "Jane Doe,
Reviewer".

[I have difficulty understanding the meaning of your sentence "Some
people interpret the use of the word `I' the same way." But if you
mean that some people interpret the use of "I" as "avoidance of
personal responsibility" or "arrogance", I cannot imagine how the
first is logically possible (in fact it should logically be the
opposite) and if people think that using "I" is arrogant then they
must have very low self-esteem or not even know what true self-esteem
entails. Once again, I have no interest in such people.
BTW, I have a very poor vocabulary when it comes to words describing
irrational actions, so it took me awhile, but I now realize that the
correct word to describe your assumption of the title "Reviewer" is
"pretentious". --Paul]

>>> with Kitty Antonik Wakfer's views on participation in offensive wars.
>>>
>> In addition, please do not use full names. Everyone here knows who
>> Kitty is and also who Paul is within the context of the usage. Using a
>> full name smacks of unfriendliness, at the least, and is inconsistent
>> with your previous use of first names as identifiers.
>>
> Now I am confused.  The sentence in question is one of agreement.  How
> can it be interpreted as unfriendly?  Again I am clearly doing
> something wrong since I intended no offense whatsoever.

A demonstration of friendliness, as Paul put it, would be the use of the
author's full name the first time at most in a comment, with the first
name only after that. A high level of formality, or possibly brusqueness
(depending on the venue), would be the use of only the last name of
the author after the initial full name's usage in the
comment/critique/review. I find it strange that you are confused by this
considering that you are a frequent reader of the Mises.org Daily
Articles and/or blog (which links to the former).

>>> However, the review disagrees with the apparent lack of escalation.
>>>
>> The escalation of what?
>>
> Answer: Escalation of ideological engagement
>
> If a person does not agree with or understand the concept of velocity,
> then how can they begin to understand the concept of acceleration?
> Concepts build on one another.  Simply telling someone that you
> understand and embrace the concept of acceleration is one thing.
> Stating, "If you do not understand or embrace the concept of
> acceleration, then I will not associate with you" is another matter
> entirely.  Does the person even understand velocity?  The final
> question is: "Will refusal to associate with a person that does not
> understand acceleration cause that person to understand acceleration?"

[This has all been addressed above. Do you really think that I, a
multi-course designer and teacher, and Kitty a former registered nurse
and a mechanical engineer (mechanical design team leader for 16 years
with Motorola on spaceborne electronic hardware including GPS-related)
do not already know well what you are describing above? If that is true
then why are you wasting your time here? Also, if that were true then
we would most certainly have nothing of value to teach anyone. --Paul]

>>> This message effectively presents your nephew with an ultimatum.
>>> Choose me and my ideas or continue in the military.  Yikes!
>>>
>> Nonsense! The message that you have not quoted presents thoughts about
>> why being in the military is effectively aiding and abetting mass
>> murder (but purposefully does not use such strongly language) and
>> states that I and Kitty will not associate with anyone doing so.
>>
> Aaron feels that he is being presented with an ultimatum.

That was Aaron's problematic situation with his non-thinking/non-examining
stance regarding his military participation after all I wrote. But once
again please remember that I left the door wide open for him in the
hopes that he would eventually reexamine his beliefs.

Here again I recommend that you familiarize yourself with methods of
social noncooperation, which include ostracism of persons (strong
negative social preferencing), as well as the numerous other nonviolent
methods for social change of which Gene Sharp has written extensively.

>>> This form
>>> Social Preferencing is on its' face not palatable for most humans.
>>>
>> Even though given that just as strong positive forms of social
>> preferencing are fully accepted by most humans, it is totally
>> illogical not to also accept strong negative social preferencing, we
>> have never said that any form of negative social preferencing is
>> currently "palatable for most humans". That it is not is also one of
>> the major problems with the thinking of most humans which needs to be
>> changed. We have also pointed out that everyone is, in fact,
>> negatively socially preferencing whether or not they realize it.
>> Kitty's nephew negatively socially preferenced Kitty by wanting
>> nothing more to do with her. I have been so negatively socially
>> preferenced dozens of times in my life. Strangely enough most of that
>> negative social preferencing by others came about when I forthrightly
>> described to them my method of continuously evaluating everyone with
>> respect to our relationship and acting on that evaluation with respect
>> to the degree and type of association - ie when I described the
>> actions of socially preferencing to them. Their reaction was so
>> negative and distasteful of the whole idea that they usually did
>> something punishing to me as well as exercising social preferencing
>> against me (totally inconsistent with their distaste for it). In fact,
>> I have come to use it as a kind of filter to quickly eliminate those
>> people who are not capable of facing the truths of their own lives and
>> of acting consistently.
>>
> There is nothing wrong with negative social preferencing it is a tool.
> The usage of that tool is matter in question.

Yes, it is a tool and it is used in varying strengths - from weak to
strong, equivalent to silence to public announcement - depending on
the circumstances.

[Chad your statement above seems to be inconsistent with your previous
statement "In this case I disagree with using strong social preferencing
outside of the context of a "Freeman Society". Is it perhaps that you,
after the fact, disagree with its use in those cases when it did not
happen to meet your own criteria of success? Well then in that case,
you don't use it. We will both continue to do so and to promote its
use. --Paul]

> Why not try to convert
> others as opposed to filtering them?  The filter you are applying is
> very narrow/fine.  What if a person can almost be accommodated by the
> filter?  Should they be treated like someone who will never fit
> through the filter?

As I wrote above, I and Paul are seeking individuals who are of the
level of openmindedness that they can fairly readily grasp the meanings
of and value of the new and radical method of human interaction that is
Social Meta-Needs, which includes Social Preferencing as the ultimate
effector of social order. It is our ardent hope that those in this first
group will do the "converting" of those who are far less openminded to
begin with. We alone can do just so much and choose to focus on those
most promising for developing full understanding and agreement. I have
no desire to spend my limited hours writing to appeal to the general
"progressive" or "conservative" or even "libertarian" groups regarding current
events. I do occasionally write articles that I hope will strike a chord
with some individuals in these groups and if it does, eventually if
not sooner, that is good. However I never fully write someone off for
further communication.
If I am contacted by someone who rebuffed my ideas in the past and I
subsequently negatively socially preferenced, I will respond and have
done so. I am ready to discuss the subject(s) of disagreement, but not
play chatty games. And I will not spend what I determine is excessive
time in an attempt to "convert" hir. S/he is always invited (often even
urged) to read what I and/or Paul have spent many hours carefully
writing. If s/he is not willing to do so and then discuss the substance,
then that tells me that s/he has a rather low evaluation of me (and Paul).

I agree with Paul that our time is best spent on developing the core
ideas that hold promise of instilling some of the concepts of the
Freeman Society into the current highly problematic one, as stepping
stones - right now those being Value for Value and Social Preferencing.

>>> One must establish a foundation and build some scaffolding before
>>> declaring jump to my level.  How can Aaron reach you?  You have not
>>> provided any assistance along the way.  It took you years to reach
>>> your level of awareness.  How can Aaron be expected to instantaneously
>>> adopt a worldview that is diametrically opposed to his current one?
>>> Has he actually had time to consider these ideas?  Withdrawal of
>>> support should be one of the LAST steps in the escalation process.

Chad, if all I had written to Aaron was the first 2 paragraphs of that
email, then your criticism would have some relevance. However I wrote
much more and you are choosing to ignore it. Besides, Aaron had the
ability to respond by questioning any of my reasons, but he never did.
He is not a stupid young man, but he as a military officer he is far
more a follower of orders than a thinker of whether those orders are
in his own long range wide viewed best interest. He also is a strong
follower of an organized religion, which practice also does not
encourage critical thinking and questioning of formal established
authority.
It was disappointing that Aaron's response contained nothing that
resembled the quote of his from 2002 that I repeated in my email.
However that email to him was the first time I am sure that any deep
foundational ideas were directly related to him by me, though some brief
general comments regarding our MoreLife philosophy definitely would have
been included in conversation with him and others at the celebration of
his first daughter's christening in Sept 2002. It is possible that new
plans for a social philosophical offshoot for MoreLife may have been
mentioned to him or others at the same time - Paul's first article,
"Beyond Thoreau" was published online on 9/23/2002. (Being able to
review old exchanges is one reason why written discourse is much more
valuable than verbal conversation.) Aaron knew - at least from the time
of our visit to him in NJ in Sept 2002 - that I and Paul spent the vast
amount of our time on MoreLife.org. Although he never initiated any
emails to me after that visit, he had all that we wrote online available
to him, as does anyone. His mother, my sister Mary, knew quite well what
I and Paul were doing since I included reference to activities in my
responses to her emails. However, while her husband Graham was more
responsive to those topics by at least replying to them, Mary did not
make any acknowledgment of our writing efforts outside of those strictly
on health. (Her practice of not replying inline, but always starting off
like with a fresh piece of paper, made it easy to avoid the topics.) I
ceased trying to interest her in anything I and Paul were doing - even
health-wise - in the spring of 2005 since she demonstrated no interest
in those items that were of most importance to us. I continued to
blandly respond on her many running events and her children's doings
until she refused to discuss *in private email*, rather than over the
phone as she wanted, the subject of my emails with Aaron that began
with the one on Sept 25 2005.

>> Chad, I think you are way out of place here in your comments since you
>> have no knowledge of the depth or shallowness of the relationship
>> between Kitty and her nephew. Neither Kitty nor I have any close ties
>> to any remaining family. I, in particular, have always felt estranged
>> from all of my relatives except my mother, who unfortunately died far
>> too young and was too strongly influenced by my father with whom I did
>> not agree much, and my biological daughter for awhile until I realized
>> that she had been effectively deceiving me about her respect for me
>> for about 20 years.
>>
> I am not out of line in that anyone who according to Aaron, "writes
> a[n] <interpretational word deleted> email out of the blue" is not
> close to that person.  Also, anyone who actively avoids another person
> for 3 years [September 2002 ("Madison's christening") to September
> 2005 (timestamp on email)] is not close to that person.  Evidence for
> active avoidance is provided by Kitty, "Aaron, you may have been
> wondering why I (and Paul) have not stopped in to see you since your
> move to St. Louis since we drive through it at least 4 times yearly.
> It has not been an oversight or because we are lazy. I have purposely
> avoided opportunities to visit with you since Madison's christening in
> New Jersey in September 2002. Had Paul and I been successful in timing
> our drive through St. Louis for Mary's arrival at the airport in July,
> we would have unavoidably been in your company for that time. However
> it was our intention not to visit her in your home."
>
> I am well within my place to make a judgment based on clear evidence.
> Your response further confirms my inference.  If I am wrong, then
> prove it.  Do not just say I am out of place.

Your written criticisms of my email to Aaron did not include any of the
immediately above. The fact that you are *now* including these facts is
*after* the fact of all your highly negative statements about an email I
sent to a mildly known military participating nephew who was transferred
from NJ and lived close to a regularly traveled route I and Paul took
twice yearly though never visited and wanted to inform as to why we had
not.

Your previous statements did not at all indicate a level of
understanding of the relative shallowness of this relationship - you had
made no "inference" to this relationship level in your original message
("review") - again showing just how lacking in essential information
and thus how little like a review it actually was.

[Just to be clear, Aaron was only transferred to the St Louis area in
early 2004 (from Kitty's recollection), so there were only 3 times prior
to the emails when visits might have occurred (we have never again been
to New Jersey after our visit there in Sept 2002). --Paul]

>> I leave the rest for necessary comments by Kitty in another response.
>>
>>> Admittedly, Kitty Antonik Wakfer came to the conclusion that the
>>> initial email was inappropriate and devised "A Better Method for
>>> Effecting Change". [6] The first paragraph includes the sentence,
>>> "I've done some thinking about how my approach to my nephew Aaron, a
>>> pilot in the Air Force, might have been better worded and thereby
>>> possibly have elicited a more favorable response from him." [6]
>>>
>>> Before this sentence, however, is a more interesting statement; "At
>>> this time and prompted a few weeks ago by a comment from an individual
>>> whose opinions I (Kitty Antonik Wakfer) listen to…" [6] This is an
>>> excellent point.  It is worth asking this question about the
>>> relationship between you and your nephew as well.

Considering all that your wrote in your reply to Paul above, Chad, then
why did you make an initial point directed at me "It is worth asking
this question about the relationship between you and your nephew as
well."? I would have initially responded that you should have asked that
question of yourself - "What was Kitty's relationship with her nephew,
beyond what she wrote in this article and the ones she has written that
I have read?" But since it is clear that you already knew the answer
from what you had read in my two articles that you have been criticizing
plus the dialogue of emails with Aaron, your initial "review" is shown
again to be enormously weak - or you are being duplicitous.

>>> Are you someone
>>> that your nephew listens to and respects?  If not, then it is
>>> important to start there.  If the person does not know or respect you
>>> in the first place, then what motivation would he have to change based
>>> on what you say?  Furthermore, what does he have to lose if he does
>>> not know the Kitty very well in the first place?

Had there been other discussions of philosophically substantive subjects
between me and Aaron, I would definitely have included them as they
would be pertinent to the email's message. The fact that I did not,
would indicate to a careful reader that there (likely at least) were
none. But then since you are very new to any of the writings on
SelfSIP.org (you still do not correctly note the authors of the items
on the Focus section, though they are stated) and likely none on
MoreLife.org, you are not familiar with how and what I write. (Most of
my writing is actually at
http://morelife.org/personal/kittyreflects/index.html )
And again, since you responded to Paul with all the answers to these
questions yourself that you were in your "review", from my estimation,
being purely theatrical. It is only after Paul's objections to your
statements that you have acknowledged knowing from reading what I wrote
that I provided this information.

>>> Unfortunately, the "Incremental Approach" misses the mark much like
>>> the first email.  The problem begins in paragraph one:
>>>
>>> "I've been doing a lot of thinking about you lately and am deeply
>>> concerned.

This one sentence was a single paragraph - and for the purpose of
letting it stand first by itself. The fact that in copying it into your
comments you ran it right into the next thoughts does not demonstrate
care in reproducing accurately what I wrote.

>>> At the time you graduated from the Air Force Academy
>>> (1998), I considered the military only 1 of 3 valid functions of
>>> government, an entity I thought was necessary to a free and orderly
>>> society. Since then, all after meeting Paul and having many detailed
>>> discussions with him - concurrent with the reading of various
>>> anti-statist writers of the past and present - I came to the
>>> conclusion that governments are the cause of most of the problems of
>>> society. The progress that occurs and the happiness that individuals
>>> achieve are mainly in spite of government rules and regulations rather
>>> than as a result of them. The fact that most people do not recognize
>>> this is because they have not seriously considered how a society could
>>> be free and orderly without coercive law-creating entities -
>>> governments." [6]
>>>
>>> This paragraph alone is already too much.  Many people will reject
>>> this approach.  The recipient of such an unsolicited email is most
>>> likely not going to receive this well.  Their mind is not ready.

This was a revised email that would have been sent *to Aaron* - not a
form letter suggested for other limited governmentalists to use for
everyone they knew in the military. My former husband, Ed, at that time
of Aaron's AF Academy graduation had been in police work (one of the 2
other 3 once considered by me to be valid functions of government) for
over 20 years - not something of which was necessary for Aaron to be
reminded. It might have been a good inclusion, and I likely would have
done so if actually sending the message, to include the reminder of one
of the gifts I'd given Aaron at the time - Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who
Needs It?". Had I done so, it would be clear to *you* that this
paragraph is definitely not "too much". BTW I never received any
acknowledgment from Aaron regarding it (it was gift wrapped, though I
said something like "I do hope that you get a lot out of this" when I
gave it to him), although I do not recall if I ever asked him about
whether he read it. Please recall that this was in summer of 1998, over
a year before I had my first contact with Paul and I was not nearly as
sure of myself and my philosophical grounds as I became afterward.

Aaron is not a person who I would expect is limited in his readings -
no military officer is supposed to be. And so Aaron is aware that a
significant portion of the US population considers that the government's
role is strictly what is defined in the US Constitution, though from
his response to me in his reply emails he is (I am assuming that he has
not changed) not accustomed to reviewing and considering the wisdom of
orders he is given and policies he is expected to carry out.
(For your info since you have not read very much if anything about me -
my father was a 20+ year US Navy officer and this conclusion is based on
his practices and statements he often made regarding aspects of a
quality commander. From my knowledge of my father - I am the oldest of
my parents' 5 children - I doubt very much if he would have participated
in either active support activities for Iraq or Afghanistan. I know that
after publicity was widened regarding Viet Nam actions he was not
enthusiastic with the military presence there after the late 70s and was
relieved that he had retired in 1963 (after being "passed over" for
promotion) since he would not then have to decide whether to refuse
any assignment that involved him in the fiasco.)

>>> Ask
>>> yourself the following question, what would happen if the coordinator
>>> for the Italian Olympics Swimming team kidnapped you in the middle of
>>> the night and you were told that you would be competing in the 100
>>> meter diving competition tomorrow OR that you could go back home and
>>> continue living your normal life.  Which of these options are you most
>>> prepared to accomplish?  The excerpt above drops your nephew in the
>>> deep-end.

Chad, I think your analogy is very poor - in fact most analogies used
by most people are just that. To equate Aaron - an academy educated
military officer in one of the US armed forces - with someone kidnapped
by the "coordinator for the Italian Olympics Swimming team" makes no
sense to me.... Aaron was not kidnapped by anyone, he was merely being
addressed in an email by his mother's eldest sibling with concern
regarding his continued military participation for the reasons stated.
And you didn't even discuss the reasons that were presented in the
revised email, which I readily acknowledged would have been a better way
to inform him of my (and Paul's) failure to visit. Please remember in
that one I started out: "I've been doing a lot of thinking about you
lately and am deeply concerned."

>>> Adopting an incremental approach is wise, but this approach is not
>>> incremental enough.

Maybe for *you* - as sender or receiver - it would not be incremental
enough and you would prefer to send or receive something with no
relevance to the intended purpose of the communication. But that is
you. You are simply making the assessment that my revised email is not
incremental enough *for you*. You have no knowledge that it would not
have been incremental enough for Aaron had it been the very first
message he received from me on the subject.

I am a forthright person and always have been since my 20s ... no, even
before that at 16 when I told my parents that I did not agree with them
on religion or even the existence of a god. I have not followed the
practice, like so many, of "little white lies" in order to placate
others. If I did not think someone looked good in something, I said so -
though I did not say that they looked awful, just that the item "isn't
becoming". Something they said? If I didn't want to discuss it at the
time (for whatever the reason might be), I'd just say "I don't agree".
So I would not play a written game of "small talk" - chatter that has
nothing to do with the important purpose of my contact message.

Chad, I think you have done a great deal of pontificating in your
posting on this subject of my emails, both the original one sent to
Aaron and the revised one I created 18 months later as a better one in
my later estimation. You did not like the wording I used in either email
and have used various methods as an attempt to portray it as a
demonstration of how negative social preferencing (even if not
public/strong) is ineffective in general. You were not been forthright
in creating a true review of the article I wrote on negative social
preferencing as a means for influence, specifically in regard to
military participants during a time of US invasion/occupation of foreign
territory, for which the first email was merely an example to
demonstrate that I actually practiced negative social preferencing in
this situation. Additionally that email was made only partially strong
(public) because Aaron's last name was never revealed. (He is my
sister's son and therefore does not have the last name of Antonik.)

I think you are quite inexperienced in doing reviews of
articles/essays/technical papers/books, and therefore recommend that you
read a good many before you make any further posts to this group in
which you claim to be doing a review. In the meantime, when you post, I
recommend that you ask questions rather than make conclusions based on
your limited reading of Paul's works, about how you think the system
or methods will or will not be effective as frameworks for the Freeman
Society, the name we currently use to describe a society of interacting
individuals each for the purpose of maximizing hir lifetime happiness
all at the same time.

I do hope, Chad, that you will take the remarks I have made as the
constructive criticism that they are intended to be.

**Kitty

See more from Paul below.

>> The authorship that you have given directly below is incorrect. All
>> writing at SelfSIP.org that is not specifically stated as written by
>> someone else is authored by me alone (everything that I write has
>> undergone suggestions, critique and editing by Kitty and vice-versa.)
>> See the "Authorship" section on the project entry page http://selfsip.org
>> where this is clearly stated. I am the theorist. Kitty writes mainly
>> examples which are never to be taken as replacing or being contrary to
>> the theory (on which we both agree). If you think that any is contrary
>> then please state exactly which text is contrary and give reason why
>> you think so.
>>
>>> [2] Self-Sovereignty Solutions Social Preferencing, Author: Paul and
>>> Kitty Antonik Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html
>>>
>>> [4] Social Preferencing – Evaluation and Choice of Association; A
>>> Method for Influence, Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer,
http://selfsip.org/focus/preferencing.html
>>>
>>> [5] Exchange Regarding Social Preferencing and Participation in
>>> Offensive Military Action, Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer,
>>> http://selfsip.org/dialogues/misc/preferencing_at.html
>>>
>>> [6] Incremental Approach – A Better Method for Effecting Change,
>>> Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/focus/smallsteps.html
>>>
>>> Reviewer, Chad Nelson
>>>
>> Chad, you have no "position" or "authority" as reviewer. Please do not
>> try to aggrandize your personal comments into anything more than they
>> are.
>>
> Reviewer
> 1. a person who reviews
> 2. a person who reviews books, plays, etc.
>
> Review
> –verb (used with object)
> 12. to go over (lessons, studies, work, etc.) in review
> 13. to view, look at, or look over again.
> 14. to inspect, esp. formally or officially: to review the troops.
> 15. to survey mentally; take a survey of: to review the situation
> 16. to discuss (a book, play, etc.) in a critical review; write a critical
report upon.
> 17. to look back upon; view retrospectively.
> 18. to present a survey of in speech or writing.
> 19. Law. To reexamine judicially: a decision to review the case

[All of 15, 16, 18 and 19 require a thorough, even and unbiased
approach, which you have not taken.--Paul]

> Placing a title on oneself conveys no position or authority.

[Yes it does. In fact it has no other purpose than that. --Paul]

> It merely states a fact.

[Descriptive adjectives are not equivalent to titles. --Paul]

> If what I am doing does not fall under the
> category of review, then I do not understand the definition of review.

[That is quite correct. You do not. --Paul]

> I shall persist in all sincerity to continue to refer to myself as a
> Reviewer of your work.

[You obviously also have no understanding of the use and meaning of
titles. --Paul]

[Meta
Note 1: This message has become so long that we decided to split in
the middle. The subject now indicates that this is part 1.

Note 2: Both I and Kitty think that it is a poor use of time for us
and for readers to carry on anymore with discussion of the email
correspondence with her nephew. Therefore, we will accept one more
response on that subject and then our response remarks to that will be
the last allowed, unless someone not in the discussion yet has
something novel to say about that subject.
/Meta --Paul]

This reply is a consolidated message in which I address items from
Chad's first message with this title, and his subsequent one to Paul's
reply to that message. I was not ready to respond to Chad immediately
but wanted some time to let things "percolate" in my mind. This message
also contains additional comments by Paul within "[]" as is our usual
method when doing joint replies to the group.

On 06/23/2009 02:55 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> The point is not that Kitty did anything wrong.  Kitty was entitled
> to engage Aaron in the manner that she did.

[You are misunderstanding the word "wrong" (as do most people in the
current society). In reality there is no difference between a
morally/ethically "wrong" action and a factually/methodologically
"wrong" action, the latter of which is incorrect simply because it led
to a different result than the desired/planned one. It is only that
certain types of incorrect actions in society have been promoted to
the status of moral/ethical wrongs, mainly in order to emphasize to
people that they invariably have a very negative effect on the
lifetime happiness of all parties. But in fact, most such
moral/ethical wrongs, eg don't kill, don't lie, honor your mother and
father, etc are never absolute either. --Paul]

> The point rather is that the
> method used did not succeed in encouraging Aaron to modify his
> viewpoint.

Chad, please note below where I am responding to your initial comments
as to what was the purpose of my *email to Aaron*, as opposed to the
purpose of the *article* for which it was merely an example of my own
non-violent social change activism.

> Rather, the method solidified Aaron's current viewpoint.
> Furthermore, my approach also failed.  My effort to point out an
> undesired outcome was interpreted as hostile even though it was
> intended to be instructive.

[I did not interpret your text as "hostile". I try never to impute
intention to anyone without very clear proof (generally requiring the
admittance of the person). However, I did view your text as a very
selective, and totally unfair portrayal of both Kitty herself and what
she was trying to accomplish with her article and her previous email
to Aaron. Again this view of mine was independent of any possible
intention on your part.

Chad, if you ever get around to fully reading the NSC you will clearly
see that I do not make any distinction in harm caused to a person
between whether an action was intended or was merely the result of
accident or incompetence. This is an example of so many things about the
thinking of me and Kitty that you do not yet know, which is why
you really ought not to be so strongly criticizing our work, but rather
questioning to find out more information before you make decisions and
come to conclusions about us. --Paul]

> Like Kitty I was well within the bounds
> of non-coercive human interaction, yet I was misinterpreted.  I saw
> myself as the person with the flashlight pointing the way, but Paul
> saw me as a person pointing a flashlight in his face.

Your "flashlight" was not pointed at the purpose of the article, but
rather at the way *I* had chosen to implement negative social
preferencing in this one case, and to use it strongly (letting others
know). And it was as if you had never even read the article, but merely
the copy of an email I had sent to a relative in the military with the
US engaged in invasion and occupation of a foreign country.

[Yes, it was so much as if there was nothing online except the email
(and I stupidly did not reprise the article) that until Kitty's reply
here, I did not remember that the email was merely an example to a
substantive article describing the practical application of negative
social preferencing in the current society. Your totally unbalanced
"review" likely also caused many others who did not bother to read the
original, to think the same. --Paul]

> [Meta
> Chad, I removed your attempted "meta" enclosures of the above text
> because that text is a preliminary general comment about the
> discussion to date (ie it does not directly address any specific
> previous text), rather than a comment about the format, structure,
> syntax or other non-semantic content of the discussion.
>
> In addition, if you will examine past messages on this group you will
> realize that the usage of square brackets "[]" with a name before the
> last closing bracket is reserved to signify text inserted by one of
> the group's moderator before the message is released from the
> pre-posting queue. This is something that I invented and used in the
> LEF Forums (of which I was the creator and initial moderator for
> several years), for the purpose of preventing possibly harmful health
> information from being acted upon before anyone had a chance to
> correct it. Moderators (now only I and Kitty) used to make actual
> comments to message content before posting the message, but we stopped
> doing that (except very rarely where some urgency is required to
> prevent harm) some time ago. /Meta --Paul]
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 06/17/2009 07:03 PM, freechad480 wrote:
>>
>>> Disclaimer: The following review is highly critical of the example of
>>> Social Preferencing provided on the site.  The intention is not to
>>> insult, but to inform the reader.  It should also be noted that I am
>>> not using an incremental approach, in that, I believe that Kitty and
>>> Paul Wakfer are mature enough to be able to handle what is intended to
>>> be constructive criticism.
>>>
>>> The indiscriminate use of strong Social Preferencing results in the
>>> alienation of individuals that may have otherwise been receptive to
>>> your ideas.
>>>
>> It appears that you have totally misunderstood that Kitty's examples
>> (and most all her writings on SelfSIP.org do not relate to the methods
>> of operation of the Freeman Society, which is the subject of my
>> writings (apart from some critiques of founding documents and the
>> writings of others. In other words, you are confusing the presentation
>> of the theory and operation of the future Freeman Society with the use
>> of some of those operational methods within current societies.
>>
>> Kitty's examples of social preferencing are in no manner examples of
>> that method of operation in the Freeman Society and any problems with
>> the operation of her methods are solely related to the vast and rampant
>> irrationalism of people in the current society.

It was indeed surprising that in supposedly reviewing an article I wrote
(in Sept 2005) with the title, "Social Preferencing - Evaluation and
Choice of Association; A Method for Influence
<http://selfsip.org/focus/preferencing.html>", you made no reference
to one of the major sentences in the first paragraph which sentence
contrasts the usage of social preferencing in the goal society where
there is no government with its the potential value in the current
society with the harm-production by government:

<<In the society that is the goal of the Self-Sovereign Individual
Project, with its basis in the principles of the Theory of Social
Meta-Needs <http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html>,
there is no government - social preferencing is the major method for
influencing others. However, even currently when governments are
everywhere, the tool of social preferencing can be used against those
who actually do the harm in the name of governments, and if practiced
by enough people would be highly effective.<<

This failure to quote highly relevant text (and others) greatly reduces
my estimation of the value of your post as an article review. A review
makes heavy use of paraphrased summaries and quotes of portions of the
entire piece, unless the reviewer has specifically stated that s/he is
addressing only part of a long work. I look at your message as merely
comments regarding those portions of the relatively short article with
which you took exception - entirely the included email to Aaron, which
was done purely to show that I act in concert with my stated values,
rather than simply just give out recommendations. The article could
very easily have ended at the conclusion of the paragraph:

<<Rather than "support our troops" - which means in essence to support
the enforcers and their direct physical supporters - I urge those who
have concluded that the US and its allies are wrong and unjustified in
their military action in Iraq (and Afghanistan and everywhere else) to
instead "influence the troops" via social preferencing, to cease their
actions, resign their positions and openly announce their objections.
Reduce association with individuals in the military and let them know
why. Make it clear that when the enforcers of government harm (all of it
actually is such) refuse to continue to act, governments are impotent to
do harm. Offer to provide support emotionally and physically towards an
enforcer who becomes an ex-enforcer, but shun anyone continuing in that
role. Support individuals who make decisions that maximize the lifetime
happiness of everyone (and not merely US citizens) using the widest view
and longest range thinking, and discriminate against those who do not.
Act in your own best interest using that same criteria.<<

The purpose of the email to Aaron was different - it was as it stated,
first and foremost a frank and forthright explanation to Aaron as to
*why* I and Paul had not visited and would not be doing so while he
remained in the Air Force with no expressed intentions to leave ASAP.

> Shouldn't a method designed to increase ones' lifetime happiness
> account for the "rampant irrationalism of people in the current
> society"?

Yes, it should. And negative social preferencing (at all strengths) in
regard to those who are *significantly and stubbornly irrational* is the
most reasonable method of enacting social change. It is a non-violent
approach in all aspects. It doesn't even make use of tax money
(government extortion) to alter the thinking or practices of individuals
(such as those who are categorized by governments as - "mentally ill",
"drug abusers", "sex offenders", overeaters, alcoholics, eating
disordered, "repeat offenders", "juvenile delinquents", etc.) via any
number of persuasive, educational or regulatory programs enacted by
governments at all levels.

Once again I suggest that you (and others) familiarize yourself with the
writings of Gene Sharp, probably the most well known living non-violence
theoretician. I only began reading his works within the past year and
came to know how greatly negative social preferencing (although known by
other names) has been used throughout (at least fairly recent) history
in attempts to effect social change. Five of the 198 methods he includes
in _The Methods of Nonviolent Action_ (Vol 2 of 3 vol set) are ones that
he classifies as "Ostracism of Persons" in the Chapter, "The Methods
of Social Noncooperation". (Paul has owned Sharp's 3 volume set, _The
Politics of Nonviolent Action_for probably 25 years and read portions
of it after first acquiring it.) I am currently in the first chapter
of the 3rd volume - _The Dynamics of Nonviolent Action_ (this chapter
is actually listed as Ch 9 of the set).

It is important to emphasize that the purpose of nonviolent action is
to get the opponent to stop hir harm-causing action by using only
nonviolent methods. In the case of government, the enforcers are the
only ones doing the actual harm. The purpose of my article was to
encourage others who agreed that the harm-causing action (killing,
injuring and destroying of property in Iraq and Afghanistan by US
troops) was just that to use a specific type nonviolent method as an
attempt to influence the harm causers (government enforcers in the
military) to cease their participation in the harm. If the enforcers
ceased because they came to agree with their friends'
views/arguments/persuasion, that would be great.
If however, enforcers ceased their participation *only* because they
didn't like being spurned by their friends/relatives/acquaintances,
that would still be fine *because* they would no longer be
participating in the harm. And as the numbers of ex-enforcers grew the
amount of harm being done would correspondingly decrease as long as
they were not replaced by new enforcers. And the article included the
same type of nonviolent action to discourage anyone joining the ranks
of the military - the enforcers, the harm-doers.

[The origin of Social Preferencing in our thinking is as the ultimate
effector of self-ordering feedback in the Freeman Society where there
will not be any "rampant irrationalism of people in the current society"
(or else the Freeman Society, the then current one, would not yet have
come to exist). Yes, the use of any means of bettering anything in any
society has to take into account the extant social conditions of that
society. Is that not obvious? If you don't use a tool with full
knowledge of what you are working it upon, then you are not going to
succeed in whatever goal for which you are using the tool. --Paul]

>> But you have also greatly misused the word "indiscriminate" both above
>> and in the subject line.
>> 1) "Indiscriminate" means:
>> 1 a (1) : not marked by discrimination : not marked by careful
>> distinction : not evidencing discernment </indiscriminate/ reading
>> habits> </indiscriminate/ viewing of television programs> <launched
>> /indiscriminate/ destruction>
>> (2) : HAPHAZARD, RANDOM, HIT-AND-MISS, SWEEPING - </indiscriminate/
>> application of a law> </indiscriminate/ censure>
>> (3) : UNRESTRAINED, PROMISCUOUS - </indiscriminate/ sexual intercourse>
>> b (1) : not separated into distinct parts : JUMBLED, CONFUSED - <the
>> babble of the crowd was an /indiscriminate/ mixture of several languages>
>> (2) : MOTLEY. HETEROGENEOUS - <a book filled with an /indiscriminate/
>> assortment of pictures>
>> 2 : not exercising discrimination or discernment : not making careful
>> distinctions : not carefully choosing :
>> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/ .
>> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (18 Jun. 2009).
>>
>> Neither I nor Kitty have ever before been accused of being
>> indiscriminate (except perhaps for Kitty when she was in mania). If
>> anything we have both been accused of being far too discriminating and
>> not tolerant and accepting enough of the diverse irrational and even
>> harmful actions of others.

Your use of the word "indiscriminate" was actually my first surprise
from your message since it is the first word of the post title you
created. As Paul has pointed out, the word is totally without logical
connection to the purpose or content of the article or the email to
Aaron that was contained within that article.

> The failure to discriminate comes in the form of the context.  One
> must be discriminating as to which level of social preferencing is
> applied based on the individual being considered.  On second thought I
> should have used to the term "ineffective".  Since the approach was
> "ineffective", in that, Aaron's current viewpoint was strengthened not
> weakened as one might hope.  Change for the better did not occur.

Even with a change of wording from "indiscriminate" to "ineffective",
your criticism actually is only appropriate to *my* usage in a
particular case of strong negative social preferencing. "Change for the
better" did not occur, nor even the start of a reasonable discussion.
Much of that I attribute to the fact that Aaron is, to my belated
knowledge, a strong religionist. Whether my revised email, sent as the
initial overture to him, would have elicited discussion with him on his
continued military participation, one can only conjecture. Since then
I have thought of other information/recollections that could
have been included in an initial email to him. Communication is fraught
with problems and many (?most?) people do not assume that others are
being honest and caring in what they write/say - and that is because
many (?most?) are often evasive, leave much unsaid and are "taking
out" their own problems on others.

[Chad also appears to forget all the purposes of Social Preferencing, an
important one of which is to directly increase the lifetime happiness of
the person doing the social preferencing. This did succeed in as much as
neither I nor Kitty are wasting any of our precious time resources on
interaction with Aaron. That was of course already a success from the
initial decisions and action not to visit, but it became more successful
as a result of Aaron's strong negative reply and total break of the
connection. Even so, if Aaron should come forth with any indication that
he has done some thinking on the issues and wishes to discuss them, then
we would be happy to interact with him. This is always true for anyone
with whom we have decided to not associate or have merely reduced such
association. As Kitty just said to me, another way to describe our
approach to people is to say that we are not "evangelists" for
libertarianism. --Paul]

>> 2) I thought that I had made it clear that by social preferencing I mean
>> actions that either positively or negatively affect personal interaction
>> with another person (eg you *do* talk to this person again or you do
>> *not* continue to talk to hir). I would then classify social
>> preferencing into three degrees of strength.
>> a) weak social preferencing is where you simply process the interaction
>> decision without giving any reasons for it.
>> b) Medium social preferencing (or just social preferencing) is where you
>> give reasons for your action to the person or organization which you
>> are socially preferencing.
>> c) Strong social preferencing is where you make public the reasons for
>> your decision. Strong social preferencing will be crucial for the
>> operation of a Freeman Society, but it can also be extremely beneficial
>> right now in starting people to think in the right direction.
>>
>> Note that none of these expressions concerning the strength of social
>> preferencing have any relationship to its *direction* - whether it is
>> positive (promotional of the person) or negative (demotional of the person).
>>
> Agreed.  There are different strengths.

[It is clear from that remark that you did not understand my usage of
"Weak", "Medium" and "Strong" as being technical terms (look up the
meaning of that phrase) for naming the three defined categories of
Social Preferencing rather than as variations of the English word
strength. To avoid this misunderstanding in future, I will rename
those three categories as Silent Social Preferencing, Private Social
Preferencing and Public Social Preferencing - each of course both
negative and positive. Each of these categories can have variations of
strength. The association part of Social Preferencing can go from
constantly seeking out the company of the other person, to mild
enjoyment of being together, to refusing to talk about one or more
particular subjects, to total ostracism. The communication part of
both positive and negative Social Preferencing can also be at various
levels between detailing ever virtue that you can possibly state about
a person, to not saying much at all, to detailing every possible
negativity of hir character and behavior. --Paul]

>> 3) Whether or not any person is alienated by whatever I have to say is
>> up to them. Alienation is in the mind of the alienated - the recipient
>> of the negative social preferencing - and it is not something that I
>> can directly induce in that mind. If I speak the truth and someone is
>> offended, then any alienation is hir psychological problem not mine.
>> Such alienation (and presumably return weak social preferencing against
>> me) simply means that I have filtered out one more person who is highly
>> likely to be not ultimately receptive to my ideas anyway and leaves me
>> free to proceed to find and spend more time with others who are more
>> likely to be receptive.
>>
> This approach does not seem to accommodate the human requirement that
> change (in most cases) must be incremental.  This approach also tends
> to increase resistance from the party that feels alienated (whether
> warranted on not).  The feeling of alienation or persecution tends to
> produce resentfulness and a desire to protect long held positions.

The fact that you conclude that negative social preferencing does "not
seem to accommodate the human requirement that change (in most cases)
must be incremental", shows me that you have not studied it. It appears
to me that you became fixated on the email example of (one of) my
usage(s) - intended for the purpose stated above - and have chosen to
criticize negative social preferencing as a whole method based on the
fact that my nephew did not respond favorably. You have made a strong
general negative assumption based on a single usage example. Gene Sharp
- and Gandhi too - would not and does not recommend such a conclusion
from single instances of nonviolent action methods, including ostracism
of persons.

>>> It is true that an individual should not condone or
>>> heavily support others that hold antithetical viewpoint.

Chad, here again you appear to have lost - or are ignoring - the purpose
of the article I wrote which was and still is to - encourage *others* to
do something constructive rather than to merely verbally wring their
hands online. Blogs and website comments have been filled with useless
messages moaning about how Congress or the President should, in this
case of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "bring the troops home".
Actions for influencing the troops themselves to cease being enforcers
(paid killers in fact for many of them) - or physical supporters of them
(in the case of my support pilot nephew) - is something that each and
every person who disagrees with the US government's military presence
in Iraq and Afghanistan (and any other similar action) can do.

>> The problem here (specifically with Kitty's nephew) is not that he holds
>> an antithetical viewpoint (he actually never expressed any viewpoint at
>> all), but rather that he is aiding and abetting mass murder by the US
>> armed forces. I and Kitty have many people with whom we associate in
>> various narrow areas, who hold highly antithetical views to ours, but,
>> as far as we know, are not directly supporting the infliction of
>> violence on others.
>>
> An incremental approach would be to first develop an understanding of
> the other individuals viewpoint.  A person view of their own
> occupation is often positive.  A person that joins the military does
> not view the activity as "aiding and abetting mass murder".

[I wish to note that Kitty never wrote anything remotely that strong to
Aaron. Those words were merely my description to Chad that such action
was not comparable to an "error". --Paul]

>  It may be
> better to start with a short email.  Something like:
> ---
> Hi Aaron,
>
> How are you doing?  Paul and I haven't had a chance to see you in a
> while.  How is military life treating you?
>
> Paul and I spent the weekend chopping wood.  See the attached photo.
>
> Kitty
> ---

This is *not* something I would ever write under the circumstances for
which I wrote the original.
I never use this generally meaningless opening that I hear uttered by so
many, "How are you doing?" I do not ask a question for which I am not
*really* interested in the response. When I *do* ask a question of this
type I *really do* want to know how that person is physically and how
s/he has been spending hir time since we last communicated, and I
include enough specificity in my words to make that desire very clear.
I would *never* write the second sentence since it is a complete
falsehood. I and Paul had (and continue to have if Aaron is still in the
St. Louis area) plenty of opportunities to see him - each time we drive
on our trips between Ontario and Arizona (as long as we continue to take
the same route). To say that we "haven't had a chance to see you in a
while" would be absolutely false - I do not operate that way when the
person I am communicating with has no intention to do me physical harm.
In communication with non-harm intending individuals I may refrain from
saying a particular thing or may use one phrasing rather than another,
but I would not resort to the approach that you are recommending. And I
would never encourage others to do this either. [You can't find truth
starting with lies. --Paul]
The 3rd sentence is example of a question in which I am not interested
under the circumstances. However a question about his wife and daughters
would be appropriate.
And finally, I do not send out short chatty emails of this nature at all
to people - including relatives - with whom I am not in at least fairly
regular communication. I have OTOH responded with short messages to an
announcement of a specific event, for instance to ones regarding the
birth of a great niece/nephew or a graduation. But to out of the blue be
chatty as you have suggested with a subsequent message already in mind
is not straightforward, but rather underhanded IMO.

I see nothing wrong with being frank in the opening of an (unsolicited)
email like my improved email - "I've been doing a lot of thinking about
you lately and am deeply concerned." That is where I would start and
actually recommend others to do similarly, if they are communicating
with someone whose wellbeing they truly want to encourage but whose
behavior is evaluated as not conducive to being so in all respects.

>>> However,
>>> this does not imply that one should assume an offensive stance with
>>> individuals that hold a differing viewpoint.
>> You continue to misuse words. Nothing that we are doing can be
>> classified as "offensive":
>> 1 : making attack : relating to or characterized by attack :
>> AGGRESSIVE : fitted for or used in attacking </offensive/ weapons>
>> </offensive/ maneuver> </offensive/ strength> -- opposed to /defensive/
>> (ibid)
>>
> An individual that does not invite conversation on a topic may "feel"
> that they are being attacked.  The claim that the word "offensive" is
> being misused is not justified.  The sentence was not directed at
> anyone.  Rather, this sentence is being taken out of context.  I am
> merely stating my view.  No judgment was passed.  Nowhere did I state
> that Kitty took an offensive stance.  Please read the post carefully.

I have read your post carefully Chad. You appear in it to be
*instructing* the readers of your message to this group on how
"indiscriminate use of strong Social Preferencing results in the
alienation of individuals that[sic] may have otherwise been receptive to
your ideas". You immediately proceed on: "It is true that an individual
should not condone or heavily support others that hold antithetical
viewpoint. However, this does not imply that one should assume an
offensive stance with individuals that hold a differing viewpoint. After
all, the objective is not to castigate them, but convert or at least
neutralize them." After more text from you, some of it quotes from other
items on the SelfSIP website regarding social preferencing but without
accurate differentiation between the goal society and use of the method
in current society, you include the first paragraph of the email to my
nephew I used as an example of my own usage of the practice - but *after*
quoting the initial highly offended response I received from Aaron. You
were highly critical of the email I wrote - and I had already expressed
doubts about the wording I'd used initially when making public the
revised email. So it is quite reasonable for me and Paul (and anyone
else) to conclude that you were using my email as an example of an
"offensive stance with individuals that hold a differing viewpoint". Now
I do not "feel" I was "being attacked"; though I do think you were/are
making strong criticisms of (some would use the word "attack") certain
ideas and even actions of mine. Specifically, I do think that you
were/are making a poor case for not using strong negative social
preferencing with people who are participants in government initiated
harm-intending actions by way of two email examples of mine - the one
I actually sent and the revised one I composed 18 months later.

[Once again, both "offensive" and "attack" are the wrong words because
there was no possibility of the use of physical force. To use them that
way is distorting and confusing the thinking of all involved. --Paul]

>> There is also the more recent meaning (a distortion of the root
>> meaning):
>> 3 : causing displeasure or resentment : giving offense : INSULTING,
>> AFFRONTING <loud, /offensive/ behavior> </offensive/ advertising>
>> <it's /offensive/ to a gentleman's feelings when his word isn't
>> believed -- Dorothy Sayers>
>> (ibid)
>>
>> However, that is a total distortion precisely because the sender of
>> words cannot physically *cause* displeasure or resentment in the
>> receiver of the words. I and Kitty simply state what we are convinced
>> is true. Any "offense" is totally the result of the mental workings of
>> the receiver of our words.
>>
>> Actually this reminds me of a person about whom I have thought for
>> the two decades that I have known him that we ought to be very close
>> friends based on the wealth of interests that we hold in common to be
>> highly important (cryonics, life-extension and libertarianism to name
>> just 3), but with whom I nevertheless never seem to have anything but
>> a very contentious relationship. Here is the latest example early this
>> year - http://cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=31317 In fact, if you go
>> to http://cryonet.org and search with "Ben Best attack", you will find
>> that poor Ben is always getting "attacked" by others even though all
>> they are doing is using words!!
>>
> See the response above.

[Which is not a sufficient response to the details I have written above
but rather an evasion of them (again, whether intended or not). --Paul]

>>> After all, the objective
>>> is not to castigate them, but convert or at least neutralize them.
>>>
>> "Castigate": Etymology: Latin /castigatus, /past participle of
>> /castigare /to correct, punish -- more at CHASTEN
>> 1 a : to punish or subdue by punishment </castigate/ thy pride --
>> Shakespeare>
>> b : to reprove for error or criticize with drastic severity <those
>> poems in which he /castigate//s /man's general inhumanity and lack of
>> sincerity -- J.G.Southworth> <not even the ablest critic can /castigate/
>> an artless generation into repentance and creative vigor -- A.J.Barnouw>
>> *synonym* see PUNISH
>>
>> I presume you mean 1b even though once again that is not the root
>> meaning of the word nor the most accepted meaning (punish). It should
>> be clear from our insistence on restitution as the *only* rational
>> response to effectively caused harm, that neither I nor Kitty think
>> that punishment is ever rational. Except to each other and to
>> ourselves, we also rarely ever "reprove for error or criticize with
>> drastic severity". However, the person in contention was not making an
>> "error" (is aiding and abetting mass murder now to be called merely an
>> error?). There are major differences in kind between errors and gross
>> physical harms. Even so, Kitty's intention was to strongly make a
>> clear statement to her nephew about the effect of his actions and to
>> enter into a dialog about those actions. It was he who reacted to
>> break off any further contact.
>>
> Again see the response above.  You are interpreting my viewpoint as
> condemnation.

I do not at all think it a stretch of the imagination to say that you
were/are condemning *the email* I originally sent to Aaron and even the
revised one I composed - you even interpreted them as a castigation of
him. Since you are strongly opposed to the wording I used and even the
initial frankness of both compositions, the the use of the word
condemnation would not be out of place. However I have not interpreted
your words as a condemnation of me as a person. And neither has Paul.
If that is what you meant by your last sentence immediately above, you
are misinterpreting.

[As I have written multiple places, I never make a whole person
evaluation, but rather I make evaluations of individual characteristics,
weight them according to my intended dealings with that person and sum
up the total to arrive at an interaction decision.

I also note that you have ignored/evaded most of my points within the
above paragraph (again, whether or not intended). --Paul]

>>> The dissimilar individual should not walk away angry at you.
>>>
>> If speaking the truth causes that to happen then so be it. It is the
>> best thing to happen for many reasons including those already given.
>> Once again, your use of "dissimilar" is totally misplaced. The
>> situation here did not relate merely to a matter of taste or
>> convention (as with wearing a bathing suit to a wedding) but rather
>> entailed fundamental ethics.
>>
> Modification to an ideology takes years (decades in some cases).  It
> is unreasonable to expect to convert someone by immediately exposing
> them to a "seemingly" radical ideology.  One must become acclimated to
> ideas just like one must become acclimated to cold water.

Please keep in mind the purpose of my email to Aaron as compared to the
purpose of the article in which it was an example, almost as an addendum
- explained above. We are well aware that a paradigm shift requires for
many (?most?) people a considerable amount of time. You are not
informing us of something we are not already well aware.

[And once again you evaded my point about your euphemistic word
"dissimilar" and the huge difference between fundamental ethics (murder)
and convention (wearing a bathing suit to a wedding) - again, whether
intended or not. --Paul]

>>> One of
>>> the more important issues to keep in mind when developing methods
>>> for dealing with other individuals is the context.
>>>
>> You are pointing out the obvious, which I and Kitty know very well.
>>
> I am pointing out my view.  If my view is obvious, then we are in
> agreement.

It is obvious and something we have been well aware of for *many* years.

>>> Are the actors "operating in a Freeman Society", or not? [2]
>>>
>> This has no relevance to the use of social preferencing in the current
>> society as an important tool of social behavior modification.
>>
> Here we are in disagreement.  This is 100% relevant.  Social
> preferencing used in the manner demonstrated in the email in question
> resulted in Aaron feeling persecuted.  The question I would pose is
> was persecution the objective?  If not, then what was the objective?
> If the true objective is not achieved, then the method implemented was
> flawed.  A better method must be devised.

The email of mine on which this thread appears to be entirely based was
an example by me of "medium (Private) negative social preferencing", not
simply "social preferencing". Even in the end, after I published the
email correspondence it was not fully Public Social Preferencing because
I did not give out his full name, which I would have done if my purpose
had been to rally others to negatively socially preference him.

The primary objective for that email in Sept 2005 was - as is stated far
above by me - to inform Aaron of why we had not been visiting him and
might continue not to do so. If he was of a mind to actually discuss the
reasons I had given for this action, I was quite ready and even anxious
to have a substantive exchange with him. The primary objective was
achieved - he knows *exactly* why we had not made use of the many
opportunities when driving through his area to arrange for a visit with
him and his family. He also has been informed of my interest in his
wellbeing, initially and in the few subsequent emails, right down to the
ending of the last one from me: "I will not "dispose" of you, concluding
that you will forever make your choices/decisions for ideas held and
actions taken based on your current methods. Humans are not leopards
(that cannot change their spots); humans *can* choose how and what to
think."

Perhaps you did not read the comments I made at the bottom of the
email exchange webpage. The first 2/3 of the first paragraph:

<<When I sent the original email to Aaron, I did not expect initial
agreement with my thinking, otherwise he would already have resigned his
Air Force commission or be in the process of doing so. I expected to
likely receive some of the well used excuses for the US military
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. To his credit, Aaron did not parrot
any of these, possibly because I made it quite clear in that initial
message that I had made a thorough examination of the underlying factors
and evidently would not be swayed by the current US administration and
news media line of "fighting terrorism". But what did surprise me was an
inability and/or unwillingness to express his ideas, beyond stating that
they are "rooted in [his] faith in God" - which is in essence saying
that he does not use logical thought based on facts (except of course in
regards to piloting a plane and possibly in other technical areas). If
Aaron does not agree with the US military action in Iraq and
Afghanistan, then he should resign, otherwise he is not "doing the right
things despite pressure or temptations to the contrary" as the Air Force
Academy describes a person with character
<http://selfsip.org/dialogues/misc/preferencing_at.html>.<<

As I stated above, I was not aware of the fact that Aaron was an ardent
religionist. My interactions with him had been few over his lifetime,
since I lived in AZ and he with his parents in West Virgina, until his
4 years at the Air Force Academy, graduating in June 1998. Had I known
this, an email along the lines of my revised one would have been the one
I sent.

[Note that the method which you have characterized as "flawed", might
well have worked (for the only purpose you think it was intended, even)
if sufficient numbers of people who had formerly associated with Aaron
had followed Kitty's lead. --Paul]

>>> If the actors are
>>> operating outside of a Freeman Society, then the methods and rules
>>> of interaction should change based on the context (swimming suits
>>> are not appropriate for weddings).
>>>
>> Speaking the truth is always a correct and appropriate method of
>> interaction. Your metaphor about wearing bathing suits is totally
>> inappropriate.
>>
> Disagree.  Speaking the Truth is a tool.  Lying to someone who is
> trying to steal from you is perfectly acceptable.

"[S]omeone who is trying to steal from you" is already *not*
appropriately interacting. Speaking the truth to those who are not
intending harm *is* the appropriate method of interaction.

Both I and Paul have long - well before we ever met and, at least for
me, probably for longer than your 29 years - held the view that lying
to those who intend you harm is an acceptable method of action. It is
up to the individual to decide whether, under particular
circumstances, truth or an evasion of it (or even an outright lie)
will better serve the purpose of optimizing hir lifetime happiness.

[I did not include that exception above simply because the situation
with which I was dealing did not include anyone who would intend to
violate me. Just as with Kitty, I have, for probably more than 50 years,
been fully convinced that lying to those who would violate one is the
right action to take if it helps avoid/avert the coercion. --Paul]

>> Strong negative Social Preferencing - the non-sanction
>> or non-association and the public expression of the reasons for such
>> actions, is a major way to stop many of the harms of the current
>> society and get people to think like being in a Freeman Society. Yes,
>> it will not likely be immediately effective to alter the behavior of
>> those who are being socially preferenced against. It will more likely
>> first promote change in others who see the example, are informed by
>> the method and are encouraged to use such methods. However, ultimately
>> the person being preferenced against will reconsider hir actions,
>> particularly when and if sufficient numbers take the same kinds of
>> negative preferencing actions with hir while s/he continues to act
>> similarly.
>>
>> It should be noted that strong negative social preferencing is simply
>> the logical counterpart of the widely accepted practice of strong
>> positive social preferencing - the public praise, accolades,
>> recommendations and testimonials for individuals, and organizations of
>> various types, which are so often freely forthcoming from others. What
>> possible logic can there be for such non-acceptance of the negative
>> method, while the positive method is so fully accepted and used? It
>> appears that the adage "if you can't say anything nice then don't say
>> anything at all" reigns supreme in the minds of the vast majority in
>> current society.

[Once again you did not respond to the above, specifically you did not
answer my pointed question. --Paul]

>> Note also that virtually everyone fully accepts both strong positive
>> and strong negative preferencing with respect to all kinds of commercial
>> products and services. Again there is no logical distinction between
>> such methods and similar strong social preferencing relating to all
>> manner of attributes of individual persons. I and Kitty have made this
>> point before in other places, but you may not have read them yet.
>>
> Do not infer disagreement.  No where in my review was an assertion
> made that negative social preferencing was correct and that positive
> social preferencing was incorrect or vice ver se.  I understand the
> difference.  This is analogous to the carrot and stick method.

Your claimed "review" in no way made it clear that you understood and
agreed with the value of strong negative social preferencing for those
"who actually do the harm in the name of governments" (quote from the
beginning of the article closing with the email to Aaron. Your repeated
criticisms of my example usage of it with that email have reasonably been
interpreted by me and Paul as a criticism of strong negative social
preferencing in general. You have made no statements - not even directly
above - that you agree with the appropriate usage of this method of
nonviolent action for social change.

[Once again you choose a really bad analogy that is not related in
essentials. Positive Social Preferencing is as much a benefit to the
person doing the Social Preferencing as it is to the other person, it
is not an altruistic gift (carrot) to a mindless animal but rather an
exchange of value - a reward to the person for some admirable qualities
that s/he has shown and a continuation of association so that more
benefit from such qualities will be forthcoming to the person doing the
Social Preferencing. Negative Social Preferencing is most certainly not
like a stick since it has no element of violation whatever attached to
it. Negative Social Preferencing is again of direct benefit to the
person doing it or else it would and should not be done (using a stick
on an animal is not). The direct benefit is, as described before, the
non-association with a person in a manner and to the extent to which
such association would not benefit one. The effects on the other person
are important, but secondary and will be minimal if only one person is
doing such Social Preferencing. This is why the "Public" aspect of
Social Preferencing is important. For Positive Social Preferencing
making it public will more likely greatly increase the reward the the
admirable person receives (and give hir incentive to do more such
admirable things) and for Negative Social Preferencing it will more
likely greatly increase the censure that the disreputable person
receives (and give hir incentive to stop doing such unfavorable things,
so that s/he will have more people with whom to interact beneficially
to hirself). --Paul]

>>> The other important consideration is the
>>> intellectual level of the individual.
>>>
>> I and Kitty socially preference, effectively on a continuous basis,
>> with respect to everyone whatever their intellectual level and in all
>> aspects of our lives. We do this by continuously evaluating everything
>> and everyone around us and altering our interfacing with such things
>> and persons as appropriate to the current evaluation. No one has time
>> to do such continuous evaluation consciously, so much of it is done
>> subconsciously by means of habits having been formed for that purpose.
>> I cannot conceive of any other way to act and still be honest with and
>> to oneself. To act otherwise is to live a lie and to be hypocritical
>> which cannot possibly optimally increase one's lifetime happiness.

[Again no response was made to the above important description of
behavior. --Paul]

To be continued in pt 2.

On 06/20/2009 04:06 PM, freechad480 wrote:
> [Meta
> Although I rarely do so anymore, this message required a couple of
> quick responses from me before it was released from the queue. Please
> see them below within "[]" marks.
> /Meta --Paul]
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 06/10/2009 01:32 PM, freechad480 wrote:
>>
>>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/09/2009 09:43 PM, Chad Nelson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I learned about you through one of the forum posts at www.mises.org
>>>>> <http://www.mises.org/> a couple months ago.
>>>>>
>>>> I think that I can guess which one, but I would like to know for sure,
>>>> please. And even better would be to know what about the post attracted
>>>> you to investigate further.
>>>>
>>> The article I was reading was: http://blog.mises.org/archives/009840.asp
>>>
>> That is what I thought. It was my critique of a section of Mises'
>> _Human Action_ Chap 2 on the principle of methodological individualism.
>> Unfortunately, as is so often the case with my critiques of revered
>> people, on sites or within circles that revere them, there has been no
>> response. I can only conclude from such lack of response that most
>> people who read it decide to simply ignore it since they cannot refute
>> it.
>>
> It is dangerous to idolize individuals to the point that they become
> Gods.  There are no sacred cows.  Mises, Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Walter
> Block, Marc Faber, and so on all fall into the category of human.
> I respect their contributions, but I also recognize that they do/did
> not get everything right.

Well stated.

>> Ignoring something that you don't like is a prime method of
>> relegating it to unimportance in the evaluation of others, no matter how
>> true it is.
>>
> Agreed.  This is the trap that an individual should avoid to the
> extent that truth is the objective.

From the last, "to the extent that truth is the objective", I assume
that the "individual" about whom you write is the one who is ignoring.
However, then I don't see quite how the word "trap" applies,
particularly since a trap usually refers to something hidden and
accidentally "sprung", whereas ignoring something "disagreeable" is very
much an intentional act. But certainly it should not be done. However
disagreeable something at first may appear to be, it should always be
examined for potential reason and truth. If the disagreeable (something
not agreed with) is never fully examined and the possibility of its
being truth fully entertained, then one will never change that with
which one agrees, and thus will never find any new truths that
invalidate current convictions.

[Perhaps Chad is meaning "habit" of evasion as that phrase would make
more sense - at least to me - rather than "trap". But clarification is
warranted. **Kitty]

>> While it is true that my critique did not get posted until 2
>> days after the article (a simple reprint of Mises' text) because it was
>> long and got initially rejected by the system, clearly it did get read
>> by some people, you at the least.
>>
>> I would still appreciate your telling me what about it attracted you
>> to further investigate me.
>>
> I found myself in disagreement with the article in the I / We / Ego
> section.  In reading your comment I found that you articulated my
> disagreement, and it made me want to learn more.

Thanks for letting me know. However, since you used an undefined "we"
several times in some of your other responses, you have clearly not yet
changed your own habits. This is understandable. I find myself still
reverting to that and similar old habits of expression occasionally, but
at least now I or Kitty almost always catch such things before they
become public.

>>>> This information will be valuable to me
>>>> because I am having some difficulty attracting people who are capable
>>>> of understanding my ideas and are in sufficient agreement to even wish
>>>> to engage me in dialog about them.
>>>>
> One of the reasons that it is difficult to attract individuals is that
> many people do not read the long comments (even the people that read
> mises.org).

Yes, this is a sad fact, particularly because the longer comments are
always the more substantive and interesting ones. The short "chat"
comments are a total waste of time, which simply clutter up the
Internet. I wish that more sites had a cleanup policy with some
intelligent software that would go through the site and delete all
comments without information content after 10 days.

> It may be wise to break the comment into bite-size chunks.

This reminds me of Jeffrey Tucker's "rule" that all Mises.org articles
must be composed in short paragraphs of no more than 2 or 3 sentences.

[Actually there are articles that do not fall into this "bite-size
chunk" category so he doesn't enforce it on all authors and/or subjects.
I can't imagine him suggesting to George Reisman or Frank Shostak (and a
number of other writers) that they  write their articles in brief
paragraphs.
Paul is referring to an article of mine submitted to mises.org that
Tucker heavily edited citing a similar reason. We did not agree to many
of the edits and our rewrite was not acceptable to him - and he would
not even address our reasons. (See "Government Distortion vs. Market
Realism in Space or Is the GPS Worth It? Who Knows?"
<http://selfsip.org/focus/gps_iridium.html>  and also "Publication
History of 'Is the GPS Worth It? Who Knows?'
<http://selfsip.org/dialogues/misc/gpspublicationhistory.html>" )  **Kitty]

The problem is that most everything that I write logically builds up
from certain assumptions to conclusions in a coherent whole. No sub-part
of it can logically stand by itself. And most certainly almost nothing
that I write can be meaningful after only a bite-size amount of text.
Therefore, I do not see the advantage of breaking it up into parts,
particularly since each part would need to say at the end "to be
continued" and at the beginning would need to summarize where the whole
stands up to this point, which is going to cause a lot of duplication
and even more time to read. Rather, what I try to do is to state quickly
at the start what I am going to do and hope that attracts the reader to
stay with my text until the end.

>  I know some people that feel insulted by long posts.

I can't see how the length of a person's post can possibly be insulting,
so perhaps you meant to say "intimidated", with which I would agree.

>  These individuals purposefully ignore the long ones.

Then, they must have very low self-esteem. But I don't then see how they
ever expect to learn. Besides all the works by Rothbard, Mises, etc are
not short by any means and are highly complex. Presumably the posters to
mises.org have read through at least some of these long works, so why
are they intimidated (or insulted, if that is what you really meant) by
a much shorter writing from me? No, I think the reason that people are
not reading my writings is for the simple and quite logical reason that
there is so much in print and on the Internet that they must carefully
prioritize their time. Their method of prioritization quite reasonably
involves mainly reading those people who they either know from the past
are interesting and informative, or who are recommended by someone who
they respect for hir judgment in such matters.

[In regard to commenters on at least the mises blog, many of them
are regulars - an "in-crowd" - who "know" each other to a certain extent
from having made probably daily comments (sometimes more than 1 on an
item) for many months, maybe even years. My observation is that many of
them ignore a newcomer or others who rarely comment and instead have
little chats between themselves. It is similar to a party where a group
of conversants ignore anyone attempting to join the conversation. Now
this is not true for all of them, since I did receive cogent responses
from 2 individuals to one comment of mine. **Kitty]

>>>> This is understandable since those
>>>> ideas are not part of any currently established and widely known social
>>>> model, and one of the major problems with current society is the lack
>>>> of truly open minded and analytical people.
>>>>
> The pump must be primed. Otherwise, individuals will feel like they
> are swimming in the ocean.  What one doesn't understand gets ignored
> or blamed for the problem.

Yes, having been a teacher in one area or another for much of my life,
I understand that well. The problem with the social system that I am
promoting is that none of it can stand alone or as an add-on to current
practices. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce and convince people
of a lot of new and fairly radical ideas all together before they will
be able to understand fully how any one of them will work and
practically solve the problems that they immediately see (because there
are major problems in the current society). That is why I and Kitty have
decided to concentrate on two critical methods of the Freeman Society,
which are applicable to the current society, albeit in a somewhat
modified form. These two aspects are Social Preferencing and Value For
Value, both of them also requiring full openness of identification and
eschewing of anonymity and pseudonymity.

> Yesterday, my grandfather told me that the
> Internet is the cause of the world's problems.  This makes no sense.

That is like blaming discovery of radioactivity and the binding energy
of the atom for nuclear weapons. Perhaps some people 75-100 years ago
thought the telephone was the cause of the world's problems.

> The Internet is just a tool.  The reality is that my grandfather does
> not understand the Internet, and it is therefore convenient to blame
> the general problems of the world on this nebulous Internet.

Whereas the reality is that the Internet is the greatest liberating
factor that has arisen since the printing press.

>>> Something I have found is that individuals have to discover much of this
>>> on their own.  You can provide a light or stretch out your hand, but
>>> they have to take the next step.  The individual must also be willing to
>>> sincerely question every principle that they have accepted as "truth".
>>>
>> All of this is very true and I generally always act that way in all my
>> education endeavors. The individual has to analyze the data, digest
>> the information, extract the essences and make them a part of hir
>> brain by integrating them with all hir other convictions.
>>
>> Almost 30 years ago, I learned from Nathaniel Branden the expression
>> of "owning" one's ideas and emotions, which expression I greatly
>> valued and used for many years until reading your response and writing
>> this reply. I now realize that the use of the word "own" both distorts
>> the process of information integration into the brain/mind and worse,
>> confuses the status of such information with that of property to which
>> the concept of ownership does correctly and fully apply.
>>
> I have not thought enough about this to feel comfortable venturing
> beyond this depth.

Thanks for responding. I look forward to the time when you have read
and thought more about it and have some substantive comments.

>>> They must also acknowledge that ideas are not Self rather they are
>>> Possessions.  Possessions with the unique characteristic of being
>>> possessible by all.
>>>
>> The first, "ideas are not Self rather they are possessions", is an
>> interesting expression that I had not seen or thought before, but I do
>> not agree with it. In fact, I see several problems with the approach
>> of these last two sentences:
>> 1) The clear distinction between "data" and "information" should always
>> be made. (In fact, I think that the Natural Social Contract (NSC) may
>> need to be altered in order to make this clear.)
>>
> I still need to read the Natural Social Contract.  I am assuming that
> you are disagreeing with the possession part of the statement.  My
> idea is not me rather it is an entity that was generated by me with
> the help of some stimuli.

Your idea is not an entity that is separate or even separable in total
from you. In that sense your idea is part of your self, just as my ideas
are part of my self. Yes the idea was generated by the self of which it
is part, but it is generated as an integral part, just as are memories,
emotions or any other brain patterns.

>> 2) "Ideas" are definitely information rather than data. They are a
>> product of the individual human brain/mind acting on the data that it
>> receives from some external source.
>>
> I am confused about the difference between information and data.  I
> would lump them in the same category.  Again I have not thought about
> this very much.

Data is the raw percepts emanating from external sources as received
by the human senses. Data is also those mental effects of such
percepts which are clearly objective and not subject to ambiguity and
interpretation, such as numerical data. The words you are reading here
are data. The semantic content of them as phrases, sentences or the
whole is information. However after examining the dictionary meaning I
find that my definition here of "data" is what the Merriam Webster
dictionary refers to as "sense-data".

>> 3) For that same reason each instance of an idea is actually unique to
>> the person in whose brain/mind it resides. It is uniquely integrated
>> with all hir other knowledge and is essentially inseparable from its
>> integration into the whole of the mind.
>>
> Never thought about this before, but I agree that each instance of an
> idea is unique to the person.  This is similar to an individuals
> perception of a given event or object.

Yes. That is a reasonable way to look at it, even though an idea is more
complex and a more abstract product of mental processing than merely the
reception and filtering and interpretation of perceptions.

> If two people come up with the idea of creating a hotdog stand, then
> there will be differences it the specifics.  However, the ideas are
> not unique at the highest level of creating the hotdog stand, but at
> the implementation level e.g. color, shape, size, portability, and so
> on they may vary greatly.

I think that perhaps you are still missing my point because you likely
have little detailed knowledge of the operation of the brain. Nothing
in the brain stands in isolation. Anything as complex as an idea (even
something as simple as the idea of creating a hotdog stand) is linked
to a vast number of other ideas and data - for example, the exact nature
of the purpose of the idea, when and how did the idea come about, etc.
There is no part of the idea that is in isolation and is not different
than anything in the mind of any other person who may think that s/he
has the same idea. All that one can do is to extract certain very
minimal attributes of an idea in one's mind and communicate this simple
extraction to another person. That is where the simple "creating a
hotdog stand" might come into being as information. (Although as
juxtaposed words they are actually only data. It is the semantics of
that data which constitutes the information, which leads to the next
consideration.) However, even then there  will be differences between
the two people in the exact meaning of both the verb "create" and moreso
the phrase "hotdog stand", so it is still hard to put a finger on
exactly just what has been communicated.

[How each of 2 individuals arrives at the decision to "create" a hotdog
stand is unique. There are numerous possibilities that I can think of
and each of them would have a significant bearing on the "creation".
**Kitty]

> The other important point about an
> individual's specific ideas is that they are dynamic and change based
> on new data or information that was not previously available.

True and very important, but the amount of change due to such factors is
highly variable between different individuals and for different subject
areas. For example a true believer's true belief is impervious to any
new data or information. Ideas and decisions also change even without
new data/information as a result of thinking both conscious and
subconscious. Particularly the latter continues automatically in the
background, uncontrolled by the conscious mind.

What I seek are those people who are ready and able to reconsider any of
their ideas whenever there appears any new data/information relative to
that idea. My term for this characteristic is non-evasive open
mindedness. I suggest that this is one of the things that your
questionnaire needs to determine.

>> 4) Therefore, at best, any idea in a person's mind can only be partially
>> communicated to others. This is as opposed to an item of property, which
>> can be transferred in its entirety to another person.
>>
> Again I would agree at the micro level.  At the macro level general
> ideas can be communicated completely.

I have explained above why there really is no such thing as a "macro
level" wrt the brain, information in it and even information being
communicated.

[Even what might be considered the simplest of ideas are often not
communicated completely - such as how to position/reposition something
- and necessitate repeated restatement until both parties are in agreed
understanding. Additionally, if there was something truly "macro" about
human communication (of ideas), there would not be the enormous amount
of dissension in the world between people who generally do not wish any
harm to others. **Kitty]

>> 5) The important social aspect of "possessions" is their ability to be
>> "property" - to be owned by a given person (or persons under the terms
>> of a contract among them). For that reason, it is important to clearly
>> distinguish between the concepts of "ownership", "possession" and
>> "control" as I have done within their definitions in the NSC.
>>
> I still need to read this document.

Yes. Any moderate understanding of the Social Meta-Needs Treatise
requires an understanding of the definitions in the NSC. And any
moderate understanding of those definitions requires reading the entire
NSC and all its annotation pages (37 in all - see:
http://selfsip.org/solutions/socialcontract_annotations/ but these are
all linked from the appropriate words and phrases in the NSC, which is
why that directory has no index page).

>> 6) Because data is possessable by more than one person, I think that it
>> is invalid, or at least confusing, to describe it as property (which
>> is not thus possessable), and this is even more the case for
>> information, which, as described above is unique to the individual
>> mind in which it resides.
>>
> Agree that it is confusing to think of data as property especially if
> classifying it as property conveys some entitlement(s) that assume
> unique or exclusive possession as opposed to distributed possession.

Good! You have seen the crucial point. It is the classifying of
data/information as a special kind of "intellectual" property which then
promotes the idea that it can be and should be controlled in a similar
manner to material property, even though everyone agrees that its
possession characteristics are different than material property.
Historically people have thought that creation and initial possession
(ownership by default) must necessarily entitle some kind of ongoing
control in order for the creator to be able to gain value from his
creation. But such ongoing control also makes data/information
completely different from material property for which control is totally
relinquished once it is transferred. Therefore it is clear either way
that data/information is examined and dealt with that it has very
different attributes than does material property and should be
classified as a different kind of entity all together.

My system divides all things that humans will voluntarily exchange into
4 distinct and mutually exclusive categories:
1) Material Goods - all Material Existents (objects, energy, lifeforms
including humans),
2) Real Estate - well defined volumes of space (exclusive of any matter
or energy therein,
3) data/information - elements of Meta-Realities greater than 0,
4) services - all voluntary human interactions exclusive of any
concurrent exchange of any of the others.

>> 7) The above analysis leads to the complete repudiation of the notion of
>> copyright (which was already not part of my social system). Because of
>> this, while the originator of data and information certainly has
>> contractual entitlements to that data and information given that such
>> contracts are concluded with the receiver voluntarily and prior to any
>> transmission, s/he has no "ownership" entitlement once the data and
>> information have been made "public" (since there can be no such valid
>> contract with everyone).
>>
> Agreed.  Copyright is bad.  Any individual that consumes public data
> is entitled to use that data.  It is not possible to unconsumed data.

First note that the notion of "public" with respect to anything but
data/information is effectively invalid, since except for
data/information, only one person at a time can be possessing and
controlling either a Material Existent or the space within which hir
body exists. In addition, just how data/information has become "public"
is crucial. My definition of public data/information is data/information
that has been transferred from its creator to another person without any
contract covering transfer to others. Under such circumstances the
creator not only relinquishes exclusive possession of the
data/information, but automatically loses all control of its transfer to
others. This loss, however, is completely separate from the matter of
whether or not the creator should be rewarded by others who receive and
benefit from the data/information. It is this total separation of the
ownership/possession/control of data/information from its value to
others and value returning capability to the creator which
differentiates data/information from all other things that are exchanged
between humans. And yes, the fact that one cannot unconsume (or better
unreceive) data/information is a part of this difference, but it is not
the critical factor since that characteristic is also true for services.

>> 8) As far as I can see then, the only way that is left to reward the
>> originator of data and of information, even for the partial amount of
>> which a person is capable of transferring, is the method of value for
>> value - a voluntary transfer to the originator of the data and/or
>> information of an amount of value equivalent to that obtained from the
>> transfer by the receiver of the data and/or information.
>>
> An after-the-fact value for value transactions can be a way to reward
> releasers of data.

Yes, it is a more reasonable method of value transfer whenever, and to
the extent that, the value to the receiver cannot be fully determined
before the receipt of the good, service, real estate or data/information
occurs.This (value not being able to be fully determine ahead of time)
is probably just as common for services as it is for data/information.

> Donations and Advertising are used to accomplish
> this, however, individuals other than yourself might benefit from the
> advertizing revenue since they are free to distribute your work.

I have great difficulty understanding the above. The only portion that
I really understand is about donations.

Yes, donations are one method of returning value for value received to
the extent that they reflect the value gained by the donor. However, I
think that calling them donations is not going to change people's
thinking in the right direction because people normally associate
donations with unnecessary altruistic gifts. Instead what is needed is
for people to realize that being responsible and wanting to optimally
increase one's lifetime happiness makes it *imperative* (fundamentally
necessary) that one reward others for their productive efforts with the
amount and to the extent that such productive efforts enable one to
increase one's lifetime happiness. Calling such reward a "donation" will
not accomplish such understanding, IMO.

With respect to advertising, I do not see how that is in any manner a
reward transmitted from the receiver of the value to its creator or
transmitter. In times past, advertising played an important and
critically beneficial role in providing information about products
(including Real Estate) and services, including both the existence and
the descriptions/prices of them. With the Internet only the first
existence is a necessary function of advertising, since the latter two
can be easily found by searching. For this reason, except for very novel
products I see little need and place for advertising on the Internet. It
is more a detriment to information access than it is a benefit. One of
the purposes of the value for value approach is to decrease the need for
suppliers of information to rely on advertising revenue to the detriment
of the major purpose, the supply of information. This is the major
reason that I and Kitty decided not to have advertising on any of our
websites. An additional reason is that we do not support the benefit of
and therefore would certainly not promote many of those things which are
currently advertised on the Internet. I am always negative with respect
to anyone who takes copies of my writing, places them on their website
and gets advertising revenue from such pages. In one case, I did
complain to such a site owner and my description of the benefits of
pyridoxamine was removed. With respect to SelfSIP writings this is
hardly something that we need be concerned about at the moment, since
those writings are unlikely to draw sufficient numbers of readers to
benefit anyone from the advertising revenue on their pages.

> A before-the-fact value for value transaction can also occur.  This
> is similar to the venture capital model.

Yes, but providing money before the value of the return can be
determined is only a trivial part of what is "essential" about the
venture capital model. The essential aspect is that there is a *small
chance* (small or it would not be described by the word "venture" rather
than merely providing capital via a loan or a share return) that the
production of the good or service being capitalized will create a *large
amount* of net value among those who purchase the good or service (and
for that reason they will transmit in return a *large amount* of value
to the producers and/or their capitalizers).

> One or more people pay me to
> produce and release a book or video.

Yes, but this does not equate them to venture capitalists. They may all
simply be willing to foot the bill in order to have the book or video
for their own enjoyment. Any additional, value received would then be
effectively profit (that beyond which is necessary to adequately cover
*all* costs), which profit is then promotional of, and incentive for,
additional similar production.

> It is a model that will be
> implemented by this website: http://www.piratemyfilm.com/

I can see no where to go to read anything about the concept and the name
immediately strikes me as *god awful*. If the concept is about many
people who wanting a film to be made cooperatively financing its
production (which is an excellent idea even though not particularly
novel), then using the word "pirate" is completely misleading and
distortional. It is similar to the use of the word "rip" or "ripping" or
"ripped off" which initially was a euphemism for simple and plain theft,
but has now come to mean the copying of the data/information from one
audio or video media to another where it is more easily both
duplicatable and distributable (even when such copying is totally legal
and ethical). This blending and mashing of the ethical with the
unethical is another one of the major faults with the thinking of so
many people in current society. Furthermore, if the concept is as you
described, then even the "my" is misleading, since if the film is
financed by others then it is not the property of its producers (they
are not its only creators), any more than the house that I live in is
"my house" while it still has a mortgage on it - which is a major reason
why neither of the residences of me and Kitty nor any other of our
property has mortgages or anything owing.

> Here is a link to a video explaining the concept:
>
http://maxkeiser.com/2009/04/08/stacy-blog-the-piratemyfilm-pitch-in-video-a-new\
-t-shirt-design/

Being on a dial-up in Canada we cannot get videos from the Internet, and
in any case, we refuse to attempt to gain information via videos, since
we are convinced that writing is the only means by which complete
information can be exchanged, fully considered, fully analyzed and fully
responded to. (And such exchange is hard enough in writing (as witness
this discussion) without all sorts of excess baggage of personal
presentation getting in the way of rational thought and deep analysis.)

Meta
Snipped thanks and "your welcome* (which last should have been "you're
welcome").
/Meta

>>>>> Yesterday, I completed reading your document about social meta-needs.
>>>>> I found that your arguments against rights were quite compelling.
>>>>>
>>>> Again that's great to hear. When I submitted the Social Meta-Needs
>>>> treatise to Libertarian Papers <http://www.LibertarianPapers.org> it
>>>> was rejected with the remark from one "reviewer" (I put it in quotes
>>>> because the speed of rejection was such that no one could have
>>>> actually taken time to study it in detail) that the paper was "just
>>>> providing a slightly new and modish vocabulary for the same things
>>>> that we all accept".
>>>>
>>> Have you sent any of your papers to Walter Block?  I am curious as to
>>> how he would respond.  He seems willing to consider many different
>>> points of view.
>>>
>> I first heard of Walter Block when I read his book "Defending the
>> Undefendable", probably a couple of years after its publication in 1976.
>> I immediately thought it was great, even though I was still an
>> objectivist limited governmentalist at that time. However, I also took
>> exception with his designation of "hero" status to pimps, slum-lords
>> and drug pushers, even though he was fully correct in defending the
>> legality, and to some extent even the value, of some of their actions.
>> Soon after reading the book, I and several other Toronto libertarians
>> heard that Block was speaking at a libertarian event in Detroit (an
>> easy drive from Toronto) and went to see him there. I happened to be
>> sitting in the front row with my copy of his book on the table in
>> front of me. At the beginning of his talk he needed a copy, spotted
>> mine and used it. As a result my copy now contains a written note of
>> thanks from him inside its front cover. So as you can see Walter Block
>> was one of my earliest libertarian heroes.
>>
> He has certainly influenced me during the past 2-3 years.

I am sure that he is playing a very useful role (as Murray Rothbard did
before him) of promoting, and exciting people about, libertarian ideas.
Such people are very beneficial for both slowing the growth of statism
and for starting people on the path to discovering the fundamental
truths of personal and social reality, which will eventually enable them
to develop methods to change the thinking of sufficient numbers of
people to actually create a society of total liberty, which is essential
for gaining highest possible lifetime happiness.

>> Fast forward to Fall 2002.
>> I and Kitty attended the Freedom Summit in Phoenix -
>> http://freedomsummit.com (my first winter at our home in AZ, after
>> having my entry ban to the US lifted). Part of the reason for attending
>> was that Walter Block was the after dinner speaker. Another major part
>> of the reason was that George H Smith was also speaking (another one of
>> my libertarian heroes for many years and at that time). What happened to
>> my connection with Smith is documented in the dialog section of SelfSIP
>> and even more and worse since has not been documented but is available
>> to be seen on the Internet.
>>
> I do not know much about George H Smith.

Google him. He was a founder of the Voluntaryist Society and some of
his writings are reviewed on Mises.org
There is also a dialog with him in the Dialogues section of SelfSIP.org
- http://selfsip.org/dialogues/ghs/index.html You can see the disastrous
result that came from my effort to pay him money to review my budding
ideas in 2003.

>> Anyway, getting back to Block, naturally I was looking forward to his
>> talk (which unfortunately now I cannot remember the title or subject
>> matter). After it was finished, during the audience question period, I
>> posed to him a question of some substance and foundational originality
>> (again I cannot remember exactly what). His response was very equivocal
>> and when pressed further, he simply relied on the opinion of Murray
>> Rothbard as an *authority* on the subject (argument from authority).
>> This single event of usage of such well-known false logic, greatly
>> reduced my respect for Block. Jim Davidson (http://indomitus.net/jdbio.html)
>> was sitting at our table, was a witness to the whole affair (and might
>> remember the subject) and agreed that Block's response was effectively
>> denigrating and evading the question.
>>
> This is disappointing.  However, it does not seem appropriate to
> immediately move someone from the hero bin to the garbage bin.

That is a real leap! Nothing that I have said implies that I have done
that. I simply said: "this single event ... greatly reduced my respect
for Block". This does not imply that my respect was reduced to zero or
became negative. I still recommend his books. I also still highly
recommend Nathanial Branden's books and Ayn Rand's books even though I
have major differences with them and Branden would not even respond
reasonably when I recently made some cogent remarks on his blog that he
did not agree with. I and Kitty are both convinced that being completely
honest also implies being completely open about one's evaluations of
people both to them and to others. Is this not what you are doing with
respect to the things that I and Kitty have written and done? (This
bears no relationship to whether or not your comments are fair, complete
and useful.)

> It should be recognized that radical ideas are radical because many
> people have not considered them.  Everyone disagrees with another
> person about something.

I have always known that, which is why I have come out so strongly
against judging and valuing a person as a whole. As I have stated and
written many times for each two persons A and B, there is some attribute
C in which A is superior to B (by some reasonable measure) and some
other attribute D in which B is superior to A. People are that unique
and different. The same will be true for the attributes of being
convinced of certain ideas, even though "superior" will not then be the
proper descriptive word.

> There does not appear to be slack in your system human error.

No. That is a general tendency of all Ayn Rand Objectivists, but I
stopped behaving that way over 40 years ago. What I do do is to hold
certain attributes of character to be essential - intellectual honesty
being the best description of such an essential attribute. I will even
go so far as to give Block the benefit of the doubt and agree that he
was aware of his own intellectual dishonesty with respect to the
incident that I described. (I sure wish that I could remember the
subject matter involved :( However, even that is negative since he
*should have* been so aware. I, myself, would never make such an
argument and I was really shocked that he would and did!) Doing so was
not an "error" in any sense of one that any rational intellectually
honest person could make. It was a deliberate evasion.

> I do not agree with everyone on everything.  In
> fact, I expect a lack of agreement.

I go much further. Speaking of the general population, I expect that I
would not agree with them on the vast majority of anything about which
we would converse. And I don't expect to agree on much even with those
people who are not filtered out and I end up talking to about
substantive issues.

> If I agree with someone 80% of
> the time, then I will not toss them aside just because they do not
> agree with me on the other 20%.  Rules for human interaction should be
> flexible enough to accommodate dissimilarity between human actors.

As I have stated before not all ideas and attributes are of equal weight
in the evaluation of the worth to deal with of another person, so
percentages have no meaning here. There are essentials with which one
cannot do without or else interaction of any kind is pointless. There
are people who one must simply *write off* - life is too short and time
is too scarce to spend time on them - better to get on with finding
someone with the necessary essentials.

[There are likely many government law enforcement agents (and military
participants) with whom I "agree" on music tastes, fiction genres,
life-extension health matters, cryonics, food favorites, and numerous
other areas of human interests. However if they are adamant in their
employment - have no intention of leaving it and doing something
non-harmful - then I will not voluntarily associate with them. **Kitty]

>> Walter Block is also one of the editors of Libertarian Papers, and could
>> well be one of those who peremptorily dismissed my submission. Yes, I
>> guess that I should send it to him anyway, but I have little confidence
>> that he would actually read it and think about it seriously, so I have
>> not done so.
>>
> I would encourage you to devise a plan that results in Walter Block
> reading and seriously reviewing all of your papers.  As opposed to
> assuming that it will not work.  Half-hearted efforts lead to
> half-hearted results.  One way may be to pay him.  Value for value
> typically gets my attention.  Of course you shouldn't offer cash
> unless he declines the "review for free" option.  I "believe" that he
> is on sabbatical right now meaning that he may have some extra time.

Last evening (6/22) I sent an individual email to 7 editors of
Libertarian Papers (including Walter Block) listing some radical ideas
from my treatise to pique their interest and asking them to make a
serious review of it. I don't expect that anything but a few replies (if
even that) saying essentially: "I am too busy right now, maybe later",
but we (meaning you, I and all other readers of Yahoo morelife) shall see.

>> I chose instead to ask Jan Narveson, one of the other
>> Libertarian Papers editors who I have also met and talked with, to
>> review it. He did tell me he had not seen it because he was so busy
>> at the time, but that it looked interesting and that he would take a
>> look at it when he was finished his editing of a book for publication.
>> But so far he has not and a reminder to him a few weeks ago went
>> unanswered. I have now decided that I will send it out to several more
>> people (including Block) because there is little loss in doing so and
>> if I don't send it then the response is automatically null.
>>
> Great!
>>> On a separate note: I have forwarded some of your links to a couple
>>> people who may be interested.
>>>
>> Good. I look forward to hearing about any response that you get.
>>
> Only received a response from one person.  His response was that he
> did not like the way the website looked and that he thought this
> project was similar to that of the tower of Babel.  This surprised me
> since I pegged this individual as more open-minded and less lazy.  I
> made three attempts to get him to read the Social Meta-Needs document.

I am not surprised by this at all. I suggest that what you are finding
out is that certain people who you regard as friends and for whom you
have respect, are not in those categories. The reason why you are
finding this out is because you had never sufficiently tested and
challenged them before to really *know* whether or not your evaluation
of them was valid. This is not any kind of criticism of you. It is the
was most people in the current society operate. It is the way almost all
relatives operate with respect to one another. It is the way both I and
Kitty operated until after we met each other. In my case (and partly in
Kitty's case) it was a method of operation born out of the need to have
*someone* "close" to interact with. Now that we have each other with
whom we can be totally open and honest, we no longer have that need,
So we have totally eschewed any intellectual dishonesty of any kind,
including not being totally open with others or not requiring openness
from others. We are determined never to act this way with anyone again
(except of course those who would initiate violence against us), no
matter what the result, and additionally to clearly "test" others near
the start of any relationship, so that we do not waste time with
intellectually dishonest people.

>>>>> What struck me as more surprising, however, was that you are seeking
>>>>> to put the ideas of liberty into practise.
>>>>>
>>>> I have always been both a theoretician and practical person in many
>>>> diverse areas. I don't agree that there is any dichotomy between
>>>> theory and practice. If some theory is not practical then it simply is
>>>> not a valid theory (one that is true of reality).
>>>>
> I agree with and also possess the desire to put theory to the test.

Yes, that is the only way to validate it against reality.

> [Meta
> I have belatedly and retroactively changed the entire following dialog,
> and few other similar remarks later on, to Meta status.
> /Meta --Paul]
>
>> Meta
>> Chad, It is one of my requirements of dialog, that my respondent make
>> a response to everything of substance that I state. If one does not do
>> this, I take it as a kind of insult, equivalent to totally ignoring
>> something of substance that I have stated during an in-person
>> conversation. And I will not continue discussion for long with someone
>> who continues to ignore things that I say or write. Furthermore even
>> if you assure me that you always read and take in all of my responses,
>> without some kind of response text I have no way to know the level of
>> your understanding of it.
>>
>> So please respond to everything only if to say that you agree or
>> disagree, but do not currently have either the time or sufficient deep
>> thinking about the subject to give  reasons for your agreement or
>> disagreement (particularly if the latter).
>>
> I understand your concern to a certain level and will make an effort
> to address all responses.  As far as insults are concerned please be
> cautious about inferring insults.  If I intend to insult you I will
> make it very clear by stating, "The following is intended to insult
> you" this would then be followed by clear and unambiguous insults that
> attack both the message and the messenger.  Be advised that I do not
> toss insults around lightly.  I also make an effort to understand the
> other individual even though a certain action or lack thereof may on
> the surface seem insulting.  I expect the same from you.
>
> [Meta
> My usage of "I take it as a *kind of* insult" (emphasis added) was
> meant to signify both that the act of not responding to a substantive
> remark had a negative effect on me similar to that of an insult and
> that the effect was unintended. I guess that I should have used the
> longer phrase "I take it as a kind of unintended insult" to make that
> dual purpose clearer.
> OTOH, perhaps the word "insult" is always too "hot" and I would have
> been better to say: "I see it as discourteous".
> OTOH-2, once a person fully understands Social Meta-Needs and its NSC
> and Social Preferencing implementations, s/he will realize that
> intentions bear no relationship to harm. Unfortunately, because my
> creation has had such a revolutionary change on my own thinking, I
> often have trouble remembering how I must deal with others who are not
> yet so changed./Meta --Paul]

Nothing that I every say or write should ever be taken as an intended
insult. And I did not take anything that you have written as an intended
insult of either me or Kitty. My assessment of you right from the start
has been that you would not intentionally say anything insulting. So
that everyone is on track definitionally here, the following is the
meaning of "insult" that I think we are both using:
2 : a gross indignity offered to another either by word or act :
an act or speech of insolence or contempt <his words were a studied
/insult/> <such an offer was an /insult/ to our intelligence>
Note that intentionality is not necessarily implied. The first example
usage above is clearly intentional but the second might not be.
Unfortunately, as is so often the case, when looking up the word and
examining its etymology, it because clear that this is one more English
word distorted from its Latin roots.
Etymology: Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French /insult, insulte,
/from Late Latin /insultus, /probably from Latin /in- /in- + /-sultus
/(from /saltus /leap) (probably influenced by Latin /insultare /to
insult, spring upon); akin to Latin /salire /to leap -- more at SALLY
1 /archaic/ : an act of attacking : ONSET ATTACK
3 : damage or an instance of injury to the body or one of its parts
<repeated acute vascular /insult//s/> <any /insult/ to the constitution
of a patient suffering from active tuberculosis -- /Journal American
Medical Association/>; /also/ : an agent that produces such an insult
<a thermal /insult/> <damage resulting from malnutritional /insult//s/>

with meaning 1 and 3 still being the root ones. Interestingly enough
Merriam-Webster does recognize that meaning 2 is the most common one
because they list "affront" as a synonym for insult.

> Another factor involved in missing responses is that the inline
> comment form provided by Yahoo is very difficult to use.  The forum
> interface provided at mises.org is years ahead of the text-based caret
> system.  I will make an effort to remedy this by reducing the number
> of subjects discussed in a particular post.
>
> [Chad, As I have advised several others and they have found it to be
> far better, the best way to operate with Yahoo groups is either to
> respond at the group web interface, or far better still, get a mail
> reader on your computer (I use and recommend Thunderbird) to which you
> get your Yahoo group messages sent (individually, since the group
> traffic is very light) and then use the reply function in the email
> reader. This will ensure that the formatting of the message as
> received by us in the queue is also optimal - something that is not
> true now and we have to do a little cleanup to each of your messages
> before releasing it. --Paul]
>
>> /Meta

Meta
snipped previous dialog, not needing response.
/Meta

>>>>> My plan is to launch a web site by the end of the year that
>>>>> facilitates Social Preferencing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I also want to know precisely what you mean by the phrase "facilitates

Meta
snipped comment, not needing response.
/Meta

>>>> Social Preferencing" and how your plans will do that. I sincerely hope
>>>> that we can merge our plans into one effort.
>>>>
>>> This post is a good introduction to what I am interested in doing.  It
>>> is the how that I am still working on:
>>> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/2036
>>>
>> And I have now responded to that message about your plans, as much of
>> them as I understand. Most definitely the details of the "how" will
>> require a lot of deep thinking and major design/programming efforts.
>>
>>> It should be pointed out that this is only one facet of the plan.  This
>>> sort of system will enable the connection of likeminded individuals
>>> which of course is only the beginning.  Physical communities (not just
>>> online communities) could be formed anywhere that humans exist that
>>> follow a specific formula (still to be developed).  Liberated
>>> communities will be as ubiquitous as fast food restaurants once the plan
>>> blossoms.
>>>
>> As I stated in the other message, I have a major problem with such
>> physical communities within the current statist societies. They are far
>> too easy targets for those in power to destroy. The US is not a free
>> country any longer (if it ever was one) wherein those doing no harm to
>> others are allowed to live as they want to. The only way that a large
>> liberty oriented movement will be able to survive and to successfully
>> undermine and replace any current society is for it to remain highly
>> decentralized and totally dispersed/immersed within the current
>> population, essentially succeeding from the current society as much as
>> possible. Besides which, such immersion is a far better way to persuade
>> others in society of the validity of one's ideas, and thereby to
>> greatly abandon using the methods of the current society.
>
> The plan may take a century to implement.  Ultimately physical
> communities need to grow out of the system or all the talk about
> putting theory into practice is meaningless.

Yes to the former, but far much more than a century to effectively
achieve (get to the point where it cannot be stopped by statist power).
The current society has been around in essentially the same form for
millennia.
No to the latter. Strong physical interactions need to grow out of the
system, but separate physical communities are not needed and will be
unwise until there are sufficiently many practicing Freeman methods of
operation and the non-Freeman portion of society is sufficiently weak
due to attrition, non-sanction, and non-obedience to its dictates that
it will not have the power to greatly harm Freemen.

> Agree that the initial
> strategy should be to establish connections online.  The true test of
> this system is whether it can be incrementally reclaim liberty and
> freedom for the individuals using it.

I see it as a set of stepping stone paths across a stream full of
alligators to the "promised land" on the other side. The goal society on
the other side is common to everyone, but many do not understand it well
enough to accept it. However, different people lack understanding and
acceptance of different aspects of the goal society. Therefore different
people take different paths to get there (even though each is not even
yet certain that s/he wants to get to the full goal society). Each
stepping stone is a little island of operational relative stability a
little bit closer to the goal society than is the current society. For
example becoming a libertarian, objectivist or Austrian school economist
are each such stepping stones. Accepting and practicing one of the
methods of personal interaction of the goal society (as well as and to
the extent to which it can be practiced in the current society) is also
one of such stepping stones. As each person steps forward and partakes
of new methods of living for a while s/he will both learn new things and
gain the desire and the courage to move a little further forward across
the wide stream.

[I think it is premature for Chad to be making strong statements on
strategy and testing "of this system", of which he still knows very
little. He has not yet read the NSC or any of its annotations and I am
not even sure, from what he has written, that he has read the Social
Meta-Needs theory essay more than once. Far more appropriate would be
questions on those items on which he is unclear or in doubt after or
during reading the fundamental items - SMN, Social Preferencing essay
(Paul's not my articles), and NSC. **Kitty]

It is clear from Kitty's comment that we interpreted your phrase "this
system" differently. My interpretation was that it referred to "the
initial strategy [of] .... establish[ing] connections online", stated in
the previous sentence and that was the basis for my remarks above
directly after. If instead "this system" refers to the operation and
viability of the Freeman Society as described on SelfSIP, then I agree
with Kitty and even go much further. Whether or not the Freeman Society
is viable as a near optimal adequately stable self-ordered society of
large numbers of humans enjoying total liberty is not related *at all*
to whether or not it will ever come into existence.

>>>>> Would you be interested participating in an online meeting with me
>>>>> to determine whether it would be beneficial for us to work together?
>>>>>
>>>> Absolutely yes! On the MoreLife group Yahoo would be best for me. All
>>>> such discussion will be eventually moved to the appropriate wiki
>>>> (Valu4Valu.org, OpenLives.net, SelfSIP.org or MoreLife.org) when they
>>>> are ready, in order to get more visibility.
>>>>
> Comments about the websites:  The wikis appear to be unpopulated.

Yes. They are still in the development stages. There were and are many
software changes necessary to make them effective for usage under the
type of philosophy that I hold as opposed to the Commons - anyone can do
anything - approach from which they originated (even though my review of
wiki software decided me that wikimedia software would be best for me
all things considered). It would be great to have some help getting the
development completed so that I and Kitty could spend more time putting
content onto them. It would also be great to have some volunteers to
move content onto them from both MoreLife.org and from SelfSIP.org and
even to move the help information from mediawiki.org and wikipedia.org
OTOH, anyone who wishes to do so (after registration by me upon full
identification) can begin to place their own biographical information on
OpenLives.net and even to make Social Preferencing links to others who
have biographical pages on the wiki.

> SelfSIP.org is difficult and confusing to navigate and piece together.
> There are many links that are remote and difficult to access.

Since virtually all of it is set up as a simple inverted tree menu
system with each menu (index page) describing the purpose of that
section), I would appreciate more detail about what exactly you mean by:
"difficult and confusing to navigate and piece together".
Since any complex site will have many remote links, I would like you to
state in detail why this is a problem and what you mean by "difficult to
access" (unless simply that the links are now broken).

> The other issue is that encountering these ideas is like being dropped
> naked into Antarctica.

I smile with agreement. But remember my stepping stone description
above. I do not expect anyone but an objectivist, a libertarian or a
utilitarian (some) to have any chance of accepting any of it
sufficiently to delve more deeply. SelfSIP is not intended to attract
the (wo)man off the street of current society. Rather it is intended to
attract those people who are already on stepping stones part way across
the stream (people who are socially more advanced than most others in
society). Such people will then become a vanguard who will promote the
ideas to others and lead the way to stepping stones further out in the
stream and closer to the other side.

> I've been working on a system that attempts to
> gentle expose individuals to the implications of their views as a
> means of encouraging them to voluntarily change their ideology.

That is good and useful, but it was never my intention. There are
already many people doing this (not that one more new method may not be
more effective than all the past ones). I have always sought to be more
radical than those who are already most radical in society. In the
computer field I was an expert's consultant and teacher (in a narrow
subject area). I have always functioned best that way and such hardest
problems is what I always want to solve.

>>>>> I am most interested in learning more about the following two
>>>>> items listed on your site:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Outline of the Program of Implementation [in progress]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I have written small items about this in several places, but have not
>>>> done any comprehensive work, since so far no one has really understood
>>>> my work, agreed with it (or got me to change it to be more correct)
>>>> and joined me to promote it. As I always state, before one starts to
>>>> implement a plan to attain a certain goal (a newly organized society,
>>>> in this case) one first needs to know that and how such a goal will be
>>>> beneficial (before one begins a journey one needs to know the
>>>> destination). Therefore, talk about implementation is a little ways
>>>> off, IMO.
>>>>
> I very much agree that a plan is important.  I am working on such a
> plan with an eye toward sustainability.  The plan goal has two parts
> outreach to the uninitiated and a support system for practitioners.
> The details of the plan are still under development, and I will reveal
> more details in the future.

It is clear that we are not meaning the same thing. By "goal" I mean the
fully worked out details of operation of a future society of which such
a large majority of humans are members that the externalities are
minimal. That is what is described by the sections of SelfSIP.org on
"Fundamentals" and "Achievement" (directory "solutions", but we decided
that word was too pretentious). Only relatively minor explanatory
comments in those section pertain to any methods of operation of the
current society (for example the section on "rights" in the Social
Meta-Needs treatise should really either be just a very large footnote
or deleted entirely).
The goal society is as opposed to a plan to get there ("Program"
section) and also opposed to critiques of the current society (not
really done or planned except for a little in the "Focus" section), of
the foundations of the current society (the "critiques" section), of
the record of dialogs with other thinkers (the "Dialogues" section) and
the application of some Freeman Society methods to the current society
(the "Focus" section).
As I said before, I have not yet worked much on the "Program" section
mainly because there has not yet appeared any vanguard of people (not
even one person after 6 years and dozens of potentials who appeared)
who appear to understand the goal, want to see it come about and want
to promote any of the goal ideas. The Value for Value and Open Lives
wikis will be an attempt to find such people.

>> Nevertheless I do have many ideas already formulated.
>>
> I would like to talk about these ideas.

We have been doing it as much as I am interested in and is appropriate
at this early point in time.

>>>>> * Self-Sovereign Personal Database Website [planned]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This is already begun as the wiki http://OpenLives.net
>>>>
> It is unclear how the wiki will be used.  Also, the wiki appears to be empty.

It is not totally empty, but yes it still needs a large explanatory
section about its purpose and usage. I only wish that I were a hundred
of me. Then there just might be a chance of completing the projects
and attaining the goals that I have set for myself.

>>>>> *My Skills:*
>>>>> Engineering
>>>>> Web Programming
>>>>> Enthusiasm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Interesting, These match mine and Kitty's quite well. We are both
>>>> Engineering graduates (among other academic areas). I have been
>>>> involved with computers off and on for over 35 years. And under the
>>>> right circumstances we both have lots of energy and enthusiasm.
>>>>
> Maybe the key is that engineers tend to enjoy solving problems as
> opposed to simply identifying them and proposing solutions.

Yes, but unfortunately because they concentrate mainly on solving
problems, engineers can waste a lot of time and intellect on solving the
wrong problems, on problems which are unsolvable in principle, or worst
of all on solving problems whose goals and solutions are highly
unethical. Hitler had some brilliant engineers and also scientists at
his command. So it is highly important to be both a theorist logician
who understands well-posed and solvable issues, an ethicist who
fundamentally knows right from wrong and also an engineer who is a good
problem solver.

>  Mises.org does a good job of exposing individuals to problems and
> offering solution.

Yes, for limited kinds of problems and limited kinds of solutions to
them. Mises was a very brilliant, honorable and steadfast man, much to
be respected, however, he could only go so far and, unfortunately no one
has extended his work farther in any really significant manner. By this
I mean that while his economics has been somewhat extended, no one has
done much to extend his idea on general praxeology to a much greater
range of humans actions. In fact, David D Friedman in the area of law
(see: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/laws_order/index.shtml ) is the only
one other than me who has done so, as far as I am aware. I have tried to
interest David in my work, but again got nowhere. I think that is
because he is no longer much interested in such ideas as he was when
he wrote "The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to Radical Capitalism" (see:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Contents.htm\
l )
early in his career, another book that was important in my
intellectual development. I have not read or critiqued his work on law
because it has no place in my vision of a future society of total liberty.

> However, it has done little for me as far as providing a system for
> implementation.  One can say that societal system X would be ideal,
> but offering no mechanism by which individuals can migrate to system
> X from their current system leaves a person unsatisfied.

Not only that but no one at mises.org has described any comprehensive
realistic details of precisely how hir societal system would work. The
societal operations proposed by Rothbard, Block, Hoppe and others has
far too many unanswered questions and logical holes (Mises himself never
intimated that his ideas were a complete social solution, only that they
were a solution to the economic workings of society). Again it is the
project for some of my copies/clones to write comprehensive critiques of
many writings of Mises (for which I have completed the 1st chapter of
Human Action, but never posted online), Rothbard, Block, Hoppe, etc and
in this manner both attract some dialog and some attention from many of
those who read them.

> Statements like if everyone thought Y then system X could be
> implemented offers only an objective.

No. If the Y thought is clearly possible for reality, then such a
statement (if valid) is valuable as an *existence proof* that X is
possible. My favorite of this type is that if all the enforcers quit
enforcing and no one would replace them, then a market anarchist
society would be immediately achieved since all the laws, edicts and
regulations of politicians and courts would be effectively meaningless
paper.

Unfortunately, with the methods of thinking and operating in the current
society this result would definitely lead to chaos in short order and
probably result in the emergence of more enforcers under a dictator.
Still if somehow a miracle occurred and no one ever agreed to be an
enforcer, then in time even the current society would develop into an
advanced self-ordered society. Yes, I know it is a totally impractical
thought, but it still has important relevance as an existence proof,
because it is possible *in principle* - ie nothing in reality prevents
it from being the case. Perhaps you might like to search the Internet
for "existence proof".

> An objective with no means of achievement is referred to as impotence.

But a plan to get somewhere without a detailed description of the
destination is even worse. It is not only wasteful but can be highly
dangerous. All the revolutions in history were of that sort (except for
the American war of independence - which is partly why it succeeded)
and for some of the successful non-violent actions of the 20th century
(hopefully also the one taking place in Iran right now). The communist
revolution led to the Stalinist era and the Cuban revolution led to the
Castro era. Neither were beneficial for the people in those societies.

>  I want to develop a method for changing the way people think.

Good luck! My view is that it can only be done by getting at people
young enough. The goal of a few of my copies/clones would be to get
involved with the home schooling system and develop initially self
(body/mind) centered educational tools for all ages. Without this I
currently look to people between 20 and 30 as possibilities to have
minds sufficiently open to my ideas.

>>>>> *My Vision:*
>>>>> Create a system that permits liberty to flourish anywhere in the universe.
>>>>>
>>>> Same here. But not only liberty - more importantly, maximum possible
>>>> freedom (in the sense of available actions).
>>>>
>>> I see.  That is something that I did not directly have in mind, but
>>> expanding the boundaries on available actions makes sense.
>>>
>> Liberty per se, cannot increase Lifetime Happiness. Only available
>> actions that are chosen and acted upon can do that. Liberty is only
>> valuable as a *means* to aid the creation of more available actions
>> that can then be chosen and acted upon with the intention of increasing
>> one's lifetime happiness.
>>
>>>> See the definitions of
>>>> Liberty and Freedom in the Natural Social Contract
>>>> <http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html> and their annotations to
>>>> understand the difference between Freedom and Liberty (the latter is
>>>> merely a prerequisite for maximal Freedom).
>>>>
>>> I have not yet read those two documents.  I am currently in the process
>>> of writing a review of the paper about "Social Meta-Needs" there are a
>>> few spots where my understanding needs to be expanded.
>>>
>> Such "expansion" would likely occur if you read all the rest of
>> SelfSIP.org. It is all a coherent and related whole, no part of which
>> can stand entirely alone and each part of which will elucidate and
>> illuminate the other parts. That is why everything is so intensively
>> hyperlinked. Nevertheless, doing a review of each part, with some open
>> questions, is still an excellent way to organize your study of the total.
>>
> Portions of the review will be released soon.

My definition of a review is a comprehensive consideration and critique
of all aspects of a work (as in a peer review of a paper before
publication). My idea of a review is also related to science papers
called review articles, which exhaustively summarize and comment on
*all* previous published work in a given area. However, I admit that I
could not find that as a definition of review in Merriam-Webster.
Nevertheless, so far I have seen nothing from you that is not merely a
comment, mostly negative and often on parts of SelfSIP that are not even
related to the theory and operation of a Freeman Society (which is the
essence of the content of SelfSIP).

Meta
Big snip of physical locations, Sedona, yoga, exercise and Cognitive
Behavioral Therapy, not needing a response.
/Meta

>> Meta
>> Chad,
>> Please try to be more careful with your use of "their" versus "there".
>> It is always important to reread your writings for meaning, grammar
>> and typos before you send them off.
>> /Meta
>>
> I do re-read my responses, but being human I do not catch everything.

Sorry for any implication in my bad phrasing. I actually thought that
you did re-read and correct your responses, because they are generally
well-written and free of typos. I am fortunate that I have Kitty as my
generally sharp-eyed editor.

>>>> We sometimes visit people in between during our bi-yearly migration,
>>>> but we have rarely been to VA and we refuse to fly, the airport
>>>> regulations situation being as it is.
>>>>
>> This is one that did not really need a response, except to perhaps
>> comment on the no-fly decision, so strongly expressed.
>>
> If I am ever headed to Canada or Arizona I will make an effort to see
> if we can meet.

Good, and we have a spare room if you wish to stay over for more
conversation or to go to something else in the area.

Meta
Snipped portion about downsizedc.org not needing a response.
/Meta

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 06/18/2009 07:41 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> > Stability Requirement
> > "[S]uch increase [in Lifetime Happiness] also will be most easily
> > achieved within an Environment that is very stable or at most undergoes
> > relatively small Changes of certain Parameters in a cyclical or
> > otherwise predictable manner." [1]  The reviewer agrees that a stable,
> > predictable environment will best increase the Lifetime Happiness of the
> > individuals located inside.
>
> Meta
> The above should read "I agree that a stable ... ". Anything else is a
> subterfuge.
> /Meta

I, Chad Nelson, am a reviewer of your material.  Calling myself what I
am is only natural.  I reviewed this document.  Therefore, I am a
reviewer.  Paul you know who I am.  There is no deception, trickery,
or subterfuge.  Now whether my reviews are useful is a matter up for
debate.

> > The question, therefore, becomes what
> > possible solutions exist for achieving such an environment?  Put another
> > way, any solution that purports to increase the Lifetime Happiness must
> > establish a measurable stability criteria.  Yes, the goal is to
> > constantly increase stability, but there is a cut-off point as we
> > asymptotically approach one hundred percent stability where we say
> > this level is "good enough".  A measurable stability criteria is an
> > amalgamation of various factors e.g. harm / unit time, environmental
> > fluctuations / unit time, various human system fluctuations / unit
> > time, etc.  Human system fluctuations are related to the physical and
> > non-physical attributes of the human under obeservation.  Also worth
> > pointing out is that short-term and long-term stability can be
> > considered once such metrics are defined.
>
> Meta
> Once again a "we" can't do anything! Only individuals think, choose and
> act. In particular "we" do not "asymptotically approach one hundred
> percent stability", although perhaps a Society as a whole does that
> according to some appropriate measure and system-wide process. In
> addition, there is no "we" to say that "this level is "good enough"".
> There are only individuals making individual evaluated choices and
> thereby setting the stability level of their self-ordered society.

The term "we" was used very loosely here, and was not intended to
imply a collective.  This is a micro- not macro- approach.  I agree
that macro-level planning fails. I agree that individuals not groups
make decisions, but systems like Wal-Mart can be developed that
satisfy the needs of many individuals with diverse wants.  The
assertion is that such a system could be developed at the community
level.  The system could exist and the happiness of each individual
could be enabled through stability and other factors.

> /Meta

> Many metrics could be defined to measure such stability (stock market
> indexes are one such) and perhaps will be done and prove to be valuable
> for aiding Freemen to optimize the self-ordered stability of their
> society. But you are completely missing the point that there is little
> purpose to any such measurement tool beforehand because a society of
> full liberty will be naturally self-ordered and stabilized, to whatever
> degree that its inhabitants decide, by means of their voluntary
> interactions rather than ordered from the top or by pseudo-external
> authorities. (In the Freeman Society there are no institutions or
> authorities in the sense of organizations or people with any special
> powers (except for the excellence of their products, services,
> knowledge and reasoning abilities.)

Disagree.  Knowledge of the direction in which you wish to point
beforehand is crucial.  It would be inappropriate to arbitrarily
assert that X property violations / year should be the goal.  Rather
the goal is to establish a community that reduces the likelihood of
property violations.  The individuals in the community can determine
what the acceptable property violation rate is and this can be
measured after the fact.  This may vary from individual to individual.

It should also be mentioned that while each individual has their own
unique threshold generalizations can be made about a group of
individuals.  Generalizations can also be determined about the sort of
environment that one should seek to create.  Just like generalizations
can be made about Wal-Mart shoppers.  I know what Wal-Mart does, and I
know why most people like it.

> > Achieving Stability
> > Once stability is clearly understood, methods need to be devised for
> > achieving and maintaining stability within the framework of the
> > "Social Meta-Needs". [1]
>
> It appears that you missed the whole point of a self-ordering society
> without  any external or top-down ordering authorities and
> institutions. Think of it like the self-ordering homeostasis of a
> lifeform or of a simple pendulum or of the solar system. No one tells
> these systems how to behave. They automatically regulate themselves to
> keep a certain level of stability.

The point is NOT the establishment of a top-down authority, but rather
the point is to provide an environment that conduces the establishment
and growth of free communities.

> Yet too much stability is sometimes
> harmful. You may not realize that one of the signs of heart disease is
> that the heart beat is too rhythmical. You are still thinking like a
> socialist planner who knows better how society works than does the
> system of society itself as a response solely to the voluntary rational
> actions of all its members. Are you perhaps a closet Technocrat? -
> http://en.technocracynet.eu/

What is being proposed in a flexible framework that becomes what it
needs to be in order to satisfy the individual within its' boundaries.
When the term stability is used it should not be assumed that it means
calmness or a lack of perturbation.  It means what the individuals
inside of the environment want it to mean.  The point is that a
formula for successful implementation of such a social structure is
possible. A plant cannot grow in the winter unless a greenhouse is
developed that provides an environment for growth.  My assertion is
that liberty and freedom cannot grow unless such "greenhouses" are
developed.  Pay me to live in a stable place where you get to rule
yourself within the bounds of a voluntary social contract.

There is a chicken and egg issue here.  Which comes first the
environment for freedom and liberty or the desire within an individual
to be free and liberated?  Which comes first the desire for a decent
quality product at a cheap price or Wal-Mart?  I assert that the two
are interlinked.

No, I am not a Socialist Planner, and no I am not a Technocrat.

> --Paul
>
> [A message I made to the group on 2/14/09 introduced readers to Paul's
> Internet experience with technocrats - "Paul Responds to Technocrats'
> Query re. NSC" - http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1982 
**Kitty]

Chad Nelson, Reviewer

[Disclaimer: Chad Nelson has no position or authority as a "Reviewer"
of any material on this group. He is merely a reviewer in the same
manner and has precisely the same commenting status as anyone else
posting here. --Paul]

Throughout many of the writings on SelfSIP.org tools like Social
Preferencing, Honesty, and Anonymity are referred to as if they are
ends as opposed to means.  A tool is amoral.  It is the use of the
tool that can be determined useful or not useful.

The title "Anonymity – Hazard, Not Protection" [3] could have just as
easily been "Automobile – Hazard, Not Transportation" or "Openness -
Hazard, Not Pathway to Freedom and Liberty".  Beginning with the title
the paper misses the point that anonymity like automobiles is simply a
tool.  Anonymity, Automobile, and Openness can be used to harm others
or to get away with harming others.

The usage of the tool must be the object that is considered hazardous
or not.  An automobile is not a hazard.  An intoxicated driver behind
the wheel of a car is a hazard.

[3] Anonymity - Hazard, Not Protection; Limitation, not Enhancement,
Author: Paul Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/focus/anonymity.html

[Correction:
Kitty was the sole author of the article "Anonymity - Hazard not
Protection".
As explained on the index page of the "Focus on Freedom" section and
previously in this discussion: "The articles in this section are
written by Kitty Antonik Wakfer, and where indicated by Paul Antonik
Wakfer". --Paul]

Reviewer, Chad Nelson

[Disclaimer: Chad Nelson has no position or authority as a "Reviewer"
of any material on this group. He is merely a reviewer in the same
manner and has precisely the same commenting status as anyone else
posting here. --Paul]

The point is not that Kitty did anything wrong.  Kitty was entitled to
engage Aaron in the manner that she did.  The point rather is that the
method used did not succeed in encouraging Aaron to modify his
viewpoint.  Rather, the method solidified Aaron's current viewpoint.
Furthermore, my approach also failed.  My effort to point out an
undesired outcome was interpreted as hostile even though it was
intended to be instructive.  Like Kitty I was well within the bounds
of non-coercive human interaction, yet I was misinterpreted.  I saw
myself as the person with the flashlight pointing the way, but Paul
saw me as a person pointing a flashlight in his face.

[Meta
Chad, I removed your attempted "meta" enclosures of the above text
because that text is a preliminary general comment about the
discussion to date (ie it does not directly address any specific
previous text), rather than a comment about the format, structure,
syntax or other non-semantic content of the discussion.

In addition, if you will examine past messages on this group you will
realize that the usage of square brackets "[]" with a name before the
last closing bracket is reserved to signify text inserted by one of
the group's moderator before the message is released from the
pre-posting queue. This is something that I invented and used in the
LEF Forums (of which I was the creator and initial moderator for
several years), for the purpose of preventing possibly harmful health
information from being acted upon before anyone had a chance to
correct it. Moderators (now only I and Kitty) used to make actual
comments to message content before posting the message, but we stopped
doing that (except very rarely where some urgency is required to
prevent harm) some time ago. /Meta --Paul]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 06/17/2009 07:03 PM, freechad480 wrote:
> > Disclaimer: The following review is highly critical of the example of
> > Social Preferencing provided on the site.  The intention is not to
> > insult, but to inform the reader.  It should also be noted that I am
> > not using an incremental approach, in that, I believe that Kitty and
> > Paul Wakfer are mature enough to be able to handle what is intended to
> > be constructive criticism.
> >
> > The indiscriminate use of strong Social Preferencing results in the
> > alienation of individuals that may have otherwise been receptive to
> > your ideas.
>
> It appears that you have totally misunderstood that Kitty's examples
> (and most all her writings on SelfSIP.org do not relate to the methods
> of operation of the Freeman Society, which is the subject of my
> writings (apart from some critiques of founding documents and the
> writings of others. In other words, you are confusing the presentation
> of the theory and operation of the future Freeman Society with the use
> of some of those operational methods within current societies.
>
> Kitty's examples of social preferencing are in no manner examples of
> that method of operation in the Freeman Society and any problems with
> the operation of her methods are solely related to the vast and rampant
> irrationalism of people in the current society.

Shouldn't a method designed to increase ones' lifetime happiness
account for the "rampant irrationalism of people in the current
society"?

> But you have also greatly misused the word "indiscriminate" both above
> and in the subject line.
> 1) "Indiscriminate" means:
> 1 a (1) : not marked by discrimination : not marked by careful
> distinction : not evidencing discernment </indiscriminate/ reading
> habits> </indiscriminate/ viewing of television programs> <launched
> /indiscriminate/ destruction>
> (2) : HAPHAZARD, RANDOM, HIT-AND-MISS, SWEEPING - </indiscriminate/
> application of a law> </indiscriminate/ censure>
> (3) : UNRESTRAINED, PROMISCUOUS - </indiscriminate/ sexual intercourse>
> b (1) : not separated into distinct parts : JUMBLED, CONFUSED - <the
> babble of the crowd was an /indiscriminate/ mixture of several languages>
> (2) : MOTLEY. HETEROGENEOUS - <a book filled with an /indiscriminate/
> assortment of pictures>
> 2 : not exercising discrimination or discernment : not making careful
> distinctions : not carefully choosing :
> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/ .
> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (18 Jun. 2009).
>
> Neither I nor Kitty have ever before been accused of being
> indiscriminate (except perhaps for Kitty when she was in mania). If
> anything we have both been accused of being far too discriminating and
> not tolerant and accepting enough of the diverse irrational and even
> harmful actions of others.

The failure to discriminate comes in the form of the context.  One
must be discriminating as to which level of social preferencing is
applied based on the individual being considered.  On second thought I
should have used to the term "ineffective".  Since the approach was
"ineffective", in that, Aaron's current viewpoint was strengthened not
weakened as one might hope.  Change for the better did not occur.

> 2) I thought that I had made it clear that by social preferencing I mean
> actions that either positively or negatively affect personal interaction
> with another person (eg you *do* talk to this person again or you do
> *not* continue to talk to hir). I would then classify social
> preferencing into three degrees of strength.
> a) weak social preferencing is where you simply process the interaction
> decision without giving any reasons for it.
> b) Medium social preferencing (or just social preferencing) is where you
> give reasons for your action to the person or organization which you
> are socially preferencing.
> c) Strong social preferencing is where you make public the reasons for
> your decision. Strong social preferencing will be crucial for the
> operation of a Freeman Society, but it can also be extremely beneficial
> right now in starting people to think in the right direction.
>
> Note that none of these expressions concerning the strength of social
> preferencing have any relationship to its *direction* - whether it is
> positive (promotional of the person) or negative (demotional of the person).

Agreed.  There are different strengths.

> 3) Whether or not any person is alienated by whatever I have to say is
> up to them. Alienation is in the mind of the alienated - the recipient
> of the negative social preferencing - and it is not something that I
> can directly induce in that mind. If I speak the truth and someone is
> offended, then any alienation is hir psychological problem not mine.
> Such alienation (and presumably return weak social preferencing against
> me) simply means that I have filtered out one more person who is highly
> likely to be not ultimately receptive to my ideas anyway and leaves me
> free to proceed to find and spend more time with others who are more
> likely to be receptive.

This approach does not seem to accommodate the human requirement that
change (in most cases) must be incremental.  This approach also tends
to increase resistance from the party that feels alienated (whether
warranted on not).  The feeling of alienation or persecution tends to
produce resentfulness and a desire to protect long held positions.

> > It is true that an individual should not condone or
> > heavily support others that hold antithetical viewpoint.
>
> The problem here (specifically with Kitty's nephew) is not that he holds
> an antithetical viewpoint (he actually never expressed any viewpoint at
> all), but rather that he is aiding and abetting mass murder by the US
> armed forces. I and Kitty have many people with whom we associate in
> various narrow areas, who hold highly antithetical views to ours, but,
> as far as we know, are not directly supporting the infliction of
> violence on others.

An incremental approach would be to first develop an understanding of
the other individuals viewpoint.  A person view of their own
occupation is often positive.  A person that joins the military does
not view the activity as "aiding and abetting mass murder".  It may be
better to start with a short email.  Something like:
---
Hi Aaron,

How are you doing?  Paul and I haven't had a chance to see you in a
while.  How is military life treating you?

Paul and I spent the weekend chopping wood.  See the attached photo.

Kitty
---
> > However,
> > this does not imply that one should assume an offensive stance with
> > individuals that hold a differing viewpoint.
>
> You continue to misuse words. Nothing that we are doing can be
> classified as "offensive":
> 1 : making attack : relating to or characterized by attack :
> AGGRESSIVE : fitted for or used in attacking </offensive/ weapons>
> </offensive/ maneuver> </offensive/ strength> -- opposed to /defensive/
> (ibid)

An individual that does not invite conversation on a topic may "feel"
that they are being attacked.  The claim that the word "offensive" is
being misused is not justified.  The sentence was not directed at
anyone.  Rather, this sentence is being taken out of context.  I am
merely stating my view.  No judgment was passed.  Nowhere did I state
that Kitty took an offensive stance.  Please read the post carefully.

> There is also the more recent meaning (a distortion of the root
> meaning):
> 3 : causing displeasure or resentment : giving offense : INSULTING,
> AFFRONTING <loud, /offensive/ behavior> </offensive/ advertising>
> <it's /offensive/ to a gentleman's feelings when his word isn't
> believed -- Dorothy Sayers>
> (ibid)
>
> However, that is a total distortion precisely because the sender of
> words cannot physically *cause* displeasure or resentment in the
> receiver of the words. I and Kitty simply state what we are convinced
> is true. Any "offense" is totally the result of the mental workings of
> the receiver of our words.
>
> Actually this reminds me of a person about whom I have thought for
> the two decades that I have known him that we ought to be very close
> friends based on the wealth of interests that we hold in common to be
> highly important (cryonics, life-extension and libertarianism to name
> just 3), but with whom I nevertheless never seem to have anything but
> a very contentious relationship. Here is the latest example early this
> year - http://cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=31317 In fact, if you go
> to http://cryonet.org and search with "Ben Best attack", you will find
> that poor Ben is always getting "attacked" by others even though all
> they are doing is using words!!

See the response above.

> > After all, the objective
> > is not to castigate them, but convert or at least neutralize them.
>
> "Castigate": Etymology: Latin /castigatus, /past participle of
> /castigare /to correct, punish -- more at CHASTEN
> 1 a : to punish or subdue by punishment </castigate/ thy pride --
> Shakespeare>
> b : to reprove for error or criticize with drastic severity <those
> poems in which he /castigate//s /man's general inhumanity and lack of
> sincerity -- J.G.Southworth> <not even the ablest critic can /castigate/
> an artless generation into repentance and creative vigor -- A.J.Barnouw>
> *synonym* see PUNISH
>
> I presume you mean 1b even though once again that is not the root
> meaning of the word nor the most accepted meaning (punish). It should
> be clear from our insistence on restitution as the *only* rational
> response to effectively caused harm, that neither I nor Kitty think
> that punishment is ever rational. Except to each other and to
> ourselves, we also rarely ever "reprove for error or criticize with
> drastic severity". However, the person in contention was not making an
> "error" (is aiding and abetting mass murder now to be called merely an
> error?). There are major differences in kind between errors and gross
> physical harms. Even so, Kitty's intention was to strongly make a
> clear statement to her nephew about the effect of his actions and to
> enter into a dialog about those actions. It was he who reacted to
> break off any further contact.

Again see the response above.  You are interpreting my viewpoint as
condemnation.

> > The dissimilar individual should not walk away angry at you.
>
> If speaking the truth causes that to happen then so be it. It is the
> best thing to happen for many reasons including those already given.
> Once again, your use of "dissimilar" is totally misplaced. The
> situation here did not relate merely to a matter of taste or
> convention (as with wearing a bathing suit to a wedding) but rather
> entailed fundamental ethics.

Modification to an ideology takes years (decades in some cases).  It
is unreasonable to expect to convert someone by immediately exposing
them to a "seemingly" radical ideology.  One must become acclimated to
ideas just like one must become acclimated to cold water.

> > One of
> > the more important issues to keep in mind when developing methods
> > for dealing with other individuals is the context.
>
> You are pointing out the obvious, which I and Kitty know very well.

I am pointing out my view.  If my view is obvious, then we are in
agreement.

> > Are the actors "operating in a Freeman Society", or not? [2]
>
> This has no relevance to the use of social preferencing in the current
> society as an important tool of social behavior modification.

Here we are in disagreement.  This is 100% relevant.  Social
preferencing used in the manner demonstrated in the email in question
resulted in Aaron feeling persecuted.  The question I would pose is
was persecution the objective?  If not, then what was the objective?
If the true objective is not achieved, then the method implemented was
flawed.  A better method must be devised.

> > If the actors are
> > operating outside of a Freeman Society, then the methods and rules
> > of interaction should change based on the context (swimming suits
> > are not appropriate for weddings).
>
> Speaking the truth is always a correct and appropriate method of
> interaction. Your metaphor about wearing bathing suits is totally
> inappropriate.

Disagree.  Speaking the Truth is a tool.  Lying to someone who is
trying to steal from you is perfectly acceptable.

> Strong negative Social Preferencing - the non-sanction
> or non-association and the public expression of the reasons for such
> actions, is a major way to stop many of the harms of the current
> society and get people to think like being in a Freeman Society. Yes,
> it will not likely be immediately effective to alter the behavior of
> those who are being socially preferenced against. It will more likely
> first promote change in others who see the example, are informed by
> the method and are encouraged to use such methods. However, ultimately
> the person being preferenced against will reconsider hir actions,
> particularly when and if sufficient numbers take the same kinds of
> negative preferencing actions with hir while s/he continues to act
> similarly.
>
> It should be noted that strong negative social preferencing is simply
> the logical counterpart of the widely accepted practice of strong
> positive social preferencing - the public praise, accolades,
> recommendations and testimonials for individuals, and organizations of
> various types, which are so often freely forthcoming from others. What
> possible logic can there be for such non-acceptance of the negative
> method, while the positive method is so fully accepted and used? It
> appears that the adage "if you can't say anything nice then don't say
> anything at all" reigns supreme in the minds of the vast majority in
> current society.
>
> Note also that virtually everyone fully accepts both strong positive
> and strong negative preferencing with respect to all kinds of commercial
> products and services. Again there is no logical distinction between
> such methods and similar strong social preferencing relating to all
> manner of attributes of individual persons. I and Kitty have made this
> point before in other places, but you may not have read them yet.

Do not infer disagreement.  No where in my review was an assertion
made that negative social preferencing was correct and that positive
social preferencing was incorrect or vice ver se.  I understand the
difference.  This is analogous to the carrot and stick method.

> > The other important consideration is the
> > intellectual level of the individual.
>
> I and Kitty socially preference, effectively on a continuous basis,
> with respect to everyone whatever their intellectual level and in all
> aspects of our lives. We do this by continuously evaluating everything
> and everyone around us and altering our interfacing with such things
> and persons as appropriate to the current evaluation. No one has time
> to do such continuous evaluation consciously, so much of it is done
> subconsciously by means of habits having been formed for that purpose.
> I cannot conceive of any other way to act and still be honest with and
> to oneself. To act otherwise is to live a lie and to be hypocritical
> which cannot possibly optimally increase one's lifetime happiness.
>
> For each of us our closest relationships are with persons with whom we
> agree on the essentials - the very closest for each of us is the
> other, as stated earlier. Specifically in regard to our philosophical
> ideas and processes, we seek first only those people who are at a
> sufficient intellectual level to understand and promote them. We fully
> realize that most people will only join in when they see that it works
> for others. They are the type of people to whom the adage "I will
> believe it when I see it" applies.

As far as Aaron was concerned, was the objective to determine whether
he was a candidate for a close relationship; or was it that he was a
candidate for incremental conversion?  It seems like there is an all
or nothing approach being taken.  How can one grow if the expectation
is that other humans must "jump to my level of awareness" or "get out
of my life"?  Requiring an instantaneous response is not practical.

> > These comments tie in to four
> > different writings discovered on your site.  Consider the following:
> >
> > "The strong Identification methods described and promoted on this page
> > are assumed to be operating in a Freeman Society where the vast
> > majority of InterActing individuals are Freemen or dependents of
> > Freemen and the purpose of this Identification is both to prevent such
> > Violations by ensuring that they are fully Restituted and to bring the
> > discriminatory pressure of Social Preferencing to bear on other types
> > of behavior that is not conducive to optimally increasing the Lifetime
> > Happiness of all Freemen together." [2]
>
> The quotation above has effectively been taken "out of context". It is
> the last part of a section right at the start of the page explaining
> its purpose, whose prior text reads:
>
> "The creators of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project (Paul and Kitty
> Antonik Wakfer) are well aware that some of the strong Identification
> Required by the NSC and the additional Personal openness described and
> promoted in this page might be unadvisable and perhaps even personally
> dangerous to implement in the current social context of rampant
> Violational activities particularly, and worst of all, including those
> of all governments." (hyperlinks removed for text readability)
>
> That prior text shows that the total situation, particularly including
> *full personal openness*, is what I am describing as being essential
> for a Freeman Society. Nothing in the text suggests that strong negative
> social preferencing should not be practiced, and cannot also be highly
> effective, in the current society, even though some degree of
> non-openness may well be important to protect oneself from the State
> and others violence perpetrators who are effectively spawned by the
> State, and for that reason will be fully acceptable (ie not negatively
> socially preferenced) in the current society.

I agree that this quote was taken out of context my apologies.  In
this case I disagree with using strong social preferencing outside of
the context of a "Freeman Society".  Strong social preferencing
reduces the desire for openness.

> > Attention should be called to the assertion that within the context
> > of a Freeman Society, "the discriminatory pressure of Social
> > Preferencing" [2] should be brought to bear on certain types of
> > behavior.  This discriminatory pressure should be used very carefully
> > outside of the context of a Freeman Society.
>
> Remember that the first purpose of the current text on SelfSIP.org is
> to theoretically found and describe the operation of the Freeman
> Society. It is only Kitty's writings which are the beginning first
> small steps of using some of the Freemen Society methods within the
> current society in order to get people to begin thinking more
> correctly and make some headway towards the achievement of the Freeman
> Society - ie the "getting from here to there" part of the project. I
> myself have not yet begun that portion because I have not yet had
> adequate vetting of the Freeman Society theory and structure.
> Nevertheless even I am tired of waiting and am working to implement
> the concept of value for value, which we initially did not think was
> as essential for the Freeman Society optimal operation as we now do,
> and which I think can be used fruitfully within the current society to
> start people thinking and acting responsibly in the right direction.
>
> Moreover, please remember that apart from Kitty's examples of negative
> social preferencing in the current society, *all* other writing about
> social preferencing (both negative and positive) on SelfSIP applies to
> the Freeman Society. You are mixing the two! The fact that social
> preferencing has problems with its negative usage in the current
> society bears no relationship to its usage in the Freeman Society
> which is where it needs to be first considered in order to determine
> whether and to what extent it is the crucial and practical effector of
> the social order.
>
> Moreover, I must ask you, if some form of strong negative social
> preferencing is not to be used, then just how do you propose that
> people be influenced sufficiently to change their thinking towards
> that needed for a Freeman Society? Calmly talking to and writing for
> people is simply not sufficient for most people to cause such major
> changes in thinking. Strong non-violent action of all possible forms
> will be absolutely necessary in many situations in order to promote
> such change. Once again, I strongly urge you to read the writings of
> the non-violent theoretician Gene Sharp, specifically his book series:
> _The politics of Nonviolent Action_ and also the review of all such
> actions in the 20th century _A Force More Powerful_ by Peter Ackerman
> and Jack Duvall.

"Meeting a person where they are" is a more effective than the
technique of negative social preferencing with little negligible
incrementalism.

> However I thank you for bringing to my attention an error of
> expression on my part remaining from my previous habits of word usage.
> This is the mixing up of physical force (pressure) with psychology
> (the inner workings of the mind). There is no such thing as
> "discriminatory *pressure*" (at least not by means of words alone).
> There are only the actions of others and the voluntary choices and
> actions of a person in response to those actions. I try not to use and
> will not accept from others these kinds of logically invalid
> expressions, and I have changed my text above, replacing "pressure"
> with "influence". And of course all influence must be accompanied by
> cogent clearly presented reasons or it will not be influencing. It is
> only in the current society of vast numbers of other-oriented people
> that the (non physically harmful) actions of others may influence one
> without one knowing any reasons for them. Any rational person would,
> rightly so, not be influenced without such cogent reasons no matter
> how many people took the action. Although if sufficient numbers of
> apparently reasonable people react in some manner, then such weight of
> numbers should at least influence one to fully rethink one's action
> which those many others are convinced is wrong. In addition, if large
> numbers of others will simply not deal with a person because of some
> behavior, then that person must reasonably reconsider hir reasons and
> whether or not continuing to behave contrary to the desires of the
> others will promote hir lifetime happiness.

Agreed.

> Meta
> Kitty will respond separately to some of the below when she feels like
> doing so. Chad, your comments appear to portray Kitty as some kind of
> unfeeling, brazen vixen, when, in fact, nothing could be further from
> the truth. She is the kindest, most concerned human being that I have
> ever encountered. She is also the most open, honest and unwaveringly
> principled person that I have ever encountered.

It concerns me that self-defense is being implemented here.  What is
being defended against?  Did I launch an attack?  Is it aggressive to
mention the names of the actors in open communication to them about
their actions?  What is being employed here is honesty.  At no point
were the words "unfeeling, brazen vixen" used.  Please do not
manufacture words that were not and will not be written about Kitty.
Her email to Aaron struck me as meticulously thought out and deeply
sincere.

[Meta
Note that I put your comment to my meta comments within my original
meta tags and this meta comment about that situation within additional
meta tags.
/Meta --Paul]

> /Meta

> > The reason for this is demonstrated on another page that records
> > email communication between Kitty and her Nephew.
> > During the email communication "discriminatory
> > pressure" [2] is applied outside of the context of a Freeman Society
> > and the results are disappointing.  Consider the following excerpt
> > from Aaron's response, "If not seeing or contacting me is some form of
> > protest then you are welcome to do it. But to write such a hateful
> > email out of the blue is completely uncalled for." [5] Aaron does not
> > know what hit him because he is at a different level of awareness than
> > Kitty and Paul.  What hit Aaron?  This message from Kitty Antonik
> > Wakfer,
> >
> > "Aaron, you may have been wondering why I (and Paul) have not stopped
> > in to see you since your move to St. Louis since we drive through it
> > at least 4 times yearly. It has not been an oversight or because we
> > are lazy. I have purposely avoided opportunities to visit with you
> > since Madison's christening in New Jersey in September 2002. Had Paul
> > and I been successful in timing our drive through St. Louis for Mary's
> > arrival at the airport in July, we would have unavoidably been in your
> > company for that time. However it was our intention not to visit her
> > in your home." [4]
>
> It makes no sense to term any of the above as the application of
> "discriminatory pressure". Kitty's word are nothing but a purely
> honest and open attempt to make all intentions very clear and to be
> certain that nothing is misunderstood (as is so often the case in most
> relationships). The rest of the message, which you do not quote, was a
> patient and reasoned attempt to explain to Aaron the reasons for these
> intentions. That Aaron considered the message to be "hateful" is
> simply the irrational workings of his mind. Perhaps you think that
> there was some close relationship between Kitty and Aaron which Kitty
> was peremptorily severing without any warning. However, the truth is
> that the relationship was merely the standard casual one of relatives
> wherein very little of substance is ever discussed.

Why did Aaron consider the email hateful even though Kitty's
intentions were pure?  One may intend to do one thing and end up with
an undesired result.  Feedback is the key to improvement.  If you do
not get the results you want, then it is important to determine why
and modify the inputs.  Sometimes my wife starts an argument with me.
Now I could sit there and say my wife always likes to start arguments,
or I could ask what can I do to decrease the likelihood that my wife
will start an argument with me?

> > The reviewer read the email message and found himself in agreement
>
> Meta
> I consider it to be an avoidance of personal responsibility technique,
> and perhaps even arrogant, to refer to yourself in the third person as
> "the reviewer" and I do not sanction such behavior. In future, please
> use "I" when you are describing your own actions. --Paul]
> /Meta

Interpret it how you will.  I (Chad Nelson) am the reviewer.  I am
just being honest.  Some people interpret the use of the word `I' the
same way.

> > with Kitty Antonik Wakfer's views on participation in offensive wars.
>
> In addition, please do not use full names. Everyone here knows who
> Kitty is and also who Paul is within the context of the usage. Using a
> full name smacks of unfriendliness, at the least, and is inconsistent
> with your previous use of first names as identifiers.

Now I am confused.  The sentence in question is one of agreement.  How
can it be interpreted as unfriendly?  Again I am clearly doing
something wrong since I intended no offense whatsoever.

> > However, the review disagrees with the apparent lack of escalation.
>
> The escalation of what?

Answer: Escalation of ideological engagement

If a person does not agree with or understand the concept of velocity,
then how can they begin to understand the concept of acceleration?
Concepts build on one another.  Simply telling someone that you
understand and embrace the concept of acceleration is one thing.
Stating, "If you do not understand or embrace the concept of
acceleration, then I will not associate with you" is another matter
entirely.  Does the person even understand velocity?  The final
question is: "Will refusal to associate with a person that does not
understand acceleration cause that person to understand acceleration?"

> > This message effectively presents your nephew with an ultimatum.
> > Choose me and my ideas or continue in the military.  Yikes!
>
> Nonsense! The message that you have not quoted presents thoughts about
> why being in the military is effectively aiding and abetting mass
> murder (but purposefully does not use such strongly language) and
> states that I and Kitty will not associate with anyone doing so.

Aaron feels that he is being presented with an ultimatum.

> > This form
> > Social Preferencing is on its' face not palatable for most humans.
>
> Even though given that just as strong positive forms of social
> preferencing are fully accepted by most humans, it is totally
> illogical not to also accept strong negative social preferencing, we
> have never said that any form of negative social preferencing is
> currently "palatable for most humans". That it is not is also one of
> the major problems with the thinking of most humans which needs to be
> changed. We have also pointed out that everyone is, in fact,
> negatively socially preferencing whether or not they realize it.
> Kitty's nephew negatively socially preferenced Kitty by wanting
> nothing more to do with her. I have been so negatively socially
> preferenced dozens of times in my life. Strangely enough most of that
> negative social preferencing by others came about when I forthrightly
> described to them my method of continuously evaluating everyone with
> respect to our relationship and acting on that evaluation with respect
> to the degree and type of association - ie when I described the
> actions of socially preferencing to them. Their reaction was so
> negative and distasteful of the whole idea that they usually did
> something punishing to me as well as exercising social preferencing
> against me (totally inconsistent with their distaste for it). In fact,
> I have come to use it as a kind of filter to quickly eliminate those
> people who are not capable of facing the truths of their own lives and
> of acting consistently.

There is nothing wrong with negative social preferencing it is a tool.
The usage of that tool is matter in question.  Why not try to convert
others as opposed to filtering them?  The filter you are applying is
very narrow/fine.  What if a person can almost be accommodated by the
filter?  Should they be treated like someone who will never fit
through the filter?

> > One must establish a foundation and build some scaffolding before
> > declaring jump to my level.  How can Aaron reach you?  You have not
> > provided any assistance along the way.  It took you years to reach
> > your level of awareness.  How can Aaron be expected to instantaneously
> > adopt a worldview that is diametrically opposed to his current one?
> > Has he actually had time to consider these ideas?  Withdrawal of
> > support should be one of the LAST steps in the escalation process.
>
> Chad, I think you are way out of place here in your comments since you
> have no knowledge of the depth or shallowness of the relationship
> between Kitty and her nephew. Neither Kitty nor I have any close ties
> to any remaining family. I, in particular, have always felt estranged
> from all of my relatives except my mother, who unfortunately died far
> too young and was too strongly influenced by my father with whom I did
> not agree much, and my biological daughter for awhile until I realized
> that she had been effectively deceiving me about her respect for me
> for about 20 years.

I am not out of line in that anyone who according to Aaron, "writes
a[n] <interpretational word deleted> email out of the blue" is not
close to that person.  Also, anyone who actively avoids another person
for 3 years [September 2002 ("Madison's christening") to September
2005 (timestamp on email)] is not close to that person.  Evidence for
active avoidance is provided by Kitty, "Aaron, you may have been
wondering why I (and Paul) have not stopped in to see you since your
move to St. Louis since we drive through it at least 4 times yearly.
It has not been an oversight or because we are lazy. I have purposely
avoided opportunities to visit with you since Madison's christening in
New Jersey in September 2002. Had Paul and I been successful in timing
our drive through St. Louis for Mary's arrival at the airport in July,
we would have unavoidably been in your company for that time. However
it was our intention not to visit her in your home."

I am well within my place to make a judgment based on clear evidence.
Your response further confirms my inference.  If I am wrong, then
prove it.  Do not just say I am out of place.

> I leave the rest for necessary comments by Kitty in another response.
>
> > Admittedly, Kitty Antonik Wakfer came to the conclusion that the
> > initial email was inappropriate and devised "A Better Method for
> > Effecting Change". [6] The first paragraph includes the sentence,
> > "I've done some thinking about how my approach to my nephew Aaron, a
> > pilot in the Air Force, might have been better worded and thereby
> > possibly have elicited a more favorable response from him." [6]
> >
> > Before this sentence, however, is a more interesting statement; "At
> > this time and prompted a few weeks ago by a comment from an individual
> > whose opinions I (Kitty Antonik Wakfer) listen to…" [6] This is an
> > excellent point.  It is worth asking this question about the
> > relationship between you and your nephew as well.  Are you someone
> > that your nephew listens to and respects?  If not, then it is
> > important to start there.  If the person does not know or respect you
> > in the first place, then what motivation would he have to change based
> > on what you say?  Furthermore, what does he have to lose if he does
> > not know the Kitty very well in the first place?
> >
> > Unfortunately, the "Incremental Approach" misses the mark much like
> > the first email.  The problem begins in paragraph one:
> >
> > "I've been doing a lot of thinking about you lately and am deeply
> > concerned. At the time you graduated from the Air Force Academy
> > (1998), I considered the military only 1 of 3 valid functions of
> > government, an entity I thought was necessary to a free and orderly
> > society. Since then, all after meeting Paul and having many detailed
> > discussions with him - concurrent with the reading of various
> > anti-statist writers of the past and present - I came to the
> > conclusion that governments are the cause of most of the problems of
> > society. The progress that occurs and the happiness that individuals
> > achieve are mainly in spite of government rules and regulations rather
> > than as a result of them. The fact that most people do not recognize
> > this is because they have not seriously considered how a society could
> > be free and orderly without coercive law-creating entities -
> > governments." [6]
> >
> > This paragraph alone is already too much.  Many people will reject
> > this approach.  The recipient of such an unsolicited email is most
> > likely not going to receive this well.  Their mind is not ready.  Ask
> > yourself the following question, what would happen if the coordinator
> > for the Italian Olympics Swimming team kidnapped you in the middle of
> > the night and you were told that you would be competing in the 100
> > meter diving competition tomorrow OR that you could go back home and
> > continue living your normal life.  Which of these options are you most
> > prepared to accomplish?  The excerpt above drops your nephew in the
> > deep-end.
> >
> > Adopting an incremental approach is wise, but this approach is not
> > incremental enough.
>
> The authorship that you have given directly below is incorrect. All
> writing at SelfSIP.org that is not specifically stated as written by
> someone else is authored by me alone (everything that I write has
> undergone suggestions, critique and editing by Kitty and vice-versa.)
> See the "Authorship" section on the project entry page http://selfsip.org
> where this is clearly stated. I am the theorist. Kitty writes mainly
> examples which are never to be taken as replacing or being contrary to
> the theory (on which we both agree). If you think that any is contrary
> then please state exactly which text is contrary and give reason why
> you think so.
>
> > [2] Self-Sovereignty Solutions Social Preferencing, Author: Paul and
> > Kitty Antonik Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html
> >
> > [4] Social Preferencing – Evaluation and Choice of Association; A
> > Method for Influence, Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer,
http://selfsip.org/focus/preferencing.html
> >
> > [5] Exchange Regarding Social Preferencing and Participation in
> > Offensive Military Action, Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer,
> > http://selfsip.org/dialogues/misc/preferencing_at.html
> >
> > [6] Incremental Approach – A Better Method for Effecting Change,
> > Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/focus/smallsteps.html
> >
> > Reviewer, Chad Nelson
>
> Chad, you have no "position" or "authority" as reviewer. Please do not
> try to aggrandize your personal comments into anything more than they
> are.

Reviewer
1. a person who reviews
2. a person who reviews books, plays, etc.

Review
–verb (used with object)
12. to go over (lessons, studies, work, etc.) in review
13. to view, look at, or look over again.
14. to inspect, esp. formally or officially: to review the troops.
15. to survey mentally; take a survey of: to review the situation
16. to discuss (a book, play, etc.) in a critical review; write a critical
report upon.
17. to look back upon; view retrospectively.
18. to present a survey of in speech or writing.
19. Law. To reexamine judicially: a decision to review the case

Placing a title on oneself conveys no position or authority.  It
merely states a fact.  If what I am doing does not fall under the
category of review, then I do not understand the definition of review.
I shall persist in all sincerity to continue to refer to myself as a
Reviewer of your work.

> --Paul
>

Reviewer, Chad Nelson

[Disclaimer: Chad Nelson has no position or authority as a "Reviewer"
of any material on this group. He is merely a reviewer in the same
manner and has precisely the same commenting status as anyone else
posting here. --Paul]

[Meta
Although I rarely do so anymore, this message required a couple of
quick responses from me before it was released from the queue. Please
see them below within "[]" marks.
/Meta --Paul]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Meta
> We changed the title to be more descriptive. Better late than never.
> /Meta

Makes Sense

> On 06/10/2009 01:32 PM, freechad480 wrote:
> > Responses in bold below
> >
> > [Meta
> > MoreLife Yahoo is a strictly text group because otherwise, any editing
> > of messages before posting would have to be done to both the text and
> > html messages (which appear in separate windows when the group is in
> > html mode. For this reason bold does not work and if you want to
> > signify anything special then you need to resort to the old UseNet
> > method of placing "*" for bold and "_" or "\" for italics before and
> > after the desired text. Also for this reason, please do not use the
> > "rich text editor" at the group message entry or reply webpage since
> > doing so will cause us more editing work to clean up the mess.
> >
> > In any case you do not need to do anything special either when using
> > an email reply or when replying at the group webpages, because the
> > numbers of ">"s, the blank lines between text and the "who wrote"
> > lines at the top are sufficient to indicate the authors of all text
> > and keep everything nicely separated.
> > /Meta --Paul]
> >
> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@> wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/09/2009 09:43 PM, Chad Nelson wrote:
> >>
> >>> I learned about you through one of the forum posts at www.mises.org
> >>> <http://www.mises.org/> a couple months ago.
> >>>
> >> I think that I can guess which one, but I would like to know for sure,
> >> please. And even better would be to know what about the post attracted
> >> you to investigate further.
> >>
> > The article I was reading was: http://blog.mises.org/archives/009840.asp
>
> That is what I thought. It was my critique of a section of Mises'
> _Human Action_ Chap 2 on the principle of methodological individualism.
> Unfortunately, as is so often the case with my critiques of revered
> people, on sites or within circles that revere them, there has been no
> response. I can only conclude from such lack of response that most
> people who read it decide to simply ignore it since they cannot refute
> it.

It is dangerous to idolize individuals to the point that they become
Gods.  There are no sacred cows.  Mises, Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Walter
Block, Marc Faber, and so on all fall into the category of human.
I respect their contributions, but I also recognize that they do/did
not get everything right.

> Ignoring something that you don't like is a prime method of
> relegating it to unimportance in the evaluation of others, no matter how
> true it is.

Agreed.  This is the trap that an individual should avoid to the
extent that truth is the objective.

>While it is true that my critique did not get posted until 2
> days after the article (a simple reprint of Mises' text) because it was
> long and got initially rejected by the system, clearly it did get read
> by some people, you at the least.
>
> I would still appreciate your telling me what about it attracted you
> to further investigate me.

I found myself in disagreement with the article in the I / We / Ego
section.  In reading your comment I found that you articulated my
disagreement, and it made me want to learn more.

> >> This information will be valuable to me
> >> because I am having some difficulty attracting people who are capable
> >> of understanding my ideas and are in sufficient agreement to even wish
> >> to engage me in dialog about them.

One of the reasons that it is difficult to attract individuals is that
many people do not read the long comments (even the people that read
mises.org).  It may be wise to break the comment into bite-size
chunks.  I know some people that feel insulted by long posts.  These
individuals purposefully ignore the long ones.

> >> This is understandable since those
> >> ideas are not part of any currently established and widely known social
> >> model, and one of the major problems with current society is the lack
> >> of truly open minded and analytical people.

The pump must be primed. Otherwise, individuals will feel like they
are swimming in the ocean.  What one doesn't understand gets ignored
or blamed for the problem.  Yesterday, my grandfather told me that the
Internet is the cause of the world's problems.  This makes no sense.
The Internet is just a tool.  The reality is that my grandfather does
not understand the Internet, and it is therefore convenient to blame
the general problems of the world on this nebulous Internet.

> > Something I have found is that individuals have to discover much of this
> > on their own.  You can provide a light or stretch out your hand, but
> > they have to take the next step.  The individual must also be willing to
> > sincerely question every principle that they have accepted as "truth".
>
> All of this is very true and I generally always act that way in all my
> education endeavors. The individual has to analyze the data, digest
> the information, extract the essences and make them a part of hir
> brain by integrating them with all hir other convictions.
>
> Almost 30 years ago, I learned from Nathaniel Branden the expression
> of "owning" one's ideas and emotions, which expression I greatly
> valued and used for many years until reading your response and writing
> this reply. I now realize that the use of the word "own" both distorts
> the process of information integration into the brain/mind and worse,
> confuses the status of such information with that of property to which
> the concept of ownership does correctly and fully apply.

I have not thought enough about this to feel comfortable venturing
beyond this depth.

> > They must also acknowledge that ideas are not Self rather they are
> > Possessions.  Possessions with the unique characteristic of being
> > possessible by all.
>
> The first, "ideas are not Self rather they are possessions", is an
> interesting expression that I had not seen or thought before, but I do
> not agree with it. In fact, I see several problems with the approach
> of these last two sentences:
> 1) The clear distinction between "data" and "information" should always
> be made. (In fact, I think that the Natural Social Contract (NSC) may
> need to be altered in order to make this clear.)

I still need to read the Natural Social Contract.  I am assuming that
you are disagreeing with the possession part of the statement.  My
idea is not me rather it is an entity that was generated by me with
the help of some stimuli.

> 2) "Ideas" are definitely information rather than data. They are a
> product of the individual human brain/mind acting on the data that it
> receives from some external source.

I am confused about the difference between information and data.  I
would lump them in the same category.  Again I have not thought about
this very much.

> 3) For that same reason each instance of an idea is actually unique to
> the person in whose brain/mind it resides. It is uniquely integrated
> with all hir other knowledge and is essentially inseparable from its
> integration into the whole of the mind.

Never thought about this before, but I agree that each instance of an
idea is unique to the person.  This is similar to an individuals
perception of a given event or object.

If two people come up with the idea of creating a hotdog stand, then
there will be differences it the specifics.  However, the ideas are
not unique at the highest level of creating the hotdog stand, but at
the implementation level e.g. color, shape, size, portability, and so
on they may vary greatly.  The other important point about an
individual's specific ideas is that they are dynamic and change based
on new data or information that was not previously available.

> 4) Therefore, at best, any idea in a person's mind can only be partially
> communicated to others. This is as opposed to an item of property, which
> can be transferred in its entirety to another person.

Again I would agree at the micro level.  At the macro level general
ideas can be communicated completely.

> 5) The important social aspect of "possessions" is their ability to be
> "property" - to be owned by a given person (or persons under the terms
> of a contract among them). For that reason, it is important to clearly
> distinguish between the concepts of "ownership", "possession" and
> "control" as I have done within their definitions in the NSC.

I still need to read this document.

> 6) Because data is possessable by more than one person, I think that it
> is invalid, or at least confusing, to describe it as property (which
> is not thus possessable), and this is even more the case for
> information, which, as described above is unique to the individual
> mind in which it resides.

Agree that it is confusing to think of data as property especially if
classifying it as property conveys some entitlement(s) that assume
unique or exclusive possession as opposed to distributed possession.

> 7) The above analysis leads to the complete repudiation of the notion of
> copyright (which was already not part of my social system). Because of
> this, while the originator of data and information certainly has
> contractual entitlements to that data and information given that such
> contracts are concluded with the receiver voluntarily and prior to any
> transmission, s/he has no "ownership" entitlement once the data and
> information have been made "public" (since there can be no such valid
> contract with everyone).

Agreed.  Copyright is bad.  Any individual that consumes public data
is entitled to use that data.  It is not possible to unconsumed data.

> 8) As far as I can see then, the only way that is left to reward the
> originator of data and of information, even for the partial amount of
> which a person is capable of transferring, is the method of value for
> value - a voluntary transfer to the originator of the data and/or
> information of an amount of value equivalent to that obtained from the
> transfer by the receiver of the data and/or information.

An after-the-fact value for value transactions can be a way to reward
releasers of data.  Donations and Advertising are used to accomplish
this, however, individuals other than yourself might benefit from the
advertizing revenue since they are free to distribute your work.

A before-the-fact value for value transaction can also occur.  This is
similar to the venture capital model.  One or more people pay me to
produce and release a book or video.  It is a model that will be
implemented by this website: http://www.piratemyfilm.com/

Here is a link to a video explaining the concept:
http://maxkeiser.com/2009/04/08/stacy-blog-the-piratemyfilm-pitch-in-video-a-new\
-t-shirt-design/

> Chad, I wish to thank you for the stimulation from your words (even
> though I disagreed with them :), causing me to describe my thoughts
> about information as above in a far more complete and logical manner
> than I have ever done before.

Your welcome.

> >>> Yesterday, I completed reading your document about social meta-needs.
> >>> I found that your arguments against rights were quite compelling.
> >>>
> >> Again that's great to hear. When I submitted the Social Meta-Needs
> >> treatise to Libertarian Papers <http://www.LibertarianPapers.org> it
> >> was rejected with the remark from one "reviewer" (I put it in quotes
> >> because the speed of rejection was such that no one could have
> >> actually taken time to study it in detail) that the paper was "just
> >> providing a slightly new and modish vocabulary for the same things
> >> that we all accept".
> >>
> > Have you sent any of your papers to Walter Block?  I am curious as to
> > how he would respond.  He seems willing to consider many different
> > points of view.
>
> I first heard of Walter Block when I read his book "Defending the
> Undefendable", probably a couple of years after its publication in 1976.
> I immediately thought it was great, even though I was still an
> objectivist limited governmentalist at that time. However, I also took
> exception with his designation of "hero" status to pimps, slum-lords
> and drug pushers, even though he was fully correct in defending the
> legality, and to some extent even the value, of some of their actions.
> Soon after reading the book, I and several other Toronto libertarians
> heard that Block was speaking at a libertarian event in Detroit (an
> easy drive from Toronto) and went to see him there. I happened to be
> sitting in the front row with my copy of his book on the table in
> front of me. At the beginning of his talk he needed a copy, spotted
> mine and used it. As a result my copy now contains a written note of
> thanks from him inside its front cover. So as you can see Walter Block
> was one of my earliest libertarian heroes.

He has certainly influenced me during the past 2-3 years.

> Fast forward to Fall 2002.
> I and Kitty attended the Freedom Summit in Phoenix -
> http://freedomsummit.com (my first winter at our home in AZ, after
> having my entry ban to the US lifted). Part of the reason for attending
> was that Walter Block was the after dinner speaker. Another major part
> of the reason was that George H Smith was also speaking (another one of
> my libertarian heroes for many years and at that time). What happened to
> my connection with Smith is documented in the dialog section of SelfSIP
> and even more and worse since has not been documented but is available
> to be seen on the Internet.

I do not know much about George H Smith.

> Anyway, getting back to Block, naturally I was looking forward to his
> talk (which unfortunately now I cannot remember the title or subject
> matter). After it was finished, during the audience question period, I
> posed to him a question of some substance and foundational originality
> (again I cannot remember exactly what). His response was very equivocal
> and when pressed further, he simply relied on the opinion of Murray
> Rothbard as an *authority* on the subject (argument from authority).
> This single event of usage of such well-known false logic, greatly
> reduced my respect for Block. Jim Davidson (http://indomitus.net/jdbio.html)
> was sitting at our table, was a witness to the whole affair (and might
> remember the subject) and agreed that Block's response was effectively
> denigrating and evading the question.

This is disappointing.  However, it does not seem appropriate to
immediately move someone from the hero bin to the garbage bin.  It
should be recognized that radical ideas are radical because many
people have not considered them.  Everyone disagrees with another
person about something.  There does not appear to be slack in your
system human error.  I do not agree with everyone on everything.  In
fact, I expect a lack of agreement.  If I agree with someone 80% of
the time, then I will not toss them aside just because they do not
agree with me on the other 20%.  Rules for human interaction should be
flexible enough to accommodate dissimilarity between human actors.

> Walter Block is also one of the editors of Libertarian Papers, and could
> well be one of those who peremptorily dismissed my submission. Yes, I
> guess that I should send it to him anyway, but I have little confidence
> that he would actually read it and think about it seriously, so I have
> not done so.

I would encourage you to devise a plan that results in Walter Block
reading and seriously reviewing all of your papers.  As opposed to
assuming that it will not work.  Half-hearted efforts lead to
half-hearted results.  One way may be to pay him.  Value for value
typically gets my attention.  Of course you shouldn't offer cash
unless he declines the "review for free" option.  I "believe" that he
is on sabbatical right now meaning that he may have some extra time.

> I chose instead to ask Jan Narveson, one of the other
> Libertarian Papers editors who I have also met and talked with, to
> review it. He did tell me he had not seen it because he was so busy
> at the time, but that it looked interesting and that he would take a
> look at it when he was finished his editing of a book for publication.
> But so far he has not and a reminder to him a few weeks ago went
> unanswered. I have now decided that I will send it out to several more
> people (including Block) because there is little loss in doing so and
> if I don't send it then the response is automatically null.

Great!

> > On a separate note: I have forwarded some of your links to a couple
> > people who may be interested.
>
> Good. I look forward to hearing about any response that you get.

Only received a response from one person.  His response was that he
did not like the way the website looked and that he thought this
project was similar to that of the tower of Babel.  This surprised me
since I pegged this individual as more open-minded and less lazy.  I
made three attempts to get him to read the Social Meta-Needs document.

> >>> What struck me as more surprising, however, was that you are seeking
> >>> to put the ideas of liberty into practise.
> >>>
> >> I have always been both a theoretician and practical person in many
> >> diverse areas. I don't agree that there is any dichotomy between
> >> theory and practice. If some theory is not practical then it simply is
> >> not a valid theory (one that is true of reality).

I agree with and also possess the desire to put theory to the test.

[Meta
I have belatedly and retroactively changed the entire following dialog,
and few other similar remarks later on, to Meta status.
/Meta --Paul]

> Meta
> Chad, It is one of my requirements of dialog, that my respondent make
> a response to everything of substance that I state. If one does not do
> this, I take it as a kind of insult, equivalent to totally ignoring
> something of substance that I have stated during an in-person
> conversation. And I will not continue discussion for long with someone
> who continues to ignore things that I say or write. Furthermore even
> if you assure me that you always read and take in all of my responses,
> without some kind of response text I have no way to know the level of
> your understanding of it.
>
> So please respond to everything only if to say that you agree or
> disagree, but do not currently have either the time or sufficient deep
> thinking about the subject to give  reasons for your agreement or
> disagreement (particularly if the latter).

I understand your concern to a certain level and will make an effort
to address all responses.  As far as insults are concerned please be
cautious about inferring insults.  If I intend to insult you I will
make it very clear by stating, "The following is intended to insult
you" this would then be followed by clear and unambiguous insults that
attack both the message and the messenger.  Be advised that I do not
toss insults around lightly.  I also make an effort to understand the
other individual even though a certain action or lack thereof may on
the surface seem insulting.  I expect the same from you.

[Meta
My usage of "I take it as a *kind of* insult" (emphasis added) was
meant to signify both that the act of not responding to a substantive
remark had a negative effect on me similar to that of an insult and
that the effect was unintended. I guess that I should have used the
longer phrase "I take it as a kind of unintended insult" to make that
dual purpose clearer.
OTOH, perhaps the word "insult" is always too "hot" and I would have
been better to say: "I see it as discourteous".
OTOH-2, once a person fully understands Social Meta-Needs and its NSC
and Social Preferencing implementations, s/he will realize that
intentions bear no relationship to harm. Unfortunately, because my
creation has had such a revolutionary change on my own thinking, I
often have trouble remembering how I must deal with others who are not
yet so changed./Meta --Paul]


Another factor involved in missing responses is that the inline
comment form provided by Yahoo is very difficult to use.  The forum
interface provided at mises.org is years ahead of the text-based caret
system.  I will make an effort to remedy this by reducing the number
of subjects discussed in a particular post.

[Chad, As I have advised several others and they have found it to be
far better, the best way to operate with Yahoo groups is either to
respond at the group web interface, or far better still, get a mail
reader on your computer (I use and recommend Thunderbird) to which you
get your Yahoo group messages sent (individually, since the group
traffic is very light) and then use the reply function in the email
reader. This will ensure that the formatting of the message as
received by us in the queue is also optimal - something that is not
true now and we have to do a little cleanup to each of your messages
before releasing it. --Paul]

>/Meta

> >>> I too am developing a plan to do the exact same thing in (to my
> >>> pleasant surprise) a similar way.
> >>> I have various materials that I can share with you if you are interested.
> >>>
> >> Yes, I would like to know everything about it. There are far too many
> >> people going off independently in all sorts of directions, and with
> >> most people in current society not knowing how to evaluate, this
> >> greatly weakens the possibility of any one way to attract sufficient
> >> others to get anywhere.
>
> Meta
> Again you did not respond, although in this case your response to my
> text below could be seen as also a response to the above.

Correct my response is below.

> /Meta

> >>> My plan is to launch a web site by the end of the year that
> >>> facilitates Social Preferencing.
> >>>
> >> I also want to know precisely what you mean by the phrase "facilitates

See the link below.

> >> Social Preferencing" and how your plans will do that. I sincerely hope
> >> that we can merge our plans into one effort.
> >
> > This post is a good introduction to what I am interested in doing.  It
> > is the how that I am still working on:
> > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/2036
>
> And I have now responded to that message about your plans, as much of
> them as I understand. Most definitely the details of the "how" will
> require a lot of deep thinking and major design/programming efforts.
>
> > It should be pointed out that this is only one facet of the plan.  This
> > sort of system will enable the connection of likeminded individuals
> > which of course is only the beginning.  Physical communities (not just
> > online communities) could be formed anywhere that humans exist that
> > follow a specific formula (still to be developed).  Liberated
> > communities will be as ubiquitous as fast food restaurants once the plan
> > blossoms.
>
> As I stated in the other message, I have a major problem with such
> physical communities within the current statist societies. They are far
> too easy targets for those in power to destroy. The US is not a free
> country any longer (if it ever was one) wherein those doing no harm to
> others are allowed to live as they want to. The only way that a large
> liberty oriented movement will be able to survive and to successfully
> undermine and replace any current society is for it to remain highly
> decentralized and totally dispersed/immersed within the current
> population, essentially succeeding from the current society as much as
> possible. Besides which, such immersion is a far better way to persuade
> others in society of the validity of one's ideas, and thereby to
> greatly abandon using the methods of the current society.

The plan may take a century to implement.  Ultimately physical
communities need to grow out of the system or all the talk about
putting theory into practice is meaningless.  Agree that the initial
strategy should be to establish connections online.  The true test of
this system is whether it can be incrementally reclaim liberty and
freedom for the individuals using it.

> >>> Would you be interested participating in an online meeting with me
> >>> to determine whether it would be beneficial for us to work together?
> >>>
> >> Absolutely yes! On the MoreLife group Yahoo would be best for me. All
> >> such discussion will be eventually moved to the appropriate wiki
> >> (Valu4Valu.org, OpenLives.net, SelfSIP.org or MoreLife.org) when they
> >> are ready, in order to get more visibility.

Comments about the websites:  The wikis appear to be unpopulated.
SelfSIP.org is difficult and confusing to navigate and piece together.
There are many links that are remote and difficult to access.

The other issue is that encountering these ideas is like being dropped
naked into Antarctica.  I've been working on a system that attempts to
gentle expose individuals to the implications of their views as a
means of encouraging them to voluntarily change their ideology.

> Again you failed to respond to the above and several more text items below.
>
> >>> I am most interested in learning more about the following two
> >>> items listed on your site:
> >>>
> >>> * Outline of the Program of Implementation [in progress]
> >>>
> >> I have written small items about this in several places, but have not
> >> done any comprehensive work, since so far no one has really understood
> >> my work, agreed with it (or got me to change it to be more correct)
> >> and joined me to promote it. As I always state, before one starts to
> >> implement a plan to attain a certain goal (a newly organized society,
> >> in this case) one first needs to know that and how such a goal will be
> >> beneficial (before one begins a journey one needs to know the
> >> destination). Therefore, talk about implementation is a little ways
> >> off, IMO.

I very much agree that a plan is important.  I am working on such a
plan with an eye toward sustainability.  The plan goal has two parts
outreach to the uninitiated and a support system for practitioners.
The details of the plan are still under development, and I will reveal
more details in the future.

>Nevertheless I do have many ideas already formulated.

I would like to talk about these ideas.

> Meta
> Again no response. Please do so.
>/Meta
>
> >>> * Self-Sovereign Personal Database Website [planned]
> >>>
> >> This is already begun as the wiki http://OpenLives.net

It is unclear how the wiki will be used.  Also, the wiki appears to be empty.

> Meta
> Please respond.
> /Meta
>
> >>> *My Skills:*
> >>> Engineering
> >>> Web Programming
> >>> Enthusiasm
> >>>
> >> Interesting, These match mine and Kitty's quite well. We are both
> >> Engineering graduates (among other academic areas). I have been
> >> involved with computers off and on for over 35 years. And under the
> >> right circumstances we both have lots of energy and enthusiasm.

Maybe the key is that engineers tend to enjoy solving problems as opposed to
simply identifying them and proposing solutions.  Mises.org does a good job of
exposing individuals to problems and offering solution.  However, it has done
little for me as far as providing a system for implementation.  One can say that
societal system X would be ideal, but offering no mechanism by which individuals
can migrate to system X from their current system leaves a person unsatisfied. 
Statements like if everyone thought Y then system X could be implemented offers
only an objective.  An objective with no means of achievement is referred to as
impotence.  I want to develop a method for changing the way people think.

> Meta
> Please respond.
> /Meta
>
> >>> *My Vision:*
> >>> Create a system that permits liberty to flourish anywhere in the universe.
> >>>
> >> Same here. But not only liberty - more importantly, maximum possible
> >> freedom (in the sense of available actions).
> >>
> > I see.  That is something that I did not directly have in mind, but
> > expanding the boundaries on available actions makes sense.
>
> Liberty per se, cannot increase Lifetime Happiness. Only available
> actions that are chosen and acted upon can do that. Liberty is only
> valuable as a *means* to aid the creation of more available actions
> that can then be chosen and acted upon with the intention of increasing
> one's lifetime happiness.
>
> >> See the definitions of
> >> Liberty and Freedom in the Natural Social Contract
> >> <http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html> and their annotations to
> >> understand the difference between Freedom and Liberty (the latter is
> >> merely a prerequisite for maximal Freedom).
> >>
> > I have not yet read those two documents.  I am currently in the process
> > of writing a review of the paper about "Social Meta-Needs" there are a
> > few spots where my understanding needs to be expanded.
>
> Such "expansion" would likely occur if you read all the rest of
> SelfSIP.org. It is all a coherent and related whole, no part of which
> can stand entirely alone and each part of which will elucidate and
> illuminate the other parts. That is why everything is so intensively
> hyperlinked. Nevertheless, doing a review of each part, with some open
> questions, is still an excellent way to organize your study of the total.

Portions of the review will be released soon.

> >>> *Location:*
> >>> Winchester, VA
> >>> 703-881-3199
> >>>
> >>> P.S. Where are you located?
> >>>
> >> Unfortunately you are not close to either of our residences:
> >> May to October inclusive: Harcourt Park Ontario Canada - my legal
> >> residence as a Canadian citizen
> >> November to April inclusive: Casa Grande Arizona USA - Kitty's legal
> >> residence as a US citizen
> >
> > I was just in Arizona.  While their I visited the Mago Retreat in
> > Sedona: http://www.sedonamagoretreat.org/ .
>
> [Sedona is a truly beautiful area of Arizona - and there a lots of
> them. I took a number of photos of a hike in 2 locales back on April 2
> 2006 - http://morelife.org/personal/photos2006/photos_49.html
> Unfortunately in the last ~25 years Sedona has become a very expensive
> place to live and even visit. I first visited it briefly with my
> former husband Ed and our then very young son Andy in probably 1977 -
> it was just a sleepy town with a lot of nice scenery *and* a river
> that actually had running water in it all the time, not like the dry
> washes in the desert that only run when there is a real downpour. **Kitty]

I see.

> > The reason that I mention this here is that the Energy Yoga practised
> > their has helped me to be a better and happier person.  Disclaimer: The
> > "scientific research" portion of the organization is neither science nor
> > research.  If you can look beyond that, and watch your wallet (though
> > I've found that the value received is typically comensurate with the
> > cost) you might find it interesting.
>
> Yes, I and Kitty are familiar with some of the benefits to be obtained
> from yoga (some of which does have scientific backing), although we are
> not familiar with exactly what "Energy Yoga" constitutes. Such benefits
> can also be obtained from other activities - particularly for the
> psychological benefits much better, far more lasting and with far less
> cost than formal classes.

Agree that activity and exercise is important.

> [Certain kinds of purposeful body movements are very conducive to
> relaxation as well as improvement in flexibility, balance and
> strength. Tai-chi is another one that has received a lot of study. But
> so is dance like ballet and I am sure that many individuals can relate
> their own experiences with various activities. The slow ones with
> periods of stillness where remaining posed is not or no longer
> stressful seem to be more likely to allow the participant to mentally
> focus on something other than the immediate activity itself and
> therefore have potential for longterm relaxation. OTOH doing a
> physical activity that is outside one's usual activities can enable a
> person to temporarily detach from tasks that are not mentally
> rewarding and, even if those are enjoyed, provide a challenge of sorts.
> For us, we find that purposeful physical activities - lots of manual
> wood cutting and chopping for the past several weeks here in Harcourt
> Park ON - is the best form of exercise. And it definitely gives one a
> sense of accomplishment when looking at those split logs...;>) When it
> gets warmer next month I expect to be out wet scrubbing - mostly with
> a long handled brush - our dock, deck and back porch to get the small
> amount of (returning) algae off. This method eliminates the use of
> chemicals (that can get into the lake) and provides lots of physical
> activity. Then those green-free cedar planks will look nice and have
> no tendency towards slipperiness when wet.
> Paul plans to get back to finishing the roof scrubbing, a task he only
> partially completed in the Fall of 2007 and did not have time for last
> year - see
> http://morelife.org/personal/photos2007/photos_61.html about 2/3 down
> the page.

Looks like a lot of good work.

> Chad, specifically in regard to being a "better and happier person",
> if you are not already well familiar the cognitive behavioral model
> (theory), you might find the books _Feeling Good Handbook_ by David D
> Burns and _Mind Over Mood: Change How You Feel by Changing the Way You
> Think_ by Greenberger & Pedasky of particular value - even if you are
> pleased with yourself now. There is reference to these books and a
> couple others on CBT on the MoreLife Practice Index under Outlook -
> http://morelife.org/practiceindex.html. There have also been some
> previous interesting threads here at the group that include discussion
> of CBT and the books. **Kitty]

I will add these to my long list of things to read.

> Meta
> Chad,
> Please try to be more careful with your use of "their" versus "there".
> It is always important to reread your writings for meaning, grammar
> and typos before you send them off.
> /Meta

I do re-read my responses, but being human I do not catch everything.

> >> We sometimes visit people in between during our bi-yearly migration,
> >> but we have rarely been to VA and we refuse to fly, the airport
> >> regulations situation being as it is.
>
> This is one that did not really need a response, except to perhaps
> comment on the no-fly decision, so strongly expressed.

If I am ever headed to Canada or Arizona I will make an effort to see
if we can meet.

> >>> Chad
> >>> www.downsizedc.org <http://www.downsizedc.org/>
> >>>
> >> Kitty could not find any sign of you on that web site. How are you
> >> related to downsizedc.org?
> >>
> > I am a member of downsizedc.org.  I donate money to them, and send
> > emails to my "Representatives".  Professional politics is not the
> > answer, however, laying a tree in front of the steamroller helps to buy
> > time.
>
> While the latter is most certainly true, there are far too many people
> occupying all their free time with "laying such trees" (although
> relative to the size and power of government it is more like laying a
> few tiny branches in front of a steam roller).

Agreed.  Every person should be aware of the impact of their actions
and attempt to weigh the opportunity cost carefully.

> --Paul


Chad Nelson

On 06/18/2009 07:41 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> Stability Requirement
> "[S]uch increase [in Lifetime Happiness] also will be most easily
> achieved within an Environment that is very stable or at most undergoes
> relatively small Changes of certain Parameters in a cyclical or
> otherwise predictable manner." [1]  The reviewer agrees that a stable,
> predictable environment will best increase the Lifetime Happiness of the
> individuals located inside.

Meta
The above should read "I agree that a stable ... ". Anything else is a
subterfuge.
/Meta

> The question, therefore, becomes what
> possible solutions exist for achieving such an environment?  Put another
> way, any solution that purports to increase the Lifetime Happiness must
> establish a measurable stability criteria.  Yes, the goal is to
> constantly increase stability, but there is a cut-off point as we
> asymptotically approach one hundred percent stability where we say
> this level is "good enough".  A measurable stability criteria is an
> amalgamation of various factors e.g. harm / unit time, environmental
> fluctuations / unit time, various human system fluctuations / unit
> time, etc.  Human system fluctuations are related to the physical and
> non-physical attributes of the human under obeservation.  Also worth
> pointing out is that short-term and long-term stability can be
> considered once such metrics are defined.

Meta
Once again a "we" can't do anything! Only individuals think, choose and
act. In particular "we" do not "asymptotically approach one hundred
percent stability", although perhaps a Society as a whole does that
according to some appropriate measure and system-wide process. In
addition, there is no "we" to say that "this level is "good enough"".
There are only individuals making individual evaluated choices and
thereby setting the stability level of their self-ordered society.
/Meta

Many metrics could be defined to measure such stability (stock market
indexes are one such) and perhaps will be done and prove to be valuable
for aiding Freemen to optimize the self-ordered stability of their
society. But you are completely missing the point that there is little
purpose to any such measurement tool beforehand because a society of
full liberty will be naturally self-ordered and stabilized, to whatever
degree that its inhabitants decide, by means of their voluntary
interactions rather than ordered from the top or by pseudo-external
authorities. (In the Freeman Society there are no institutions or
authorities in the sense of organizations or people with any special
powers (except for the excellence of their products, services,
knowledge and reasoning abilities.)

> Achieving Stability
> Once stability is clearly understood, methods need to be devised for
> achieving and maintaining stability within the framework of the
> "Social Meta-Needs". [1]

It appears that you missed the whole point of a self-ordering society
without  any external or top-down ordering authorities and
institutions. Think of it like the self-ordering homeostasis of a
lifeform or of a simple pendulum or of the solar system. No one tells
these systems how to behave. They automatically regulate themselves to
keep a certain level of stability. Yet too much stability is sometimes
harmful. You may not realize that one of the signs of heart disease is
that the heart beat is too rhythmical. You are still thinking like a
socialist planner who knows better how society works than does the
system of society itself as a response solely to the voluntary rational
actions of all its members. Are you perhaps a closet Technocrat? -
http://en.technocracynet.eu/

--Paul

[A message I made to the group on 2/14/09 introduced readers to Paul's
Internet experience with technocrats - "Paul Responds to Technocrats'
Query re. NSC" - http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1982 
**Kitty]