Talking to Myself

Instead of talking to myself, which is what this blog is all about, I am going to talk to you because it is important that you understand my thoughts expressed here by translating them to solid ideas using simple language to explain them in simple terms that you will not only understand but agree with.  This is a test to see if I can really do that and it is a big challenge to me because I do not feel that I am very skilled at explaining complex things simply.

Me:  I am going to tell you a simple common meme used to explain things:  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then somehow it must be very much like a duck.

You:  No, no you don't get it!  Then it is a duck!  That is how the meme is said! Can't you even get a simple meme right?  Everybody knows what the meme is! It is a duck! You dummy!.....Why do you call it a meme?  What is a meme?  You called it common and simple!  What does it have to do with ducks anyhow?  I don't understand that.

Me: Everything is a kind of a thing of a thing.  A duck is a kind of a bird, a bird is a kind of an animal, etc....If a kind of a thing has all the characteristics as another thing then it is the same as the other thing.  That thing however, while having all the characteristics of another thing can know how to do different things.  It possesses information about what it can do.  Like a gene has information enabling it to do something.

You:  Its been nice talking to you....
 ..........................................

My sister has enough faith and trust in me to believe that what I think and say has some value but that value needs to stand the test of being recognized as valuable in the public forum of ideas and communication where they are conveyed in simple terms.  Where complex thoughts are reduced to the beauty of simplicity.

She reads what I write and says: 

"Tim, The answer may be written on the wall, but only you seem to understand it. Why don't you go back to your posted comments to expand and clarify. I am sure it is clear in your mind but it isn't clear on paper. It should make sense to anyone picking it up to read, but it seems to have a lot of "insider" talk. It needs to be simple enough for ME to understand without working too hard."

"ME" is also her signature.  We talk a lot about stuff.  Smarter than me. 

The problem with simplicity, ultimate simplicity is that all things can be explained in terms of one thing that they are a thing of.  The reduction of all things to one simple thing, or summing up if you want to look at it that way, of all things to one simple thing results in that thing being the same thing.  A thing called unity.  Unity is only one thing and how simple a concept can that be????  It is so simple that we have been trying to explain it since the beginning of time.   Some have very complex explanations of the Unity Simplicity starting with the One Simple Thing and expanding it to everything.  Others have explanations of the Unity Simplicity starting with everything and reducing it to Unity Simplicity.

For some people a duck is a duck.  For others a duck is a type of complex thing composed of even more complex related parts all originally produced from a Creator .  For others it is a complex thing that lead to a creator.

Artists create simple statements of beauty from the simplicity of nothing and we get it.  Reducing the complexity of an existing universe of things where some things are physical and other things are conceptual expressions of physical things or purely conceptual things requires an artist as well.  I am not much of an artist in either domain but those are the two domains that we all operate in.  The two conceptual domains:  The One.  The Parts.  Either of these can be viewed as the creator of the other if they are equal.  Two places to start to get the same result.  For the sake of simplicity it is easier to start with the One to explain the complexity.  The One is so mysterious that on the other hand it is easier to start with any level of complexity that given thing is at and work up to its relationship to a higher level until getting to the single thing at the top: One.

The trick of the thing is that explaining any thing in relation to God, yes that is what the Thing is that I have used other words in capital letters for, if you have not gotten that yet, is that I dare not go beyond a certain higher level domain of what a thing is a part of and give it all the nature of God that is manifest in it.  People went that far to give that nature to a golden calf and see what happened in that situation.  It threatened a higher level structure in that it as viewed as anti-God by replacing God.

For that reason and the fundamental, strictly constructed concept of God that most people at least proclaim to have I can't really say that money is a duck that walks, talks and quacks like God.  It does.  It has all  the characteristics of God.  God has his meme.  The meme of all powerful, supreme, the giver of life, the creator, all present, etc.

I can't really say that.  How can I therefore express as simply as I can what money is when that is the simplest explanation.  An explanation that like God being Love, money is love.  That is what money is.

I better stick to saying that money is a digital, serialized single dollar record existing on a central computer.  In sum total it all belongs to us.  The money system permeates our lives.  It controls us or we control it.  It controls us when its creator is the bank and it is debt money.  The idea that something is owed to the creating bankers in return for its existence and we must pay the same way we must pay honor and glory to a creator. The creator of the thing we must pay honor and glory to for its existence will get us if we don't pay up.  We decided that debtors prison was not a viable concept and the paying masters for freedom that always belonged to us, claiming rightfully what is ours, was the right thing to do.

Money is not a false god.  Bankers placing themselves in the position of the creators of money is the false god.  We the people are the creators of money.  Money has no debt side except to a higher level than us.  Debt money is a false concept.  The debt is at a higher level.  While bankers chose to call themselves the highest level having the right to create money, it is our right as well as the right to choose whatever higher level than us is responsible for the creation of everything.

Money is not money because it quacks like money when it buys stuff.  It is the creation of a higher level of thing.  That higher level is a bank and the buck starts there when they create it in a bargain to pay it back once given as an IOU.  The power to create is at a higher level.  Our government, which is us, of the people.  We do not owe anyone but ourselves for its creation, unless we choose to recognize a higher level of Creator.  I do not believe I owe God anything others bow down to pay what they feel they owe because they were saved and must pay in return.  I say thank you for what was given and what was given was not a sacrifice.  That ultimate "thank you Lord" goes to where ever it may find a home and in my way of thinking it better find a home in good works.

Working on getting money right, as the thing it should be in the conceptual scheme of things is a good work.

I can't do good work if I never apply my thinking, if it is good for anything, to externally doing something beyond recursive cycling in my own head.  I do believe that I am getting to a place where it can be external to the do-loop in my head because that do-loop is growing in information and knowledge, not just chasing the same old idea.

What I write on this blog is me talking to myself in order to get my thoughts together.  I understand, to some degree what I write.  Nobody else has to understand it.  Things said in prior posts are in fact wrong.  I have not gone back to correct them.  They were not said for anyone but me.  I write them any way I choose but attempt to be as accurate as possible and express my thoughts so that someone might be able to find some idea of what I am talking about.

Here is the big however.  Lately I have posted some comments to two blogs where money matters are discussed.  That requires writing for an audience with the purpose of influencing ideas.  That takes more than what I write here that is intended to influence no one but me.  To shape my thoughts.  When they fall in this forest I hear them.

The challenge of communication is communication.  I can communicate with myself, therefore I am.  I am good at communicating with myself.  Mostly I am the only one always available to communicate with.  If I had a dog would I talk to it?  No, beyond some chosen words like "treat" it would not understand.

If I am to turn my thoughts outward then they must be expressed clearly.  I read things on the internet expressing economic thinking in clear terms.  Some going into pages of math using symbols I do not understand.  I am sure it is clear to someone.

Communicating complex thoughts with the lowest level of common thought, the vernacular, is a skill.  Comedians do it well.  All they do is press buttons that connect to thought structures that are extremely complex because they are feeling based conceptual structures that may to some degree relate to thinking based conceptual structures.  In either case, what comedians say, the Jon Stewarts, Stephen Colberts, Bill Mahr, etc. needs no explanation.  People get it in their conceptual feeling/thinking frame.  If it has to be explained them people would not laugh at it.

Things that people already understand do not have to be explained.  What they do not understand has to be explained in terms that they already understand.  It has to build on that.  When people do not understand much about a particular area of knowledge depending on its complexity there is a long ways to go.  On the other hand, there are so money complex conceptual and real physical structures in the world today that none of them can be fully understood by everyone, only a few.

It is only necessary that the fundamental high level relationships be understood, the unstated thing in knowing the basics is that they are in fact supported by all of their complex lower level relationships.  Belief in the high level ideas and things are on a "trust me" basis.  I trust my my computer exists and works to connect me with the world.  It is self evident.  I really don't know exactly how it all works.  Somebody does.  I don't need to know what they know.  I trust but can verify if I am smart enough and study all they things they did to know and apply what they know to create this complex structure.

If the basic things and their relationships are right and prove they are right by proclamation that they are right or justification in logic and reason that they are right then the complex structure deriving from the fundamental things and what is done as a result of the relationships is ranges from good to perfect.  The basic relationship has to range from good enough to perfect depending on the requirements for the strength, efficiency and accuracy of the system.