Who am I to you? Who are you to me?

Can you trust yourself?

The same self that has been affected by the afore-mentioned “confused confusing”
environmental factors right from childhood; and concepts of right/wrong, sane/warped
have been attacked even before some basic foundations have been laid? Without external
influences, are we even sure we would turn out fine with reliable inner voices?

Also, regarding the “society”, it is made up of people like you and I, and so may not always be wrong if individually they heed their inner voices (if this inner voice is reliably right).


Who am I…?

Is this “I” an isolated random phenomenon?…

Is what I call “my life” a subjective story shaped by my concepts of right or wrong, is my “personal experience” only my own, am I only a sum of different confusions and mishaps?

Who is there to tell?…

Who – or What – is responsible for the clear perception within me, for “my” real successes,
for the true and authentic achievements hitherto?…

What can you rely on at the end of the day, when smashing successes turn to be
failures, and failures success…?

What is there to be trusted…?

Can I know anything for real?…
Indeed, do I know myself in order to trust myself?

The question can be also posed like this:
Do I know others in order to rely on myself?

Where do “I” begin, and where does the other fellow humans “finish”…?

Likewise, where begins the “internal” and where “the external”?

If my relation to you is “warped”, how can I ever stand upright? Meaning that
in order to trust myself, I have to trust you too…cause you and me is the problem,
the real discourse…the very foundation of anything.

Consequently, where there is a steadfast foundation built on trust and reciprocity,
we would turn out fine with our reliable inner voices.

Who needs a point of view?

Even when I am “right” I´m “wrong”.

Such a relief:


Now, knowing that I´m “wrong”
there might be a chance I might be right.

Language, concepts and understanding

“Julien. Please explain the word “understanding”, says seeingwhatis.

I have been meaning to write about this earlier, and due to his triggering question I´ll finally
unfold my inner urge to shed some light on this suject.

You have most likely never pondered on this, but TO UNDERSTAND  means basically “to stand under”.

To stand under, implies literally that there is an authority you have to conform to, that,
in order to get the message, you have to “under-evaluate” yourself – namely, stand under something.
Someone must be necessarily “right”, and someone else “wrong”.

If there is “under-standing” it should exist its opposite – “over-standing”. The “knowing”
and the “not knowing”. The master and the sclave.

So the question is, do you “stand under” me, or do I “stand over” you? Or vice versa…

As it is inherent in the langauge, it is philosophically and  politically correct and
you are “always “expected”, tacitly supposed, to “stand under”.

I wonder why “understanding” was not invented as “equal-standing”.

Can you see this?
Only when WE ARE EQUALLY WORTH, when we are on the same level, in the same breath
and energy, in true connection with to each other, can there be any real talk about “understanding”.

My point is that language bears intrinsically the direct and unquestionable tacit evidence
that there is an authority – with other words, that are those who “over-stand” and the others
who “under-stand”.

To sustain my point, let´s take the word “comprehend”. It comes from latin – comprehendere.
It consists of two words: com – meaning together, and prehendere which means…CRITICIZE!!

Unbelievable, isn´t it? Criticizing each other means to understand…It is staggering:
Can you see the folly of the inherent bewildering concepts embedded in language…?

How the hell are we supposed to understand anything when we are tacitly and constantly expected to live under the obeisance of Authority, invariably dreading to be criticized?
How can we ever learn and comprehend anything for real when living in permanent anxiety, under the perennial yoke of being wrong…?

This is one of the most vitally important information I can come up with:

The structure of langauge is built and derives from the very idea of authority, of judgement.
Language is the disguised legacy of the ones “in power” versus the ones expected to obey.

Language is virtually an ageless instrument of the powerful to maintain their power through authority.

Argument, criticism, fear, dichotomy and ultimately war, are the natural effects of our timeless defective concepts inbred in language that we have inherited from generation to generation for thousands of years.

If we want to redeem and restore ourselves, we have to start heeding this insidious heredity,
doubting and questioning THE ERRONEOUS IMMEMORIAL IDEAS IN LANGAUGE, which are to be found at the foundation of our very civilization. These obsolete ideas are the latent Evil we all suffer to this very day

Yes, we are compelled to distrust language and reshape the inertial concepts if we want to live.

Langauge is eventually damnation


Which one is it…?

I know I am wrong.
I know though I am right too.
The difference between right and wrong is subtle and minimal.
Can I recognize when I am right and when wrong?
Sometimes being right is to be wrong.
What was right yesterday is wrong today.
What is wrong today may be right tomorrow.
But it can also be that what was wrong yesterday
Is still wrong today and tomorrow too..

It´s better to be wrong and fail your way, than to be right and fail their way…