Explicitly Implicit

One of the prime characteristics of incongruence is the dissonance between what one explicitly states and what is implied by their statement.

For instance, the statement, "Why can't I lose weight?" actually has two distinct statements:

Expressed Statement: "Why can't I lose weight?"

Implied Statement (Fundamental Premise of Expressed Statement): "I cannot lose weight."

To explain further, one CANNOT ask the question "Why can't I lose weight?" without FIRST accepting the premise upon which that statement is based (that they cannot lose weight). This is the reason some self-help experts teach that "The Question IS The Answer," and I agree—sometimes, by asking the wrong questions, we are actually reinforcing a negative thought pattern.

Expressed Statements are the language of the Conscious Mind while Implied Statements are interpreted by the Subconscious.

We all know (or at least SHOULD know) that the subconscious is MANY times more powerful than the conscious, and regardless of our conscious awareness of these implications, they WILL be absorbed and interpreted by our mind eventually.

More than hair-splitting, contracts and laws are derived from implication and implied consent. In some cases, it can mean the difference between a legal (and moral) activity, and a Class A Felony.

When it comes to Congruence, one must be sure that their implied statements always match up with their explicit statements (Especially in the areas of Spirituality-Atheism Included, Philosophy, Politics, Business and Relationships).

It is NEVER enough to just stop short of explicitly stating an incongruent statement without also addressing the implications/premises of one's statements. One must guard their implied endorsements/statements at ALL times.

Two reasons for Explicit/Implicit Congruence: 1) The Smart People will see through you instantly. 2) The Idiots have Subconscious Minds too, and will pick up on your deception (that's right - if you're lying to yourself, you're lying to them!).

Then again, laziness and delusion are in right now, so what the hell...

-D

PS - While this may seem elementary to some, I promise to apply it to more advanced topics in the near future. ;)

The Construct

This first of a new series of posts will lay the foundation of what I'm going to be accomplishing over the next few weeks/months with this "medium."

This Site/Blog will function as a kind of "stream of consciousness" in the area of Congruence. I hesitate to use Social Media as this "medium" for a variety of reasons (which will become clear in later posts); however, the lack of permanence of this "medium" makes it appealing for my purpose.

Before delving into the subject of Congruence, I wanted to form the Construct for etiquette and protocol on this forum as sometimes people can become confused as to what is welcome and what isn't.

First, let me make it very clear that all content that is posted to this site (including comments) is MY PROPERTY. I am not a "voice in the community", part of the "hive" or any other bullshit feel-good term you can insert here. I speak for my SELF, and there is no Implicit or Explicit Moral Lien on my content.

I don't give a rat's ass how easy it is to copy and paste, violate my copyrights or take what I say out of context and use it on your site. Period. If you live outside of the US, I don't give a shit that your country doesn't respect intellectual property rights to the extent that the US does. If you choose to copy my content without giving credit (linking to this site), you'd better make sure your bases are covered legally because mine are. Period.

Next, I LOVE a good debate!! However, sometimes, I don't have time to debate because I'm busy making money. If that's the case, I will delete your comment if I do not agree with your statement. Once again, MY PROPERTY. Are we starting to detect a trend here?

Last, I LOVE sarcasm and innuendo!! However, sometimes...scratch that...MOST times, these do not translate across flat media. Also, I can insult with the best, but neither of these accomplish much here, so if you don't understand the difference between debate and insult, expect to get your comments deleted.

Very last, I will sometimes revise a blog post to correct, clarify or make more congruent a previous post (remember the permanence preference referenced earlier - not a feature of the printed word). This is not standard among most blogs, but it makes sense here so expect it.

Alright, that's about it...let the games begin anew!

-D

PS - I do NOT have a pre-set schedule for posting (I am on MY time table), so expect there to be gaps sometimes and a flood of posts at others. Consider yourself forewarned.

Greenspan 1966 vs. Greenspan 2009

As many of you know, or if you have read my profiles, you will see that I am constantly researching the interaction of philosophy, fundamental premises and politics. If there was ever a time to learn about these subjects, now is the jackpot!

One person who intrigues and puzzles me more than any other is Alan Greenspan, but not for the reasons you might think. I couldn't care less about the Fed's opinion of what interest rates "should" be; however, Mr. Greenspan's personal history is worth digging into.

Waaay back in the 50's and 60's and before his Federal Reserve days, Greenspan was very close personal friends with Ayn Rand, the creator of the Objectivist Philosophy, which touts the benefits and morality of Lais'-sez Faire' ("Hands Off!") Capitalism. In fact, he was one of only a few who were able to read and critique Atlas Shrugged while it was being written.

This period is when he wrote one of his most poignant and profound essays on free market systems - particularly the gold standard, Gold and Economic Freedom. It is a short essay, and well worth the read; however of particular interest are the following quotes:

"Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale."

"Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which — through a complex series of steps — the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion."

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves."

"This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."

WOW - not very hard to see a philosophical trend in those statements!

Fast-forward to the statement that Greenspan made Tuesday night to the Economic Club of New York on NBCNewYork.com:

"Despite my preference for low federal regulation of the financial markets, I see no alternative to a set of heightened federal regulatory rules for banks and other financial institutions."

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Alan - I have NEVER seen a more radical 180 degree turn in fundamental premises. What happened to, "the law of supply and demand is not to be conned?"

On Greenspan's Wikipedia Page, we learn, "he has come under criticism from Harry Binswanger, who believes his actions while at work for the Federal Reserve and his publicly expressed opinions on other issues show abandonment of Objectivist and free market principles. However, when questioned in relation to this, he (Greenspan) has said, "in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other over conflicting ideas of how money should be handled. He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he believes that 'we did extremely well' without a central bank and with a gold standard."

Ah, there we are - the magic word - COMPRIMISE a/k/a PRAGMATISM. So, in other words, when the government wants to confiscate a little of your wealth, but you don't want to give them any, you should comprimise - after all, Alan Greenspan had to make such "comprimises" to achieve his level of "success!"

Will the real Alan Greenspan please stand up!