1.1 Signaling

We signal what, all day long. The world around us, the world on TV. What we want, be able and do, and who we are. And the knot in between. What others want, be able, do and are. And the discrepancy between them. We register what we think and what we do. And the difference between them. We hear what others are thinking and see what they are doing and notice a contrast. We verify the distinction between the ideas [lt: think-images], conditions, codes of conduct and habits of others and our own and we consider our position and identity.... Not to mention all the similarities that we signal. Agreements that are pleasing to others and/or us and agreements that we and/or others abhor....

 

At least, that's what we say. But is that really so? To what extent? And where does that show?

Because we signal so much that Thalamus, the sensory control center in the middle of our head, switches off the disturbing signals as desired. This is useful if we want to focus on one thing. Otherwise, we would become sensorial mad of all those signals around us. 

It is therefore not surprising that thalamus is the first to fall asleep* when she is tired. She also mediates between the large brain [the processor of sensory information and regulator of voluntary movements and memory storage] and the small brain [the coordinator of movements] and also between hypothalamus [the survival center] and the large brain. I give it you to do it. That rest is well deserved. In addition, she can sleep peacefully because the odour centre goes its own sniffling walk. That is the watchdog that drops a warning bell if something comes out of our nose and/or we need to get a breath of fresh air. Moreover, our actions take place along the paths prescribed by Thalamus of Gyrus Cinguli, the belt around the brainbar and Thalamus. A limbic, or surrounding, system that rewards our comings and goings classical with operant conditioned methods, if we follow Thalamus well-known path and punishes us if we deviate from it. 

Because Thalamus r(eg)ul(at)es, but Gyrus reacts/rules to/over what doesn't work for Thalamus. He dictates like a chief what he don't like and then says Jesuitic: "Come to me all who are hunted neutrally and I will give you a(u)tomaticcaly energy-consuming rest." He can do. No brainbar that crows at it. It also brays [beam] two walls. Transmits everything that the maternal signaling Thalamus regulates calmly to the fatherly responding Gyrus and vise versa. By what criteria Thalamus selects and regulates and Gyrus rewards and punishes is not his business. You figure that out for yourself.

 

How?

 

Well, for example, by considering a moment what we all signal and what not. And if that doesn't get in each other's way. Some things are constructive for ourselves and/or others. We call that positive but it can be negative if what we build up is damaging to ourselves and/or others. Sometimes we break something down in ourselves and/or others. This is called negative but can be positive if what we break down makes room for something positive.

 

 

An example:

A part of humanity wants to live in a peaceful world. A world where people, animals and the environment treat each other in a respectful way. By this we mean that we want to give each other the necessary space to form and maintain an own, consistent identity. The consequence of this, however, is that we are confronted with all kinds of limits of ourselves and others that we and others must respect. And that's where the problem starts. Because how much space do we and others need now and how much later?

In 'The Hidden Dimension' Edward T Hall*, [1914-2009] anthropologist and founder of intercultural communication as an anthropological science*, did research into personal space and came up with 4 zones:

According to Hall, the personal space increases with the degree of importance. The more important you are, the more distance is created. This way you have more freedom of movement and less trouble with the sensory stimuli of others [physical, visual, noise and odour nuisance etc.] Research in the animal world [John B. Calhoun, 1917-1995] has shown that too little personal space [in family and other groups] leads to stress, conflicts, physical and mental withdrawal [distant, absent, internalization], illnesses and early death.

 

So I can now -as a baby and a townie- have little personal space because I am unimportant, but soon - as an adult and a rural person - a lot because I have become important. And some -as rural hunters in the cap-  are already born as a important family member, while others -as urban collector- as adults must remain an unimportant family member. 

In this way reasoned, a neutrino is the most important element in the cosmos because it has infinite space for itself. And an important person, a fearful one, because according to British scientists, fearful people need more space*. No wonder. They are like death ... for unhealthy living situations. They want to be and remain the strong sex. Seen in this way, neutrinos and important people display interesting similarities.

After all:

And with that we have reached the field of ethics. Because how much space do we want for ourselves and how much space do we leave to others. In other words, how important do we want to be? And when is that good or bad? When is that what we and others signal positively constructive and when negative. When is that what we signal negatively degrading and when positive? And more importantly, how do we deal with that? Like our human, animal, organic and physical ancestors have been used to doing for millennia? With ostrich-policy for our own evil and a magnifying glass for that of others? Like all those important family-leaders and family-members, all those important teachers and students, all those important professors and scientists, all those important business-leaders and employees, all those important money-grubbers and grabbers, all those important journalists and presenters, all those important politicians and officials, all those important dictators and power hungry, all those important royal houses and royalists, all those important gods and believers, all those important cultures and cultural worshipers?

The chain is only as strong as the weakest link. Many neutrinal ostriches make one big ostrich culture. And many neutrinal important ones, one super-important space devourer who ener­gy-­guz­zling clears away everything and everyone who comes to his or her path.

Under the guise; 'my name is neutrinal scaredy-cat, what doesn't know, what doesn't bother', 

And because they want to keep it that way, they dictate that they want your and others' physical & mental space and time & money, that they may terrorize & tyrannize; because you and others - in their space-consuming and energy-guzzling eyes - don't matter [anymore].

 

In other words, our ability to filter out what is unpleasant to us has its good and bad sides. 

On the one hand, it is helpful to exclude everything that we find unpleasant - such as disturbing sounds, images, movements and [touch and pain] feelings - which is useful when concentrating on a task or in special situations. We only observe what we want to observe, everything else seems to have disappeared from our field of experience. Including the unrestrained messages of all those important scaredy-cats who are like death .... to become unimportant. 

On the other hand, we may like it so much that we tip the scale by making it a habit to literally and/or figuratively no longer observe anything that we don't like. 

In other words, we are becoming short-sighted. We only signal what is being used in our booth. Before we know it, analogous to the boiling frog syndrome, we suffer from the ostrich complex. Just like the frog - who jumped out of a violent confrontation with a pan of boiling water, but let himself be wrapped in a pleasantly warm water bath just as long, until it was too late - at a certain point we no longer signal evil, with all consequences. We have pull our leg, and let ourselves be soothed by the fairy tale of a vigilant odour centre and a masterful Gyrus and our nerve centre delivered to dangerously stinking rewards. The reward for being allowed!!! to collect sensory information in a childish way, provided that we only signal what pleases the hunter and we the result, under pleasant short-sighted city-gathering conditions, straight drive to unpleasant long-sighted rural hunters. Platonic hunters who say that, although they will perish physically, their hunter-gatherer ideas will continue to exist mentally. Thanks to the elementary short-sightedness of humans, animals and organisms ... stinky-jealous hunters say. I see, I see what you don't see and it is ... unpleasant.

 

Because the important doing hunter who although has gathered and collected -in a very quietly, precisely according to a long-sighted plan, link justified way- so much rural space and sensory city information, that there is no more left for the themselves unimportant feeling collector, than physically and mentally literally and figuratively very hurried, in a unjustly linked way, city-like to retreat; in her own sensory structured and automated collection of cells and organs, but he has counted outside the collector. 

Because her way of meeting the wishes of others and avoiding unpleasant hunters is a specialistic veiled field of experience as opposed to the uniformly inducing world of ideas of spermatically hunting rural identities. Veil yourself within yourself, make sure you cause as little sensory nuisance as possible, distance yourself as much as possible from the nuisance caused by others, row as pleasantly as possible with the space and signals you have and provide others with the desired signals and everyone seems satisfied. Seems, because the hunters only signal what they want to signal and the collectors make a selection for outside and inside. They are overgrown by malignant signals that they cannot go with. Unless they recycle it into something positive.

As a result, one large ostrich world with few important hunters full of rural politics outside and many small city families full of unimportant collectors with a double standard inside. Because the hunters no longer signal danger thanks to collectors who signal it but are not allowed to say it. With that, the hunters have given away the power of what they signal and that too they find that unpleasant. Since so the collectors have the power to attack them as they please with a series of unpleasantness. And that was not the intention. So the hunters thought they were smart by turning the reels in a link way. By overloading the collectors with unpleasant signals in such a way that they fall asleep automatically, because of all those unpleasant signals that you have to see to turn them into something pleasant, you just get tired. These are energy-guzzlers. But then our important hunters were confronted with it. Because that is what you get when there is nobody to turn the unpleasantly insignificant collection of signals, that you do not want to be confronted with, into something pleasantly important. Then you will be attacked by it. Even if you've provoked it yourself. If you thought it would be better than expected. Then you suddenly see what you never wanted to see. Then you suddenly discover what they can and you cannot. Then, before you know it, you will be flooded with an unpleasantly important collection of signals. Collections you can't go with. Thanks to the foresight of short-sighted douzed of collectors. After all, they have often chopped up with unpleasant axes. They know how to turn something unpleasantly unimportant into something pleasantly important. And after done work it is good rest. May all those important hunters take over that unimportant collecting stick. Have fun hunting for that unpleasantly unimportant collection of signals from everything that and everyone who is so unpleasantly un-important.

 

Because that's the result if you find it so unpleasant to be unimportant. Then at first you have to constantly hunt for pleasant signals and more space, energy and material for that and then welcome all those little smart ones with their airy sounding signals that you find so pleasant, model them to your preference, making them less pleasant and important by that, because pleasant signals are a competitor and that is unpleasant for everything and everyone who wants to be important. But, with that you immediately break off all the pleasant again, or continue to hunt until it accumulates itself in an urban way, so that it will show even more defects, becomes disturbed and/or tied up countryish, because pleasure hunters like you consider them superfluous. Since they pose too much of a threat to your important position. With the consequence, you have to look for new pleasant signals again and the important song starts all over again. 

In other words, if you are constantly looking for more, more, more [pleasant signals] and important, more important, most important, without reflecting on how you peacefully structure, automate and control what you have, you keep on chasing positive signals and banishing all those negative [important, positive, threatening] signals or don't [want to] see them because of the double standard.

 

The moral of this story?

We not only receive and give signals, we are as well. Second in, second out. For the other, for ourselves, as a physical group identity called human body and mind, as part of a family/group.... We constantly send out signals in which we determine our position and the position of others, we set conditions and we signal the conditions of others.

In spite of that, or precisely because of that, we also filter a lot away. Because we have more important things to do or want to do more pleasant things. Unimportant things and people have to wait, we say. Just like unpleasant ones. These are jammers. They devour energy. This makes us unpleasant and/or tired. We don't like that. We just want pleasant things and people around us and do important things. With people who share our view and things that are useful to us. And so we focus on what is pleasant and important in our eyes and we get rid of everything that is unpleasant and unimportant. Everything we find important and pleasant receives the highest attention and everything that is unimportant and unpleasant must immediately get lost. Because we think it is important that something or someone is pleasant. Pleasant and important, we like to link that to each other, and a lot. Even if what is pleasant is not important and what is important is not pleasant. Likewise, we like to link the unpleasant to the unimportant, although that can be very important. Such as a foul odour that warns us that something is unpleasant, that there is danger, or symbolically, that someone is stinky jealous. And something that, or someone who is unimportant, can be very pleasant. At least if they and/or we want that. However, the question is: do we want that? And if so, at what price?