Let’s Get the Word Out

The remainder of the bulletin then goes on about how to participate and submit your own slogan, the rules, prizes, and blah blah blah. I first noticed this brochure several years ago. It was pinned to the bulletin board in the employee cafeteria in like, 1993 or something and has been there ever since.

One day, while sitting bored to tears in the cafeteria, I began to think about that statement, “Let’s Get the Word Out.” I began thinking about context, intention and perception, and how they relate to that otherwise encouraging statement.

Taken within context, pinned to the cafeteria bulletin board in a blue-collar production facility, the message seems to make enough sense in communicating the author’s original intention: sharing the important message of safety with as many employees as possible by “getting the word out,” as it were.

Yet is this the only way to interpret the slogan? Does every person who reads the statement interpret it in the same, intended way? Fortunately, the remainder of the brochure continues with enough information as to remove any doubt, but those who don’t take the time to read more than the emboldened print may walk away with alternate interpretations.

Thinking about this possibility, I engaged in a bit of “interpretive reconnaissance.” I began interpreting the statement in as many ways as possible, assuming absolutely nothing about the author or the author’s intention. Ignoring all environmental context, I began my semantic exploration by emphasizing different words within the statement:

• Let’s Get the Word Out
• Let’s Get the Word Out
• Let’s Get the Word Out

..and so forth. The results were intriguing. By simply shifting emphasis among words, we change the entire meaning of this otherwise unremarkable slogan. For example, by emphasizing the first word, “let’s,” the phrase implies an importance upon the people responsible for the action. You know, like, “getting the word out is up to us!” Another example involves emphasizing “word,” which heightens the significance of the subject of the task, as in “it is the word that must go out!”

With such changes in emphasis, the statement takes on new meaning and loses its obviousness. Context may still be enough to help readers understand the intended message, however, there is more to interpretation than perceived emphasis and contextual influence. Such technical aspects of communication are a great place to begin a semantic consideration of the statement, but deeper meaning is discovered within the complexities of the unique human observer.

To fathom the different interpretations available to the human mind, it is necessary to consider the experience, consciousness, and beliefs of the observer. While a more exhaustive exploration of this topic is beyond the scope of this article, we are equipped to consider three familiar interpretive paradigms: social, sexual, and spiritual.

To see an example of how human experience may be involved in the interpretation of the slogan from a social perspective, let’s assume an observer that is experiencing strong feelings of societal detachment and resentment. Perhaps such an individual was recently terminated from a job, or rejected by the Elk’s Lodge or something sad like that. In such a case, the disgruntled observer may read the statement with an emphasis on the word “Out:”

Let’s Get the Word Out

As if the author of the message intends to mock those on the “outside” of some social group by saying, “Hey, here’s a word for you, loser: out.” Elaborating, “Let’s all understand something here, the word of the day is ‘out’.” This interpretive scenario may seem like a stretch until you assume the mental condition and cumulative experience of someone who is fixated on being an outcast.

A similar interpretation may be seen from a sexually influenced perspective. Assuming an observer preoccupied by the slogans and terminology associated with gay culture, we arrive at an interpretation advocating the homosexual lifestyle. Using the word “get” in the sense of understanding or receiving something, we have a statement that encourages the observer to “get” the word “out.” Here, the word “out” is interpreted in the sense of “coming out of the closet.” You know, “Let’s Get the Word Out.

Finally, looking at the slogan from a spiritual perspective, we begin by defining an observer preoccupied with religious experience, language, and symbolism. In the Bible, God refers to Jesus Christ as “The Word” ¹:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. — John 1:1

Thus, given an observer that embraces this concept, an interpretation of the phrase becomes:

Let’s Get The Word Out

..which itself may be taken several ways, depending on where you are at spiritually. To our hypothesized observer, the object of this statement becomes the living Word of God, which the author of the slogan advises the reader to either share and distribute or eradicate and eliminate, again depending on perspective.

Taking this even further, if the observer were to be obeying the scriptures and actively looking for Christ at His Second Coming ², the statement could prove quite enlightening when interpreted as:

Let us understand that Jesus Christ has returned

This may be unfathomable to some, but to a select few, it couldn’t be clearer.

• ¹ Reference: John 1:1, American Standard Version
• ² Matthew 25:13, American Standard Version

Copyright © 2008 mindfeed.org

In addition to all preexisting historical information, books, music, manuals, software, programs and everything else that people and machines have already produced, there is an exponentially increasing amount of new data being generated every single day. Millions of people around the planet are blogging their ideas and recording their lives in digital format. Thousands of different languages, millions of new documents produced every single day.

As time moves forward, technology will continue to make it easier and cheaper for people to digitally record and publish anything and everything. Individuals will become independent media broadcasters, sharing their lives virtually with anyone who is willing to pay attention. The incredible amount of data generated by millions of people living digitally will be available online and indexed, tracked, monitored, and used by Google to influence markets and make money.

In addition to all of this information, factor in the endless stream of automatically generated data. You know, the stuff cranked out by the machines that monitor user activity, traffic patterns, lab analyses, stock markets, weather systems, and so on. These “low-level” data are then analyzed, discussed, elaborated, and reported through various digital media. As this information is then received by other individuals, it becomes a part of their lives, and thus is written about, recorded, and made available to others. The same is true for data generated through television, movies, music, and any other form of digitally consumed media. On the blogosphere, this phenomenon is referred to as the “echo chamber”. This type of cumulative resonance decreases the signal to noise ratio and further inflates the amount of human-generated data.

So what do we have here? An unlimited and even redundant stream of data on everybody and everything. Information about everything you have ever done, every place you have ever been, everything you are doing currently, even everything you intend on doing in the future. Every person you have ever known, every purchase you have ever made, every rule you have ever broken. Mechanical processes, computer processes, natural processes. Earth, moon, space, and beyond. Everything happening around the globe in every home, factory, industry, market, and government. Everything on television, everything on the radio, internet. Every speech, verdict, sentence, birth and death. Everything.

Given that, return to Google for a moment. Google no doubt will be connected to every digit of this infinite collection of data. At any given time, any authorized person will have access to virtually unlimited knowledge about anyone or anything. Likewise, but on a greater scale, software will provide cumulative analyses of aggregate collections of data. Now, in addition to focusing in on a single person, event, or process, authorized users will in effect be able to “zoom out” and access information about entire groups of people. For example, imagine software that will track and deliver reports on entire populations of individuals, generating comprehensive statistical information on every recordable aspect of their existence — blogs, activities, families, entertainment, health, politics, religion, shopping — presented in such a way as to enable the end user to zoom in or out on any aspect or series of aspects to any degree desired.

Still with me? Now imagine an integrated collection of such aggregate analysis programs, each designed to harvest and process data for hundreds of thousands of different analytical dimensions. Statistical aggregations of perpetual data generated in real-time and integrated with every other aggregate program. For example, there will be software to integrate the weather data from thousands of stations and satellites around the globe. This data stream is then processed and made available to other aggregate systems, such as those used for flight, travel, and traffic analyses. These “meta-analytical” systems retain their granular integrity while serving a cumulative purpose by contributing to the “big picture.” Such meta systems continue up the pyramid structure — merging natural and mechanical processes, government and military events, biological and inorganic data — becoming further integrated at each level until, ultimately, the most comprehensive meta-systems converge into a single, “all knowing” source of information. With such a system, the earth’s data is accessible at any desired level, from any desired perspective, and with any level of granularity. Certainly not true omniscience, but as close to it as humans will ever get.

What will be the implications of this so-called “artificial omniscience”? It depends on who controls it. If you honestly think that those in power will be letting Joe Blow from Nowhere, Anytown, have access to this kind of power, you need to put down the crack pipe and check yourself. In case you hadn’t noticed by now, the ruling elite operate autonomously, using their money and power to influence governments and corporations to do their bidding. Thus, it is quite obvious that artificial omniscience will belong to the forces that rule the earth at the time of its manifestation. As the world plods along toward the inevitable “brave new” one-world governmental system, the stage is being set for the one who will sit, briefly, at the top of it all. Rest assured that the one who wants all of the power will also want all of the knowledge. On earth, during that time, this person will be artificially omnipotent, artificially omnipresent, and now, as we have seen here, artificially omniscient. Note the key word here: “artificially.”

Copyright © 2008 mindfeed.org

Sadly, many people are stuck with such tiny little minds. If you think that you might be one of these people, you probably aren’t. You see, tiny little minds arrogantly assume that they are correct about everything, and that there is nothing wrong with their mentality. No, instead, I find that many people have managed to accept the fact they don’t know everything, and that learning new ideas is generally a good thing. Such people do well to listen to others, and when possible, manage to embrace new ways of thinking and even change their behavior. The problem with most of these partially open-minded people is that they tend to think that they are completely open to new ideas when in actuality they are from it.

A good example of this can be seen in any of the “hot-button” topics of the day: abortion, gun control, gay marriage — any of the things that people waste their time arguing about. For partially open-minded people (let’s call them “crack-minded,” as in, “their minds are open just a little bit”), controversial issues are frequently decided upon within their own mind, typically based on the media, their beliefs, and opinions of others in their particular social circle. Unfortunately, cracked-minded people adhere to conclusive opinions without retaining the potential for change. In other words, as soon as you think that you have the answer to something, your mind begins to close. As you then begin to reinforce your opinion with additional information and ideas, your mind continues to shut. Eventually, even though you understand that you are imperfect and don’t have all the answers, you continue to cling to certain beliefs and ideas about various aspects of life. This is cracked-mindedness.

Moving along the spectrum, we pass cracked-mindedness and arrive at the polar opposite of close-mindedness. An open-minded person is one who literally clings to no beliefs whatsoever. An open-minded person constantly remains open to the present moment, allowing all to unfold without interference. An open-minded person assumes nothing and reaches no conclusions. In my experience listening to and speaking with people from all walks of life, there is no such thing as someone who is truly and completely open-minded. There are people who seek to achieve such levels of thinking, consciousness, and living, but in the course of your day-to-day life, you will probably never actually meet one of these rare individuals.

Rather than talk about open-mindedness or how “open” your thinking is, acknowledge your assumptions, opinions and conclusions and admit your own cracked-mindedness. Stop pretending that you are so flexible in your thinking as to accept anything and everything. You know as well as I do that you resist anything or anyone that seems to contradict or threaten your personal belief system. From peaches and cream to politics and religion, you cling to your own opinions and mock or argue against anything that seems to disagree. Instead of using the concept of open-minded to protect and further your own cause, embrace your own cracked-mindedness and learn how to listen to others. They have opinions and beliefs just like you. Stop dismissing differing points of view by simply throwing down the “you’re just so close minded” card. You’re the exact same way! What makes your point of view any more valid than anyone else’s? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, so stop acting like your particular ideas are somehow superior to those of others. They aren’t. Step down from your arrogance, and learn to hear what others are saying. There is nothing worse than a cracked-minded person who is unwilling to consider opposing ideas. You cracked-minded fool! Open up your head and listen to what others are trying to say! You never know, you may just learn something.

Copyright © 2008 mindfeed.org

I am sick and tired of all the scared people. I am sick and tired of the insecure, intolerant hypocrites. I am disgusted with people who will do anything to avoid exposure to alternate points of view. There are way too many intolerant hypocrites within the government working diligently to forcefully silence anyone who dares voice an opposing belief. Rather than embracing diversity and listening to the ideas of others, the intolerant hypocrites behave like spoiled brats, stuffing their fingers in their ears and accusing others of so-called “hate speech.” Not only are these people unwilling to hear your voice and listen to what you have to say, these people are willing to steal your freedom of speech and even punish you for speaking your mind. I have yet to encounter one of these pathetic, intolerant people face to face, but the day that I do — trust me — they are going to hear about it whether they want to or not.

Perhaps you have an opinion about a particular group of people? You hater. Or better yet, beliefs about religion and morality? Hate, hate, hate! Politics? Sorry, that’s hate too. Don’t even dare voice your opinions around the intolerant ones or they will do everything in their power to silence, humiliate, and punish you. With locked-down minds, these hypocrites have the audacity to classify certain types of speech as “hate speech.” Because they just can’t handle differing ideas, they plan, scheme, and make deals to remove your right to have them! Say goodbye, “right to free speech” — you are only allowed to say things that the intolerant, close-minded hypocrites allow you to say. Why are these people so unable to even consider the opinions, thoughts, and beliefs of people who are — gasp! — different than they are? Not as “educated” as they are? Not as “privileged” as they are? Is it because the hypocrites are too shallow, scared, and insecure in their own beliefs? I think so.

If you think I am talking about you in this little diatribe, you are probably right. You see, I have opinions and ideas that I am going share with whomever I wish. I really don’t care if your tiny little pea-trap is able to handle it or not. In fact, I hope you are offended right now. Come on, be offended!! I hope that every word I say makes your skin crawl and your stomach turn. If there is one thing I can’t stand it’s people who are too afraid, close-minded, or insecure to hear another person’s point of view. Even worse is that people like you are salivating at every legislative opportunity to remove my right to speak freely. For the sake of your inability to deal with what other people have to say, you are dancing at the chance to steal my freedom of speech and ruin life for everybody. Yeah, great idea! Let’s get the government involved in policing what people can and cannot say. That’s just gonna be great for everyone, including you!

My advice to these pathetically intolerant hypocrites: get over yourself and wake up. Life isn’t worth living without human diversity, differing points of view and challenging ideas. Listening to others is the only way to sharpen your own ideas and opinions. Do you really believe in what you are saying? Is your way of life really the best way to go? Are your ideas truly superior to those of others? If so, then what on earth are you afraid of? What on earth is there to be offended by? Why not embrace alternate and opposing points of view as an opportunity to influence and persuade people of your enlightened philosophy? Instead of hiding like a brainless coward behind some piece of legislation that big brother squeezed off for you, why don’t you join the rest of humanity and engage in the conversation? Oh yeah, I forgot, you not only don’t want to have any conversations, but you are willing to take away everyone else’s rights to have them as well! Pathetic!

And finally, for the record, to all you intolerant, close-minded, legislative-type hypocrites out there: I look forward to the day when you try to shut me up. I look forward to the day when one of your government goons tells me that I can’t speak freely because it might offend some group of politically motivated intolerant bigots. I laugh in your face at the idea of silencing free speech. I mock your attempts to close down opposing points of view. I spit on your efforts to hide behind your thinly legislated walls. Your actions reveal plainly that you have nothing. Your ideas are nothing. Your thoughts are empty. Your words show clearly that your only strategy is to remove freedom, gain control, and force people to agree with you. That’s the way you have always been, and we should expect nothing new from you in the future. So bring it on you pathetic, intolerant, close-minded hypocrites, I am looking forward to laughing in your face.

<note> Thanks for the read — it feels so good to let it all out. </note>

Copyright © 2008 mindfeed.org

The story begins with me placing an advertisement in the local newspaper. I was selling an old computer monitor, not worth much, asking a hundred bucks, obo. After a couple of days without hearing from anyone, the phone rang. It was in the middle of the afternoon and I was busy multitasking on the computer. “Hello?” I was immediately greeted by a third-party operator who explained to me that a person named “Mario” was contacting me through their TTD translation service. This was the first time I had ever experienced such a call, and was quite distracted while trying to figure out how to proceed. The operator informed me that this service is frequently used by deaf people to communicate over the telephone. My frustration at the impersonal techno-babble of the operator was suddenly transformed into compassion for this deaf Mario guy.

Several translations later, I learned that Mario had seen the ad for my computer monitor and wanted to purchase it. After obtaining Mario’s email address, we agreed to continue the transaction online. Goodbye rude, impersonal, disinterested operator — hello one-hundred dollars for my tired old monitor! Here is the initial email sent to Mario, replete with all of the requested information:

Moments later, after grabbing a beverage and returning my computer, I get a response from Mario. “Wow, that was fast,” I thought. Apparently, Mario was on fire to get ahold of the monitor:

“Okay,” I thought, “that sounds like an awful lot of fuss over something as simple as buying a monitor.” However, my unfamiliarity with the tools and resources employed by the deaf community led me to give Mario the benefit of the doubt. Additionally at this point, several other assumptions were in effect:

• Mario is a real person.
• Mario is a deaf person.
• Mario wanted to buy my monitor.
• Mario lives within the immediate area.
• Mario was willing to reimburse extra effort.

So, even though Mario’s email should have raised a red flag, I was too excited about selling the monitor to question my assumptions. I did have a few technical questions, but the extra fifty bucks was going to make it all worthwhile. Going with the flow, I responded with the following:

Soon thereafter, Mario replies:

The tone and brevity of this email was much more in line with my expectations of what an online email transaction should look like. Eager then, to seal the deal, I responded with this now-ironic snippet:

“In the bag,” I thought — can’t wait to scratch this off my to-do list. Several days later, I had yet to receive anything from Mario. This seemed odd, especially considering my assumption that Mario lived here in town. After another several days, my patience ran out:

The next day, Mario responds with this:

Okay, sure, I can live with that. I may miss out on other offers, but my main man Mario is stepping up tough with extra dollaz:

Several days later, while waiting for the money and pondering the situation, my subconscious suspicions had finally managed to catch up with me. “What if this is some kind of scam?” I thought, “It sure is taking a long time for Mario to send the money, yet he seemed like he was in such a hurry to get the monitor.” Things just weren’t adding up. After taking a moment to re-read the email thread, I had some serious doubts rattling around in my head.

Just as I was about to call it quits and resubmit the advertisement, the bomb finally dropped via the following email:

DOH!! — I’ve been had!! After reading this absolutely crazy email, it all became crystal clear. In incremental steps, over the course of a couple of weeks, something as simple as a local monitor purchase — here’s your money, thanks, here’s your monitor — evolved into this elaborate financial exercise involving check cashing, money forwarding, and balance transferring. Come on. There is just no way that a simple monitor purchase requires so much nonsense. After further scrutinizing the email, I realized the foolishness of my previous assumptions:

• Mario is obviously not a real person.
• Mario is probably not a deaf person.
• Mario had ulterior motives for purchasing the monitor.
• Mario does not live within the immediate area.
• Mario was using extra money to lure me further into the scam.

After realizing my sheer ignorance with the entire affair, I was embarrassed. Then after further contemplation, I was OUTRAGED. The bastards almost got me! At this point, it was time to end this little game once and for all:

After sending this little gem, I immediately contacted the authorities, DHL, and Western Union. After reporting the incident, sharing the story, and gathering information, I discovered that this type of scam is very common. The scumbags that deploy these schemes are attempting to launder money, steal money, or worse. The tactics they used in this situation — monetary gain, sense of urgency, gradual implementation, excitement, confusion, etc. — are merely tools of the trade. By building up a sense of anticipation and urgency, scammers maintain control of the situation while deceiving and manipulating their victims. Here is a summary of the advice given to me by authorities, DHL, and Western Union:

• Do not trust unknown solicitations of any kind
• Research/investigate any potential transactions
• Subscribe to a site such as ScamBusters.org
• Stop any fraudulent transactions as soon as they are discovered
• Inform the proper authorities as soon as possible
• Inform any implicated, legitimate businesses or persons
• And of course, dont’t think it can’t happen to you!

After sending that last email, I never heard back from “Mario” or any of his cohorts. Although I formally canceled delivery through the DHL fraud department, and planned on denying the package if they tried to deliver it, DHL delivered the package anyway. About a week after all the drama had ended, I returned home from work to find a slim DHL envelope tucked under my doormat. Uhh, thanks, DHL. Before destroying the contents, I decided to capture a few scans, just for you:

$950 Money Order Numero Uno (click image for full-size view)

$950 Money Order Numero Dos (click image for full-size view)

$950 Money Order Numero Tres (click image for full-size view)

Reverse side of the money orders (click image for full-size view)

Indeed, had I been blind enough to not recognize the scam after that final email, surely the three $950 money orders would have raised a red flag.

Moral of the story: think critically about every transaction that you make, no matter how small or insignificant. Assume as little as possible and take nothing for granted. Double check all references and sources, release only the absolute minimal amount of information possible, and keep copies of all involved communique (receipts, emails, notes, etc.). And finally, stay aware: talk to your neighbors, read the news, and subscribe to sites such as ScamBusters.org and Ripoff Report to stay current on contemporary scamz — never assume that it won’t happen to you, because eventually, it will (trust me)!

Copyright © 2008 mindfeed.org

Taken literally, the concept of diversity is a relative quantification of the degree of heterogeneity of any given population. Each individual within a group is inherently unique and thus fundamentally different from every other group member. From personal experience and subjective ideas to emotional expression and developed intellect, the differences between any two or more individuals are both vast and profound.

Given these differences, the degree to which members of a group benefit from the diversity of others depends on individual willingness or desire to be influenced by others. For example, if John could care less about learning from his classmates, it really makes no difference if the people in his class are different in any way whatsoever. On the other hand, if Habib wants nothing more than to absorb the differences of his group, he will no doubt benefit, even if every member is of the same race, nation, and socioeconomic status.

The problem with the post-modern application of diversity involves the fact that you can’t legislate or otherwise “force” someone to want to embrace and learn about the endless differences of others. Even worse, typical “diversity” or “fairness” (or whatever they want to call it) legislation focuses exclusively on racial attributes, blatantly disregarding the inherent differences within the target population.

The irony of this is fantastic. First and foremost, the government has absolutely no business wasting time and resources trying to fix something that isn’t broken. Diversity legislation is unnecessary because people are inherently different in many, many ways. Secondly, in order to mandate diversity, the innate complexity of individuals is reduced to physical characteristics. Ironically, every effort to diversify populations requires the dismissal of inherent differences in favor of the superficial classification of people based on race.

Copyright © 2008 mindfeed.org

Level One: Child’s Play

Level one encompasses the most rudimentary form of argumentation. Typical characteristics include yelling, one-syllable words, three-word sentences, and name calling. The downside: this type of arguing is completely self-centered, frequently disrespectful, and entirely predictable. The upside: with children, arguments are generally sincere. Listening to kids argue, you just know what’s coming next. The outcome: typically, screaming, fighting, and/or parent intervention.

Level Two: Teenage Wasteland

Level two covers argumentative discourse among some of the smartest, wisest people on earth: teenagers. Typical characteristics include long-winded monologues, illogical reasoning, and buckets of attitude. The downside: teenage-level argumentation is often contentious, disrespectful, and based on thin air. The upside: with teens, arguments may last for many hours, providing plenty of practice to those striving for higher levels of discourse. The outcome: usually, teenage-level argumentation results in insults, hurt-feelings, and increased stubbornness.

Level Three: Jerry Springer

Level three is really just an adult version of level two, or perhaps even level one. Symptoms include screaming, swearing, stupidity, and violence. The downside: although much of it is “hyped-up” and “turbo-charged” for television, there are droves of people who actually operate on this level by default. The upside: none, really — except perhaps that these people are usually pretty good at killing themselves off. The outcome: this type of arguing is socially contagious, ultimately serving to lower the quality of life for everyone.

Level Four: Completely Average

Level four finally breaks ground with some reasonably executed arguments. Typical characteristics include a sense of seriousness and practicality, followed by escalated tones and deteriorating civility. The downside: a majority of people never venture beyond this level of argumentation, and thus follow the script for every type of disagreement, regardless of circumstance. The upside: comfortable trade-off between effort and effectiveness. Having a de-facto standard way of dealing with conflict makes life easier for the endless fields of common folk. The outcome: generally, the average way of arguing yields results — there maybe hurt feelings and bruised egos along the way, and you may find yourself having gained absolutely nothing from the experience, but hey, it works.

Level Five: A Little Education

Level-five argumentation is generally seen among recent college graduates. Typical characteristics include attempted application of regurgitated facts and formulas. The downside: having obtained a little education, typical college graduates assume they are actually smarter than other people. The upside: any time spent exercising your brain (at school or otherwise) tends to improve the overall quality of conversational discourse. The outcome: as life goes on, rather than expanding their mental horizons, college graduates tend to reinforce ideas and opinions acquired during their education. Although entertaining to observe, arguments happening on level five rarely benefit anyone.

Level Six: Political Bureaucracy

Level six encompasses the monotonous, politically correct diatribes intended to persuade, convince and influence. Typical characteristics include mindless monologues and endless exchanges. The downside: driven by personal agendas, political arguments generally unfold slowly, predictably, and with immense disinterest. Arguing parties are more interested in hearing themselves talk than actually engaging in a meaningful, beneficial debate. The upside: this type of pretentious argumentation gives the quibbling hypocrites something to do. The outcome: typically, boredom, fatigue, nausea, and a whole lot of wasted time.

Level Seven: A Lot of Education

Level seven is seen among the academically privileged. Extensive education enables scholars to argue intelligently, especially concerning issues related to their primary field of study. Typical characteristics include verbose, convoluted arguments and well-executed deliveries. The downside: after investing thousands of dollars and many years in education, academic scholars eventually become “experts” in their fields, often basing their entire existence on a particular understanding of reality. Arguments with scholars may prove educational, but when careers and reputations are at stake, you may as well save your breath.

Level Eight: Seeking Knowledge

As we approach level eight, the number of active participants dwindles considerably. Those earnestly seeking knowledge, wisdom and understanding contribute to intriguing, insightful arguments. Typical characteristics include more questions than answers. Sincerity instead of attitude. Contemplation instead of assumption. The downside: there are not nearly enough people genuinely pursuing understanding and truth, and not nearly enough time for those that do. The upside: on this level, arguments unfold like collaborative philosophical explorations resonating with openness and enlightenment. The outcome: always a win-win situation.

Level Nine: Knowing Nothing

On level nine, things begin to get interesting. How do you argue with someone who understands, accepts and even embraces their own ignorance? You can’t. It is impossible to argue your point with someone who doesn’t disagree with you. Rather than argue their own opinion, those rare individuals who “know” that they do not know will openly listen to everything you can throw at them. Nothing to prove, nothing to argue — only receptive openness and sincerity. The beauty of the entire game is that, eventually, after hearing yourself arguing with the wind, you realize the foolishness of it all and decide to move on with your life. Sadly, 99% of the population has not yet encountered such an experience.

Level Ten: Knowing Something

There is only one who truly knows. Many will seek, but few will find. For this reason, stay open, alert, and seek understanding with every breath. You never know who may be listening.

Bottom line? Don’t worry about memorizing all of these different levels. Don’t worry about finding your exact location within the spectrum. Just be aware that the different levels exist, and that, regardless of where you are with your argumentative skills, there is always more to learn and higher levels for which to aspire. Next time you find yourself in the middle of some heated debate somewhere, remember the spectrum and try taking things to the next level.

Copyright © 2008 mindfeed.org