16. October 2009 by Da Fu.

The statement “what we all have in common is that each one of us is unique” begs the question who each one us is. Other questions include: Is each of our psyche unique? Is so, why do we all fall in love, have sex and want families? Who are we…as individuals. My perspective on my totality (”My Psyche”) includes the following triad: my character (”Me”), my personality (”I”) and my unconscious (”My Self”)

The “Me” is who I believe I am and how I feel I am, i.e., my character. My honesty, perseverance, loyalty, tolerance, competitiveness, athleticism, etc. are qualities of my character and direct my feelings about me. They are how I see me.

The “I” is the part of my totality that relates to the outside world thus it is what others see of Me, i.e., my personality. My wit, charm, politeness, fine penmanship, cleanliness, etc. are qualities that others easily see and relate to. I present these qualities to the world.

There can be discordance between the I and ME. Many have secret characteristics for which they compensate in their personalities. For example, the Me is a messy while the I is not. The I is highly “moral” while the Me craves “immoral” acts. As a rule, it is impossible for the I to always compensate for a different Me.

“My Self” is my unconscious and it only sporadically messages the Me and I through dreams, voices, synchronicity and archetypes like the anima/animus, Mother, Father, Shadow. My Self sees everything but the I and Me do not. The Self is the source of micro-expessions, “gut feeling” and premonitions. My Self is as vast inwardly and the Universe is outwardly. It became unconscious as to not overwhelm the I and Me. Nevertheless, My Self is where my desires for love, sex and family arise.

The Me, My Self and I comprise my totality–my psyche. Only when we live in harmony with this triad will we be in the world in good faith to one’s Slef. An if we can’t be in the world in good faith…then what can we be?

Posted in Psychology, Semantics | Print | No Comments »

11. July 2009 by Da Fu.

The days of conspicuous American consumption are over. Just like corporations have “right-sized” their employees numbers for years to stay profitable, it is time corporations “right-size” their sales expectations in order to stay, i.e., survive. And, these sales expectations should be based on value propositions–not price.

Conspicuous and debt-increasing consumption by American Consumers has fueled US and Global economic growth for too long. The American Consumer is not longer capable or willing to continue its participation in the Capitalist’s folly, i.e., spending more for the sake of spending without a definitive value.

Value–not price–will be the new American Consumer’s mantra. The days of disposable products are numbered. American value convenience, ease, usefulness and now green over cheap. Myriads of Microsoft Windows computers sit idle because people bought cheap and did not get value. In contrast, Apple through its iPods and iPhones has finally conveyed its computer and operating system (Mac OS X) values proving cheaper isn’t worth it.

Americans have also figured out that a high price tag does not mean value. May products are overpriced for no reason other than someone is willing to pay the asking price. US Drugs are a good example. Drugs are priced the way they are because third parties, i.e., insurance companies are paying for them. I have frequently stated that the best way to cut the price of drugs by over half is to mandate non-coverage by third parties. Consumers/Patients will then realize the true value of generics and that expensive “me too” drugs (drugs that are no better than other, cheaper drugs in their class) are not worth their asking price. Too often direct to consumer drug marketing is directed a getting insurance companies to pay a premium price for a drug. Shame on these capitalists. The almighty dollar has harden their heart and left them with no conscience. Increasing co-pays and co-insurance is making patients realize that more expensive is not necessarily a better value.

Americans are not opposed to spending money for something they value. Cheap Japanese transistor radios of the 50s and 60s evolved in much valued Japanese electronics of today. Korea, Taiwan and China have taken the same route.

Corporations should and cannot ever expect to return to quarter over quarter sales growth. Smart investors (as oppose to greedy capitalists) know that a good company is profitable and stays that way. Increasing profit usually means giving up something of value. Unfortunately, profits is rarely given up in order to increase corporation value and profits. Instead corporations give up intangibles usually experienced employees that eventually erode profits. So, little or no gain is realized.

I find it ironic and paradoxically that a company suffers for not meeting “analysts expectations.” This means a company producing actual facts suffers from not meeting an analysts guess of the future. My expectation would be that the analysts should suffer for not guessing right. Thus, it appears that ANAL-lysts are part of the problem and not the solution. Companies should stop pandering to ANAL-lysts expectations and instead do what is right for the company. They should make products based on value rather than just increasing revenues or profits to satisfy ANAL-lysts. The best way to do this is not report the irrelevant “numbers” needed by ANAL-lyst to make their guesses and instead concentrate on their value propositions and customers.

Value–not price–is key to surviving in the new American markets. How this value is reached and maintained remains to be played out.

Posted in Moral Values, Semantics | Print | No Comments »

5. July 2009 by Da Fu.

I saw a t-shirt with “Never Say Never” written on it and it made me smile because of my personal truism. It is “My only intolerance is intolerance”. My other double take truth is “What we all have in common is that we are each unique.” Some say what makes us human is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time. The double take truths above are such ideas. Yet, many think that holding contradictory beliefs makes them human but instead it just makes them self-serving hypocrites.

For example, many Christians believe worshiping Christ (his mystical side) and ignoring his teachings (his ethics) is being a devout Christian. This is not true. It makes them a half Christian. Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Bible and took out the mysticism and left only the ethics. It is how Jesus wanted us to behave. Most Christians do not behave this way.

Many hate their neighbors because they hate themselves. They assuage this self hate by giving money to a church and preachers promote this giving and self enrichment through “prosperity ministries.” Today these preachers would be thrown out of their “Temples” along with their “money changers” supporters by Jesus himself. These churches and their teachings are an abomination of Jesus’ life and death.

Though good deeds alone cannot get one into heaven, being good enough to get into heaven means by nature doing good deeds. It is paradoxical to be heaven good and not do good deeds. It is consistent to be an evil doer and attempt “good deeds” to make up for the evil deeds. Unfortunately, the so-called “good deeds” evil doers do are not truly good deeds since they are self centered and selfish. So, evil doers delude themselves.

These delusion are not limited to Christians. Islamic “Jihadist” a.k.a, terrorist, suicide bombers, etc. delude themselves into believing they are doing “good deeds” when they are actually being selfish. Is it not selfish to want a harem of “vestal virgins”? Is is not selfish and self-enriching to impose ones beliefs on others?

If the leaders of these Jihad movement are so committed why do they have to convince others (usually the poor and ignorant) to die for their cause? Why are they not suicide bombers themselves? The answer is they have too much to gain by letting others die for their beliefs. Deeds for self-enrichment whether monetary or otherwise are evil even in Islam.

Double take truths make many of us human while double take beliefs make many self-serving hypocrites. There are worlds of differences.

Posted in Moral Values, Semantics, Politics | Print | No Comments »

26. June 2009 by Da Fu.

It is laughable (and pitiful) how some in Congress are against a Government Health Insurance Plan because they don’t want put a government bureaucrat between the patient and the doctor. What makes the current for-profit insurance administrator, i.e., for-profit bureaucrat, between the patient and the doctor any better than a government bureaucrat?

Once again personal (mis)understandings are leading to automatic political reactions before all the facts and plans for health care reform are fully vetted. It is time that our Congressional Representatives and Senators start thinking and individualizing responses to the question on hand rather than just give a political stance knee jerk jerk reaction.

Posted in Semantics, Politics | Print | No Comments »

22. June 2009 by Da Fu.

All conflicts are tribal. Even those conflicts within Tribes are about factions (’sub-tribes’) within tribes. How sub-tribes and minority Tribes are allow to participate in governing determines the way they are respected and how they survive.

Take Iraq for example. The major tribes are Shiite, Sunni and Kurd with many other minor tribes (e.g., Christian Iraqis). Since the majority of the country is Shiite and if they can come to vote as a block, the Shiite’s will control the country and the Sunni and Kurd Tribes are powerless. Even if the Sunni and Kurd Tribes could form a political alliance, they would still be in the minority. Is there any hope for Iraq as country then? The answer depends on their governing structure.

If a super majority such as 60, 66 or even 75% is need for major constitutional and oil revenue redistribution then the minority tribes could garner enough influence to demand respect and prevent a simple majority overwhelming them. As an alternative a majority of each tribe’s representative would have to support the measure. In these situations, the minority Tribes/Parties cannot be ignored.

Ironically, in the USA W. Bush and his VP Dick saw a 51% slim majority as a “mandate” to lead all the people the way this slim majority desired. They railroaded the other 49% and caused them enough pain to throw the Republican Tribes out of office and also take their ruling majorities away. The Bush Republican Coalition was made up of the Conservatives, Capitalists and Christian Tribes. This coalition fell apart due to the Conservative’s hegemony and Capitalists’ financial mismanagements.

Does this mean the Democrats can govern at will? No because the “60% filibuster rule” in the Senate allows a minority to maintain power by preventing the majority to act. Thus there is a mechanism for minorities parties (’tribes’) to be respected. Paradoxically, this minority power that the Republicans hold on to so dearly, is the same power they threatened to take away from the Democrats when they lead the Senate. Their “nuclear option” to get rid of the 60% filibuster would not be serving them well at this time. Republicans need to know that what goes around comes around.

Even the Democrats have sub-tribes. The Minorities (e.g., Hispanic, African-American), Liberal and Moderate Tribes. The Liberal Tribe’s Health Care Reform is garnering some resistance from the Moderate Tribe and will have to be changed to get passed. Compromise and accommodation (’two dirty words’ to Conservatives) will be required to have a measure passed.

Israel is a reverse example. Israel’s major Tribes are so evenly split that very, very small Minority Tribes (e.g., Ultra Orthodox Jewish Tribe) have garnered unprecedented control to make a majority. If a super-majority was required to bring down a government, then the power of very small Minority Tribes can be prevented from becoming controlling.

Successful governing is about including all tribes and balancing power. It is not about a majority takes all because this leaves out a significant number of citizens. It about inclusiveness, compromise and respect of all citizens.

Posted in Moral Values, Semantics, Politics | Print | No Comments »

21. June 2009 by Da Fu.

It is a perfect world. Our parents and children are unique and imperfect. They will never be the “ideal” figment of our imagination person we want them to be. But, they are the persons we do have and we need to deal with them.

Our hopes, wishes, aspirations, wants, etc., etc., etc. and so forth are intermingled with our father, mother or child. This is who we are. Yet, it is NOT who they are and that is the issue.

We must internalized our ideal (archetypical) relation and then deal in the real world with the person who is our parent or child. Accepting them for who they are is the basis of charity love … love that does not have expectations in return and is selfless and quiet.

Nothing hurts more than “I-would-love-you-more-if-you-would…” change message. The message heard is “you don’t love me now and there is no guarantee you will love me even if I change.” Since the other person can never be ideal in our mind, the latter heard message is the correct one and change is inhibited rather than encouraged.

Unconditional acceptance without putting our personal burdens on others is how we show our charity love for others, especially to fathers, mothers and children. And this should be done daily….not just on special days each year. Living charity love is living in the world in good faith to One’s Self and Others.

So, maybe we should be the ideal parent or child we want to our parents and children. We can than have our ideal by living it and thus being a example of who we are. Such a gift of the love is priceless.

Posted in Health, Semantics | Print | No Comments »

12. June 2008 by Da Fu.

For most things in this world intent is key to deciphering meaning. A killing is either murder, accidental or something in between based on intent. Yet, intent can only been known to the doer and then only relatively. Others can only guess at someone else’s intent. How intent colors understandings and changes it is an never-ending struggle. Here are some examples and considerations.

First, the word ‘jihad’ has taken a political meaning although it is seen as a moral issue by most Muslims. Jihad translates as “struggle” and is typically used to denote the struggle each individual has with his or her own internal demons to do the will of God. Christians also have this struggle but don’t have a specific word like Islam. The intent of terrorist is to make the personal “struggle”, i.e., jihad, into a political rather than religious issue. The vast majority (>90%) of Muslims do NOT buy in to this politicization of their personal religious struggle. Thus, the word ‘jihad’ has whole different ramifications if one’s intent is religious versus political. Unfortunately, Western misunderstandings only see ‘jihad’ as a political movement ignoring and usually alienating the vast majority of pious Muslims.

Second, ‘War on….(fill in the blank)’ such as terrorism, drugs, cancer are frequently heard but what are their intents. The War on Terrorism is considered by many as a euphemism for Imperialism and imposition of outside values and this is wrong. Instead, the ‘Wars on …’ are just capitalists’ intents to make boatloads of money. It needs to be understood that more people live off wars than from wars, e.g., more people live off cancer than from cancer. Wars are capitalist enterprises in which some (usually the corrupt) become wealthy or usually, wealthier at the expense of the many. Therefore, it needs to understood that the intents of ‘Wars on …’ are capitalist in nature. Follow-the-money and you will find the ardent supporters of the ‘War on ….’ efforts.

Next is the intent behind suicide. The action in suicide is to take one’s life. In Asian societies, suicide is seen the ultimate protest against a government and that why it is prevented by these governments. Political protests were intended by the Buddhist Monks in Asia who burned themselves publicly in the 70’s.

In the West, suicide is a personal protest against or surrender to ones current perceived intolerable conditions. People commit suicide when accused of wrong-doing even before a trial and all the facts are known. Death is preferred to the ordeal of the forthcoming proceedings. Thus the intent is to spare oneselves suffering.

Those who surrender to their perceived intolerable circumstances by committing suicide also intent to spare themselves continued suffering. It may be seen as selfish but one really rarely knows the full extent of some else’s suffering; therefore, it would be righteous to determine their actions as wrong.

Finally, a simple answer to the frequently stated conundrum “Is the glass half full or half empty?”. The answer is “It depends. Are you trying (intending) to fill it or empty it?” Intent determines meaning.

Posted in Moral Values, Semantics, Politics | Print | No Comments »

5. June 2008 by Da Fu.

Claiming participation in the creation of a life or invention or other things is something to be proud of and brag. Yet, when Gore claimed he “invented” the Internet he was ridiculed and maligned because it was politically expedient to do so. Nevertheless, without Gore there would be no Internet and here’s why.

The Internet arose out of the military’s restricted network called Arpanet that matured during the 1980’s. At the same time technology and connections (’bitways’) improved that made it possible to develop a similar network, i.e., the Internet, for the rest of Americans. The only problem was legislation and money that could make it happen.

This is were Gore comes in. As a Senator, he developed the bill that led to the creation of the Internet. Since the Internet did not exist before the passing of his bill, he could legitimately say that he “invented” the Internet since it resulted from his bill. Many misunderstood his statement to mean he invented the technology for the Internet. He did not claim that but for politically expediency his critics did not take the time to correctly understand Gore’s statement.

So, at a minimum, Gore did “Father” the Internet just like his critics fathered their children. And since it was created with the passing of his legislation, it could be said that he invented the Internet since it would not have existed otherwise. Giving Gore credit when credit is due is being truthful.

Posted in Semantics, Politics | Print | No Comments »

4. June 2008 by Da Fu.

Due to their religious beliefs many humans believe they have a special place in the grand schema of Nature They also believe that this special place gives them a privilege that exempts them from the laws of Nature and their participation in Nature. Nothing is further from the truth.

Since matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed everything that exists was present from the beginning whether it be the Big Bang or Creation. Our atoms has been recycled endlessly in inorganic and organic forms. Even though the way our atoms are arranged leads to our individual uniqueness, they nevertheless follow all the laws of Nature.

The consequences of considering oneself apart from Nature is that one ignores Nature. Nature becomes a ways to a means and these ways usually harm or destroy the elements of Nature involved. Yet, Nature doesn’t care because its laws keep it on an even keel. Too much carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning just increase the global temperature which will lead to more and longer growth of plants that will uptake the carbon dioxide. The Canadian northern forests and tundra that are frozen most of the year will be thawed out and consume huge quantities of carbon dioxide. That fact that the polar ice melting will submerge most low lying coastlines and their cities is no concern to Nature.

It is ironic how humans whose total beings follow all the laws are Nature is so dismissive of it. Space-Time is at this moment that will live in eternity and not “tomorrow at the office.” The laws of physics and biology are for the most part understood. Yet, humans still believe that they will survive their death (i.e., Nature) defying behaviors and addictions.

Thus, it is key to realize that when we are speaking of Nature we are speaking about ourselves. And, anything we do to Nature we are doing to ourselves. Thus company profits that line our pockets and destroying some part of Nature may actually be hurting us.

Isn’t it time to realize we are one with Nature?

Posted in Moral Values, Semantics | Print | No Comments »

14. May 2008 by Da Fu.

No one can make me happy unless I let them and I can make myself happy. Therefore, my happiness is my responsibility.

It is unreasonable to make someone else responsible for our individual happiness since it is an impossible task for anyone else. Happiness is a feeling and all feelings are internal. Stimuli that generate happiness one time do not necessarily generate the same feeling the next or any other time. How can anyone else except oneself know that? Waiting for someone who we have burdened with our happiness will lead to long periods between happiness and even periods of unhappiness. There are many unhappy spouses waiting for their spouse to make them happy. Taking the initiative to making oneself happy is a much easier way to be happy.

Yet, we should not be responsible for other’s unhappiness in pursuit of our own happiness. This may not always be possible. Ex-Gov. Spitzer of NY pursued his own happiness with a prostitute probably believing he was sparing his wife his happiness burden and not causing some “other woman” unhappiness. Ironically, he would have been better off having an affair since that apparently is the norm among his colleagues. Thus, their needs to be a ranking of things that result in our happiness and also cause others unhappiness. What is then done depends on ones moral values. There are no right or wrong answers.

We are responsible for our own individual happiness. So, stop burdening others and start being happy!

Posted in Moral Values, Semantics | Print | No Comments »