Frustrations of Authorship

frustrated_writer_by_photonerd88-d3gobx6I wrote a book about existence and I thought everyone could empathise with that. Everyone I have met, without exception, has pondered the deepest of all questions, “What is the meaning of life?” I wrote a book on the subject and thought it would be the most popular volume in the universe as it answers the question; the question everyone asks. I know everyone initially pretends that meaning is what you gain from life; the meaning is life itself. At one level this could not be more correct. My book goes into the detail but it probably doesn’t give the answers readers would expect, though why would readers expect anything? Corvus_corax_arizonaIf the book merely satisfied expectation what would be the point in writing it? Perhaps my mistake was my not spearheading a zealous campaign against windmills. I could have attracted a gaggle of likeminded zealots with fragrant positive affirmations. Perhaps I should have listened to those muliebrous ravens. Didn’t they crow? What was their suggestion? One new idea only for each small book and up to four tangents for large volumes, they said. The rest is padding, filler. Anything will do. Add lots of references; the more the better. Authors should conceptualise. People like that, providing it is within reasonable limits and boundaries, of course. No tin foil hat rubbish. That won’t do. It also mustn’t mess with what they know. Everyone knows the Earth is flat, sorry round, the nucleus is the brains of the cell, and gravity affirms Newton-Cartesian philosophy. To even suggest anything different would be crazy.

8820039_origIn order to do this, pull off the impossible, authors must parrot prettier than galahs. New ideas, spontaneous thought, mould breaking concepts are absolute no no’s; well, maybe one new idea per small book, but don’t fret if you can’t think of one. The few that will spot it won’t like it and they will use that to harpoon any chance of your literary success. Better to be a chicken than a turkey?

People are very predictable and very safe. Everyone, without exception, supports the banking system to hilt. Those that prefer cash bless Federal Reserve bankers. There you go. Big business, again pretty much without exception, is the hinge pin of all commerce. I consider my book one of those exceptions, but am I right? Certainly any sales through Book Tango (an offshoot of Penguin Books), Amazon, etc. would not qualify. Although there is a twist (all good plots need twists, I’m told). Purchases via these mediums give me nothing, zero, zip-doodle. Thus, I can honestly say, I personally have extricated myself from the bankers and Federal Reserve pariahs. For the other option, PayPal, it should be stressed, whilst it is not a formal bank, it may as well be one. As a currency transfer management system it upholds all banking principles, including those fine print fees that normal people can’t fathom. The book itself leverages the mega-corporations Adobe and Microsoft products in the soft version. An array of big brand printers might facilitate delivery of hard copy.

rash-s1-facts-rashOf course, there are some that won’t buy e-books. They can visit mine or Jon Rappoport’s websites, for instance, absorb all the free information; each and every article online. They might read some better entries twice, just to make sure the message was understood loud and clear. But those e-books give them each a rash. They are different some way and simply won’t do. I say the only way they are different is they are going to require each and every one of you to fork out money, skinflints. They aren’t free. That is the only difference.

My Facebook network is growing. In fact, just as with some of my more ambitious blog entries, the ruder, more unfairly confronting I am, the greater the interest in me. The phenomenon is akin to school playground fights which attract swarms from nowhere. One of my Facebook friends, I’ll call him Danny, is attempting to establish a truther network (whether he recognises it or not). Most of these guys are retired, semi-retired or on the pension (dole, social security). They are all angry, have lots of time and are mostly clueless. Danny is different. He is, to the larger degree, in tune. He’s got sharp eyes and a good nose, but he’s not infallible; far from it. Well, aren’t we all… infallible? But I didn’t mean it in that way. Jon Rappoport mistakes are very hard to pick and oh so subtle. There’s the difference. Jon is a class act. Danny is not. Pure and simple.

1409022444458Danny doesn’t see it that way. He thinks he is a class act too. But he is not because when the content he promotes is flawed it is very wrong. He doesn’t always learn. Though (to his credit), sometimes he does comprehend, change and adjust past errors. I would categorise him as having potential, but nothing more. Jon Rappoport sees. Danny doesn’t. My book content isn’t beyond him, but it will challenge him. It will be hard going because it will break his world; a world he isn’t sure about, because he doesn’t see. Like everyone else, normal people, he breezes through life, takes things as they come and has a big accumulated chip on his shoulders that started as a pimple in his formative years. Casually, almost in jest, I suggested he seek out “The Beauty of Existence Decoded”. That’s all. No big sales pitch. Did it open a tornado of denial and guilt or what? Danny, over several responses, has presented an essay of reasons why he quite definitely cannot seek out my book. And none of them would stand a chance in any fair court.

Ignoring the excuses, which included “being able to read energy inherence” or “plugging into the anthropomorphic field”, the reasons Danny will never invest money or time in my book are three fold. And this goes for just about every other visitor to my blogs too – my readership.

facebook-the-place-people-post-problems-funny-quotes-sayings-picturesHe doesn’t know what he believes because his belief systems are supported by that big chip on his shoulder that has evolved from the formative years. The only suggestions he can take seriously, as a consequence, are “one liners” that are easy to rationalise. That is why the majority of Facebook posts are sayings or proverbs accentuated by pictures.

He is frightened and greedy. This means he will only spend money on “safe” products/services that are guaranteed by the corporate machine. If it is a book, it must be written by some corporate credentialed author. When push comes to shove, only those endorsed by the system in some way have anything meaningful to say. Of course, the system has cracks and that is why Jon Rappoport managed to slip though. His backers will have rued the day they saw potential in him.

free stuff on the netFinally, and perhaps most importantly, Danny is bombarded with free stuff. There is so much out there he doesn’t know where to turn. He doesn’t have time to actually read the articles he promotes or to check out whether they are credible or not. A truther network is a machine; resilient, never stopping. In fairness, I would need to devote my life to process the front page of every blog that was ever created. It would definitely be a futile exercise, but not necessarily pointless. How do I know what I might or might not uncover? Even though I am connected to everything in its vastness and have the potential to source anything from any when, I am not arrogant. There is so much I don’t know, so much waiting for me to discover. Methods are merely vehicles. If an e-book is the vehicle, then let me at it!

When apathetic people hold a demonstration.

In cyberspace I regularly encounter folks that don’t get that a protest creates the battleground and achieves no more than that. Protests highlight how weak and apathetic human beings have become. Virtuous patriots drone on about their marvellous constitution and the betrayal of the founding fathers’ ideals. Nonsense. The constitution never changed except into what it became. The problem was the founding fathers and the subsequent constitution. Prior, the magnificent Magna Carta validated plunder. Plunder is AOK providing you draw up a treaty, according to that logic. No, not right. What did not belong never belonged and you [that cherish ownership] are all thieves. You certainly have no right to anything without a charter. And even with one, if anyone doesn’t agree with any of its clauses, individually, then tyranny has been executed if the agreement is not deemed null and void.  Ownership is cancelled. Money-is-worthless-unless-we-want-it-poster.001-e1409085262488You own something only because the other agrees. Everything else is nothing more than possession. It’s mine because I found it. I ignore history. Funnily enough, your beloved cash; money is fiction too. If the belief in fiscal systems was fractured, eventually all money would be worthless.

I haven’t said anything to Danny, but if I had the chance, this is what I would say. The reason I provided PayPal as the method for purchasing my book is would be readers can make donations. My advice to Danny would be he should donate as much as will force him to treat the book with absolute respect. If that means it costs $1000 so be it. Imagine that. If you were forced to pay $1000 for my book, you would make sure every word counted. You wouldn’t read it once. You would read it hundreds of times, at each sitting savouring a little more. And that would be no bad thing, because some of you might be required to do that for full, solid comprehension of contents. Remember the advice from the ravens earlier? “The Beauty of Existence Decoded” is a work that goes the other way. It gives only new ideas, some admittedly formed from old, but, ultimately, everything always will be what it was. All those that grudgingly coughed up the bare minimum for the volume hated it. They had no respect for it; it broke their world, so they hated it. One lady paid many multiples of retail price (sic), read it several times and, eventually, loved it because she understood it. She had to understand it because she respected it. Understanding became the mission.

scroogeLet’s say someone did donate $1000. It would only ever be hypothetical because none of you are capable of doing that. Let us say this hypothetical philanthropist (if that’s the right word) read from soft cover to cover numerous times, but still could not overcome the typos, strange non-words, weird writing style and alien phrasing. They put everything into it and still hated it because they didn’t understand it because they were not ready for it. Even then, it would still be value for money. Every inch of real estate was devoured but simply did not compute. Outstanding discipline met with an outstanding result, because from an arena of respect, lack of understanding amplifies the discovery tour. Leave tackling the advanced literature for the time when materials for beginners and intermediates are mastered. The book merely opens a new time doorway, possibly put on one side for graduation day.

Whether I am nasty or nice, I will guarantee not one of you (that hasn’t already done so) will donate for my book for any or all of the reasons above. Those that donate small amounts are always too busy. Please don’t bother.


Does belief have anything to do with truth?

2000px-Belief_Venn_diagram.svgLet me first say that I know that I have some special powers to enable comprehension of this perception I call my reality. The reason I am sure these powers are special is, thus far, I have found no other examples of them. This is not to say they are by any means unique, but I have found no evidence of them. The best analogy I can conjure is as if I am the only one who can see red. No, let me create a new colour. I shall call it winoe. The only one who can see winoe is me, in my analogy. The rest can see all other colours, as do I, but I am the only one who can see winoe. Most would say, by that token, that winoe does not exist. Please leave that sentiment on hold. We can and will return to it. For now let us imagine winoe does exist I am faced with the same task a normal sighted person has explaining the colour red to the never sighted. Do blind people think those who claim they see colours are mad? No! Those who I have met accept they have senses limitation and that is the way it is. Their world is dysfunctional to the point it is unlikely that a blind person could survive a natural life without the assistance of the sighted. With correct assistance the blind can function very well. Yet the analogy was not concerned with function. It was not concerned whether colours existed or not. It did not question the attributes of a photon cell. It was concerned with resonance. What makes red, red? The Newtonians can concoct a complicated string of techno-babble pretending to rationalise the truth, but the answer is not to be found in scientific rationalisation.

Red is colour that personifies a particular resonant frequency; as do all colours. Red in particular, though, displays emotional resonance that is beyond symbolism even when symbolically used. It is the home of the preborn and becomes the preoccupation of all involved with flesh. ”I saw red” is the common expression for an outburst of irrational anger. This is not symbolic, although it might be, but something primordial. Some may agree. Others may disagree, but I can find some common ground when discussing colour red. What has been written, thus far, about the colour red is not abnormal or unacceptable. Some would buy the pitch completely. Others would select sentiment that matches their desired belief. Winoe is a different matter. There is no common ground. Some might yearn for some succinct explanation so they could rationalise and massage the new “beyond sight” colour into their belief system. Others would reject it outright. I wish to focus on these rejecters; debunkers, “as it were”. There are two types at each end of the spectrum. One is scholarly and appreciates their perception with a no nonsense approach to what is. What does not convert to perception does not exist. This is not a malicious denial of faith, but rather a secure appreciation of ego. The other debunker type constructs his or her tailored “God complex”. If the pitch fits, then belief permits it. Nevertheless a God complex must be all knowing and all experiencing. Therefore, a colour that is beyond knowledge, beyond experience defies the God complex. This must be rejected and outlawed.

There is generally much talk about belief and truth but no common ground. Truths are always selective. Many attribute their beliefs to one type of religion or another. Because one claims they are a Muslim, does that make them a Muslim? Comparing the colour analogy, even with the infinite number of varieties (shades and so on), red evokes the same emotional resonance whether we call it carmine, rose or even pink. Or rather, the emotional resonance triggered by red does not alter. Pink might encourage lighter sentiment, a gentler and more feminine approach, but the resonance is the same. Likewise, informed and educated Muslims buy into different aspects or components of the Qur’an. They observe Mohamed and his eternal wishes. Some are more aggressive. Others are less aggressive. Some are inclined to forgive and others are not. Those who make the effort to study the Qur’an will draw equal conclusion which are unavoidable. Whether viewed a virtuous or destructive, Mohamed’s message is determined to control the follower. A true Muslim’s mind belongs to Mohamed. There are many Muslims who would be better described as envoys of Arab nationalism. They have no common belief with Mohamed and merely manipulate their Arab status to their best advantage or in a vain attempt to become part of the in-group.

The same can be said and more so for their Christian and Jewish counterparts which make up the other followers of Mosaic Law. The major religions are occupied by identity badge followings who demonstrate little more than no belief. Pushing aside contradictory elements, there is not a single religion that vilifies self-serving. Yet, the majority of congregations seek nothing more than the elevation of self. If there was a doctrine of truth it would certainly be personified by agnosticism and perhaps atheism. Atheism does not deny the plausibility of a higher power system but rather the portrayal of God as an adjunct of the conscious and, in that way, super human. A common belief of the badge waving Muslim, Christian and Jew is that God is a grandfather who sits on a giant throne. The cornerstone of Mosaic belief systems is that man was made in the image of God and, therefore, ultimate wisdom comes with ultimate age. The truth, as the atheists will affirm, is that God was created in the image of man. Moses merely found agreeable sentiment that suited his purposes to pin on God.  As no one, not a single person ever, has actually met and communicated with this smiling bearded one true God, progressive “Prophets” finding new causes have allowed the self-serving nature of man to amplify through their numerous holy texts.  Therefore, by this standard, belief does have nothing to do with truth.

That is why atheism is the popular choice of the truth seeker. Those who belong to the global society’s out-group (which is the vast majority) tend to steer towards Buddhism. That is why Buddha’s faith in a deity is questioned to which end some go as far to say that he denied God. Whereas this is not true, Buddha did intimate direct prayer was pointless and that God can only be found through experience.  Conveniently this discussion has come fully circle. Is Buddha saying that true belief can only come from truth and truth can only be assured as a direct result of experience? If that were so the only way to achieve absolute enlightenment would be with complete and unblemished understanding. Understanding is another word for knowledge which should be another word for truth. The corruption of truth can be found in belief.

So, now perhaps others can see Winoe.