original file: © May 14, 1997
most recently appended: © November 13, 1997
Progressive Movements - The Usual Focus
Please note that throughout history, there have been political, social, economic, and every other kind of movement, all attempting to (or alleging to attempt to) create a better sort of system for people. Such movements have centered around each of dozens of different issues. And each movement has concentrated on, in one way or another, exposing the inaccuracies and lies of its opposition.
A Different Type of Central Issue, Never Before Raised
But there is one issue that, to my knowledge, has never, EVER, been broached as a main issue. That is the matter of the whole system that supports dishonesty. No movement has ever centered around the destruction of the social, political, or economic conventions that prop up the dishonesty SYSTEM.
Everyone is very anxious to expose the lies of their opposition, but no one has ever dared to attack the basic system that supports dishonesty in the first place.
No movement has ever centered around the discovering and implementing of the sort of education for the population at large, that would make it easy for any and every person to discover if another person was deliberately misreporting their perceptions.
In other words, every movement centers around "believe these things", "and let me show you how the opposition lies". But no movement centers around enabling every member of the population to figure out if ANY person is deliberately misreporting what they know, about anything, to anyone.
Not Exposing Someone, But Rather, Exposing A System
It's the difference between exposing someone else's lie, in order to defeat them, the difference between that, and exposing the whole system that allows ANYONE to lie undetected, and defeating the system that supports ANYONE being able to cleverly hide their deliberate misreports of perception.
It's the difference between exposing and defeating a lying (or allegedly lying) person, and exposing and defeating the entire system that makes it easy for ANYONE to conceal deliberate misreports of perception.
The System Is In The Syntax Of Ordinary, Everyday Conversations
Coming up with a way to easily expose dishonesty In Anyone is actually easier than it might first appear to be.
As it turns out, there is a whole mode of conversation, a whole mode of social intercourse, a whole "framework of discussion", all of the syntax of which is imploring the listener to bear in mind that "there is no real truth anyway", that "everything is a lie", that no one is "really" dishonest, since there is no constant truth in the first place. Within this mode of conversation, it is claimed that people just have to believe whatever seems to bring them protection, since nothing is "really" true anyway.
The Issue Of Truth Is Never Raised; Rather, "No-Real-Truth" Is A Strict But Unstated And Often Unconscious Conversational Presumption
This matter of "truth", or honesty never need be raised. These precepts are woven into the general syntax of discourse.
Thus, when people are talking within this framework of discussion, using this sort of syntax, it is almost impossible to even conceptualize someone "lying about what they think", since the entire syntax of this sort of "framework of discussion" demands that a discussant not broach the difference between a person's perception, and their verbal report of their perception. There is the powerful "meta-communication" that such a difference does not even exist, and wouldn't matter even if it did.
"Accuracy-Based" Conversation
But there is another "framework of discussion" another type of syntax, that has an opposite effect. Within this framework of discussion, syntax is construed so as to presume that "there is a singular truth of any matter", whether one has found it or not, it is there to be found; that giving only accurate reports of perception is health producing in listeners, and that giving inaccurate reports of perception is harm producing for listeners; that a combination of accurate reports of perception will yield a work out well all around solution to any given problem while salting deliberate misreports of perception will necessarily lead to the work out poorly for some/most/all conclusion.
The work of this movement is not to figure out if some particular person is lying, per se, no no - the work of this movement is to figure out if the person is thwarting the type of discourse, the type of sociability, the type of discussion that would expose anyone's lying, as a matter of course.
And the discourse of this is within the syntax of presuming that there is a singular truth to be found for anything, whether one has found it or not, of presuming that life is a work out well all around matter, and that the horrendous problems of horror to persons that we have had these past ten thousand years are entirely solvable. Within this framework of discussion, it is considered entirely possible for a person to deliberately misreport their perception, although because of the general syntax of the discussion, such deliberate misreports of perception stand out as such starkly and clearly.
It Is The Right-Wing, Those Who Operate Under The Inaccurate Idea That
"It Is Inevitable That Things Will Work Out Poorly For Some/Most/All";
It Is The Right-Wing That Has The Most To Fear From The Exposure And Dissolution
Of The Deliberately Misreport Perceptions System
What "Paradigm from California" does, is prove that the "work out well all around" system is nature's system, is accurate to nature, and that the "singular truth", "dishonesty equals harm", presumptions are accurate and are part of that system.
What has prevented this paradigm from being published, and this whole set of ideas from becoming known, is that it exposes the whole "acceptable" syntax of common and public discussion as being fraudulent and harm-based. As it turns out, to prove that the 'necessity' of lying about what one understands is a fraud, is to threaten with exposure (and therefore failure) the most powerful and successful people, particularly those in one's local environment.
In coming up with this paradigm, we figured out, and wrote up what we discovered as the primary system that humans were designed, through evolution to operate within; namely "protection and caretaking moves primarily down the hierarchies, while anxiety moves mainly up the hierarchies". In eighteen chapters, and fifty clearly and simple illustrations - 200,000 words in all - we clearly and precisely laid out all the relevant details of how that system is designed to work.
The emphasis was always, "what we want", the details of the system by which things work well, rather than an "anti-" sort of emphasis. The "anti-" part came up only in attempting to identify things that thwart the work-out-well-all-around system which is nature's basic design, and the basic designed for human behavior.
In fact, the first seven chapters of volume one, in which all of the major findings and discoveries are laid out, barely even mentions that which thwarts nature's basic "work-out-well-all-around" design. It is not until chapter eight ("Deactivation and Principle"), and, in more detail, volume two, that we discussed the various social mechanisms that thwart the work-out-well system.
Thus, the paradigm itself was not an "opposed to", or "what is wrong" type of document. It clearly illuminates, in proved, self-evident fashion, exactly how the work-out-well-system works, and why this particular form evolved as it did in nature.
© Neil R. Miller, 1997
neil@imaginenine.com
May 14, 1997
v2 June 14, 1997
© November 13, 1997
When a person lies about what they understand to another person, they create an insanity, and a criminal insanity in a person who believes the dishonest person to be sincere.
That's because every person evolved to use other peoples' perceptions as their own.
What makes us so very different from other animals, is that our minds were specifically designed to process not only our own perceptions, but also the perceptions about reality that other people have.
That is why the pre-human brain expanded, and became capable of so much high level figuring. The vocal chords evolved in a lower and lower physical position, several million years ago, and therein became more and more capable of vast, articulate, and precise language.
And then, when each of us could clearly explain to each other, what our own eyes had seen, and ears had heard, then each other person added other people's information about reality into their own figuring process. When those vocal chords became lower and articulate, we each, then, could hear each other explain, and then, we each, in effect, had a thousand pairs of eyes and ears. Each of us!
The pre-human brain expanded, specifically, for the specific purpose of accommodating all that extra information.
People were designed, through evolution, to integrate other persons' perceptions, as their own. People were designed to think, using not only the perceptions of their own eyes and ears, but also the perceptions of the eyes and ears of many, many others.
Ninety percent of the information that any person uses in their figuring processes, is, in fact, information from other people.
So when a person lies to other people about what that person understands, if another person believes the dishonest person to be sincere, then the listener receives a false view of reality, and is therein rendered mentally ill, and if they kill themselves, then whoever has deliberately lied to them, whoever has given them a false view of a human mind's perception of reality, has killed them.
Indeed, the primary cause of suicide is being lied to, by another person about what that other person understands the truth to be, while believing that dishonest person to be sincere.
If you know anyone who has committed suicide, then whosoever has lied to them, and was believed as sincere, was the actual murderer.
As people were evolving, humans could not effectively lie about what they understood to others, because the life and death margin, regarding each person's knowledge of their surroundings, was so much slimmer, and because dependence on the safety and well being of others was so obviously crucial to the well being of each person.
If anyone gave what they knew to be false information regarding literal reality to anyone else, it was totally obvious to one and all that the whole tribe's survival was being severely damaged.
To lie about what one understood was accurately and automatically understood to result in the insanity and even death of the person who was believing the liar (murderer) to be sincere, putting at high risk, the entire tribe. That was so obvious. Everyone had to have accurate information about what was known, in order for anyone to survive.
To lie about what one understood, and be believed as sincere, would directly lead to the death of the listener and others, including the speaker, by the immediate, surrounding pressures of nature. A false view of reality, given the life and death nature of everyday life, including the presence of animal predators, would lead to severe and instant damage, harm, and worse. The entire tribe would get severely and obviously thrown, so doing so was, again obviously, out of the question, in everyone's mind, as a matter of basic automatics.
But when societies became much more secure and settled, the immediate damage was not so easily seen, and was manifested further away.
Thus, unlike in the evolutionary situation, people could deliberately misreport their perceptions and walk away apparently clean. When the damage came, the liar would not be so directly in the immediate path of the damage that being lied to brings, and might even be far from the scene altogether.
In our society, if you can clearly spot someone who is lying, you are considered very rude, impolite, angry, and other bad things, and are likely to be isolated and failed.
So in order to get along with others, one must placidly absorb the dishonesty of others as though they are being sincere.
Thus, people who get along well with others in this sort of society, are those who accept lying by others, and accept it as a general, polite, conversational convention. So a person must avoid spotting dishonesty in others, or the person is viewed as "paranoid", "angry", "rude", "insulting", and all the other predecessors for failure, impoverishment, and worse.
Thus, people who get along well, are those whose minds placidly and smilingly accept dishonesty as a reasonable conversational convention, and whose minds are therefore filled with an extremely false view of the nature of life.
The life/nature/human system is the high level system, the "all" system, the system that evolved these past four billion years, including these past three million; it includes things working out well for all and never deliberately misreporting perceptions, and all the rest of it (see Components, Backbone and the other materials at this site).
On the other hand, the rules of capitalism is one small, anomalous, diseased ten-thousand year element in that system, to be cured
People who get along well, people who accept the basic rules of capitalism, and the basic rules of bourgeoisie social conventions as in line with the basic rules of life.
But, of course, there is no match-up whatsoever between the capitalist/bourgeoisie rules of operation, and the overall life rules of operations.
Life, nature, and the basic blueprint of human behavior, and particularly of interactive human behavior
There is a major point to be made here that perhaps better be made right away. That is in regard to the difference between dishonesties that liberals project, and dishonesties that right-wingers, conservatives, and Republicans project.
In this society, every person, if they wish to succeed within the system, must put away and serious ability to spot, as a matter of automatics, dishonesty in others.
Thus, if you want to succeed, you many not threaten those who could help you or promote you, by being alert to dishonesties.
One is tested, constantly, for their loyalty to more powerful person, that is, for their loyalty to the lie-about-what-one-understands system. If a person shows any sign of disloyalty to that system, they will be failed, iced, destroyed.
Thus liberal Democrats, prove their loyalty, and therein survive, by engaging in low level dishonesties, while at the same time, promoting the entire infrastructure - excellent education for everyone, excellent health care for everyone, excellent nutrition for everyone, and all the rest of it - the Democrats promote the infrastructue among the population at large, that arrests and exposes the entire, lie-about-what-one-understands system.
The Democrats (like everyone else who aspires to success) can only survive and continue to get establishment and even popular support if they prove that they "go along", while at the same time, encouraging the infrastructure that must be in place to arrest the system.
The Republicans, on the other hand, believe in fundamental dishonesty, as a basic fundamental 'principle' of life, and do everything they can to smash the infrastructure that is needed to arrest the whole, dishonesty, system.
The Republicans believe that the winners are those who get away with lying, the professional liars, through and through, and the Republicans believe that the losers are those who get caught lying, who are relative amateurs at it.
The Democrat/liberal/left-wing idea, excellent education, health, nutrition for all, is what will correct the whole system from a short, diseased anomaly of nature, back to nature's track conforms to full scale reality.
The Republican/conservative/right-wing idea, "the poor deserve it", "work-out-well-for-all is 'naive'", "corruption is inevitable", "shouldn't raise expectations", and all the rest of it, is the result of them lying not only about the little things, but also about the big things, as a matter of 'principle'.
(Just had to make sure that I put the above in here, and reiterate, as always, my implacable support for Mr. Clinton, and the liberal Democrats, especially in their contests with Republicans.)
Again, nature's system, and the system of human behavior and human interaction that was built by evolution within it, is a work-out-well-for-all system. Those who believe that it is a work-out-poorly-for-at-least-some system, are operating on that huge tangle of lies, coming from the lie-about-what-one-understands system, which they accept as a fundamental matter of 'principle' (Right-wing 'principle's', of course).
Nature's system, and the system of human behavior and human interaction, is a work-out-well-for-all system, a never-deliberately-misreports system, and the right-wing "work-out-poorly-for-some" idea, describes a small, temporary, diseased, and curable element in that larger system. And curable through human cognition.
But of course, you would only know that, if you reject, as a matter of fundamental, internal, daily-life automatics, information coming from others that was falsely presented.
Note: This page is part of the Paradigm from California website, a collection of some fifty documents, including twenty color slides, all illuminating an understanding of human operations within the context of the four billion year old bioecosystem.
To reach the text only home page of this site, click here.
© Neil R. Miller, 1997
Neil Robert Miller
415-282-6859
Note: What follows is a first draft for another section of this paper. They are first notes, entirely unedited.
The Effects Of Dishonesty
How Insanity Is Created In Others
Each Person Has Many Sets Of Eyes And Ears
Being Lied To While Believing The Dishonest Person To Be Sincere, Is The Primary Cause Of Mental Illness, Criminal Derangement, And Suicide
Nature's Lock Against Lying In The Evolutionary Situation
Modern Times
Consequences Of Arresting Lying In Our Society
The Life/Human System Is Permanent, Is A Healthy For All System, Is The High Level System - The Capitalist System Is Temporary, Is Unhealthy For All, And Is Entirely Curable, Via Human Cognition
The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans
Last Words For Now (still November 13, 1997, 6:30 am)
© Neil Robert Miller, November 13, 1997
Other Centrally Related Files
Defination of Truth and Accuracy
first part:
© Neil R. Miller, 1997
neil@imaginenine.com
May 14, 1997
v2 June 14, 1997
Other Closely Related Articles Posted at This Site, Fall/Winter, 1997:
Ideological Backbone For A Permanent Cooperative Political Movement (85/97)
Definitions Of Terms That Are Often Alleged To Be Indefinable (6/97)
The Nature of Integrity and Truth (1/96)
Individual Paradigm Components (50 one-line explanations)
"Inner States" as Transferable Substance (1986)
Beyond the Wave (on matrifocal origins of society) (11/96)
"Conversational Conventions" (draft notes) (5/97)
"Political Geometry" (bibliography) (updated 6/97)
neil@imaginenine.com
(The Environment for Cognitive Development)
P.O. Box 31035
San Francisco, California 94131