« Home | The significance of time » | The Eternal Dichotomy » | Risk: def-n: "danger of harm or loss" » | Prayers for our present future » | The 3 Things You Can Never Talk About.... » | Promises made - Promise kept » | When did the Crossover Happen? » | The art of communicating - the communication of ar... » | In Memoriam » | Who is truly the most powerful person in the world... »

President's Day- and an Intro to 'is' Theory

Happy President's Day

Is that an appropriate greeting for today? I'm not sure. I want to say "Have a good 'un" to all my American friends and all ye unknowns who may be reading this, but is it appropriate to wish a "happy" under today's circumstances in the name of the president? As I said, I'm not sure.

Have a "happy" anyways, in the name of someone else if you like. How about in the name of my personal favorites ... PEACE, or TOLERANCE. Yeah. Go for it!! And throw in a pinch of LOVE in Jimi's name, too for those words.

I think I'll take this opportunity, though, to start expanding a bit more on this 'is' theory which I keep mentioning. It'll eventually lead to the Binary Agreement Theory (BAT), which I've also alluded to rather mysteriously in the past.

Today, I think just a bit of a definition and explanation will be in order. You see, it all really stems from the 'eternal dichotomy' discussion a few days ago. That was the one where I put myself (and by proxy, each and every one of you as well) right at the centre dot of the infinity loop. Yesterday, I argued simplistically that 'time' isn't something that actually exists; it's merely a reference for sequencing or a concept with which to indicate duration. It's a place-holder between past and future. All that's left, therefore 'is'. The present. Now. The moment. So 'is' is all there really is to work with.

I've discussed this on and off over the past several years with family and friends. Before Christmas last year I sent a flurry of e-mails to various people which must have frightened the be-jeepers out of them because they really were very non-sensical in the context of English grammar and sentence construction. I forgot to tell them I wasn't writing in English. They were written in a format I'm trying to develop as part of 'is'-ism, mostly designed to remove ambiguity and misinterpretation from a communication. I'm not trying to replace English, mind you. That was a concern of a number of people. Heaven forbid! Rather, I'm trying to eliminate the "it was taken out of context" syndrome in very specific situations. Even more critically, I hope we can de-sensitize the actual words themselves. More and more, it seems we're becoming a world that hates words, rather than what the words might stand for, and so we're censoring ourselves to death or to hatred. In other words, (curious how often we say that phrase in English, isn't it?) you won't need to say 'in other words' because it'll be clear. That's the goal. The plan to get there starts now.

'is' is not an English word in 'is'-ism. It's a three-part symbol, pronounced "dot-straightline-squiggle", or "dot-straightline-some/other/kind/of/line", or "dot-straightline-NOTstraightline" (I'll be using the third format most often, for reasons that we'll explore later also). In other words {smile!} the letter 'i' (when it doesn't use this fancy font) is really made up of a dot positioned above a straight line, which in turn is positioned beside a curvy line (the letter 's'). That dot? That's really, really the critical part. It's the seed of everything. It's the "I am a dot" dot that was in my very first blog entry. Check it out again by clicking on that link, and see if it makes any more sense now. It's also the dot at the centre of infinity. It's where everything starts, where everything 'is', and everything finds equilibrium, and a whole lot more. If you think about it, a line (straight or NOTstraight) is just a bunch of dots standing in a really tight row, but you can always branch away from a line at any point (dot) based on a choice (should I go this way or that way?). Well, so is a NOTstraight line. The straight line and the 'gay' line represent you and me. We're different. But we're really the same. We're made up of the dots of our own lives. Sometimes our lines will cross over, sometimes they'll parallel each other, sometimes they'll never touch at all.

Although I'm creating 'is' as a symbol for 'is'-ism, instead of a word as it is in English, I still think it's rather neat that in Spanish, for instance, if you reverse the two parts of the symbol (look at it from the other side of the mirror), (si) you get a word that means 'yes' (which will end up always being the default choice in the theory). Remember I said everybody is essentially good, and default choices are always 'right'? Well, the default (good) choices will always answer 'yes' when asked. That's a point that I'll return to later. It's also kinda cool to note that in French, the word 'si' means 'if', which is the question you always ask when you're looking for a 'yes/no' binary answer (i.e. 'if' the answer 'is' 'yes', then......). I'm sure that's all just pure coincidence of language, though. It couldn't be serendipity, could it?

I like playing with symbols. Letters, words, languages, sounds, facial gestures, secret handshakes, Nike swooshes, zen symbols, universal traffic signs.....they're all just symbols that people acknowledge will 'mean' a certain thing in an agreed upon context. All I'm going to try and do is make that context one of TOLERANCE and make a case for it to be universal. Doesn't sound like too big a job, what with the Internet, and Webrings, and bloggers and all.
It just needs a capable leader (like a president, perhaps) who isn't in it for the power.

That will be a major theme of the theory. For a democracy to work (and I'm going to argue that it must), the power has to remain with the individual in exactly equal shares. The leaders and policy-makers will only be charged with the awesome responsibility of representation. There is a huge difference between power and responsibility. We need leaders for PEACE today. WE certainly won't ever all agree on what that means, but I think we may be able to agree on what it doesn't mean.

Perhaps, President's Day is a good day for all of us, American or otherwise, to reflect on that. I hope so, anyway.
I don't want us leaving PEACE all battered and bruised and thrown behind some shed somewhere for the next generation to have to find it and repair it.

So everyone, wherever you are, and whoever you are, have a happy whatever day. Find a reason, and spread it around, especially to those who are having a bit more trouble finding it than you.

PEACE to you all.
Talk to someone else
about PEACE today.
Just someONE.
That's all.

....and be cool about it!

You should start by defining your axioms! Why do you believe we're fundamentally good? I doubt it very much, but I'd accept the notion for argument's sake if you offered a shred of evidence.

And why do you believe everyone needs a precisely equal share for a democracy to work? That's suggesting everyone is equally capable of exercising that share, which is manifestly not so. Moreover it detracts responsibility from those who have bigger shares.

I think you're actually working on two projects: one with your mind, which needs these vast interrelated loops of funky wordlplay and symbolic relationships to chew on; one with your emotions, which needs to feel like life is good and nice like Jesus said.

Neither of these things is what "is," in my opinion. Both came with the software that was installed in you when you were young: the English language, and the Christian-democratic worldview.

What IS is behind all that. Isn't it?

In the spirit of the effort-



You raise some critical points, certainly.

You start by saying, "You should start....". That certainly is one of the more difficult aspects to deal with, isn't it? Where does one start other than now? It's not a linear process. I picked a different start point than you might have. I picked 'now' because it's what I believe I'll have in common with any reader at any time, and commonality is critical to my entire argument.

I'll be expanding the points you raise more if things go according to plan, but briefly, I believe we're fundamentally good because we continue to exist and co-exist. It's also going to depend, of course, on what is meant by 'good'. The 'badness' that we see happening represents actions, thoughts, and deeds by people who override the innate default system, through things such as circumstance, ignorance of choice, force or conscious decision.

If each person doesn't have a precisely equal share of power (and I mean by that, the power of existence), then it would mean someone has power over another. That leads to abuse ("power corrupts"). We see it every day. If we cannot or do not assume that each person is worthy of simply 'being' (expressed in my new language symbolism as 'is'-ing), then we are dooming not only ourselves, but we are dooming humanity itself. I'll continue to make a strong distinction between power (as in, for instance, the power to vote if a democracy exists), and the authority (as in the authority to represent those who voted AND those who didn't).

I disagree with your statement that it suggests everyone is equally capable of exercising their share, just as we are not equally capable of building rockets, making music, or dissecting dogs. It's not capability that's equal, it's ownership that's equal.

You're right, I'm working on not just two projects, but ALL projects. A single, unified (and, in the end, simplistic) project. The infinite project. I'm working on the project of existence if you will, but I don't want this reply to turn into another seventeen blog entries so I'll leave out a lot of the details here{smile}!

In my particular case, you're quite right. I was installed with the 'software' of English, and to some degree the Christian-democratic worldview. I think though, that makes my own point perhaps more precisely than I have done so far. A language 'is' any other language. A view 'is' any other view. A straightline 'is' any other NOTstraightline. They simply need one common connector for co-existence. The dot. The seed. There's a reason I chose to call the theory the Binary AGREEMENT theory. If we can agree (stipulate) to just one thing (the dot), then the rest is fair game for discussion, collusion, fighting over, whatever. I'm simply in search of the 'universal' holy grail, I suppose. You're also quite right in that I know I'll have to find it inside myself as I simultaneously find in the universe. Both sides of the mirror....simultaneously. (The corollary to the theory 'is' that I've already found it, as has everyone. I'm not inventing existence!)

As you've no doubt guessed by now, my argued proposal for that slim connecting thread is going to be TOLERANCE. That doesn't by any stretch of the imagination, imply conversion. And I didn't just pick it willy-nilly out of a hatful of English words, either (let alone a hateful of words)!

Thanks for the feedback and observations. I truly appreciate them, and feel encouraged by them.

So, in the spirit of this blog, I hope you have a happy 'thoughtful' day.


Just as a further footnote, I think you'll find a list of my basic axioms outlined in the much earlier blog I wrote and linked to in this one. The link is under the words "Binary Agreement Theory (BAT)". Check it out.



I do try to read your writings, but I get lost. Never was good with Phylosophy. I can't remember from the beginning to the end anymore.

Hi daddyjarbucks:

Thanks for the comment....and not to worry about "getting lost". So do I, frequently in fact! That's not an issue. And I'm hoping you don't think of me as a philosopher...I just talk a lot about what I think about a lot. It may not make much sense to most people, but it helps me to 'get it out there', so it's outside my head, so I can then read it back 'in' myself. I appreciate the fact that you're reading what I write and let alone trying to make sense of it!

There's a whole lot of detail I want to write, but I'm afraid of getting bogged down in that too. Like Dave's comment above says....where do you start? You've both given me food for thought on sequencing these notes differently than I had first intended.

Thanks again

Glad to hear one of the readers say he was lost and your acknowledgement that you, too, sometimes get lost. I read your blog, and sometimes I think, "Am I just stupid, or what? I'm not getting this." Thanks for the reassurance.

Post a Comment

  • I'm Evydense
  • From Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  • And I'm tired of living in the shadow of narrow-mindedness and ignorance. So here's the fax, Jack! "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred and sixty-two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." - Lynne Lavner*** I'm confused; curious; satisfied; realistically resigned to being a frustrated idealist; usually at peace with myself, but not always. Amazed at how little I know, and wondering how much I need to understand.
More of Me