Most Recent Change
17 May 2019
“Having/Have/Has a Sense of Humor” was edited.
Everything that I, the author and owner of this website, have written here is my belief, so when I say that, as an example, “every negative thing isn’t . . . ,” I mean that “I believe that every negative thing isn’t . . . ”
Also, every criticism I’ve written here is directed at behaviors, not at any person, and the first person whose behaviors I’m criticizing is me. This means that when I’m criticizing hypocrisy, I’m directing my criticisms toward my own hypocrisy first.
TOPICS (↑T) in Negative Things | The Meaning of Life | Cosmic Laws | Ideas | Me
Every negative thing that I’ve written about on this page conflicts with love, which means that every negative thing isn’t aligned with love.
An empty encouragement that I’ve heard and read is “anything is possible.” This is an empty encouragement because if anything is possible, then everything becoming impossible would be possible, but I can think of a reason that everything can never become impossible:
If everything becomes impossible, then the fact that everything is impossible would be false because “everything is impossible” would also be impossible. This means that everything can never become impossible, so “anything is possible” will always be false.
An experiencist is a person who uses experiencism, which is prejudice that’s used toward one or more experiences of one or more other living things even though their chosen experience or experiences don’t interfere with anything in the life of the experiencist. An example of an experiencist is a bully because every time that I’ve thought about the actions done and/or the words spoken by a bully, including me, the person who was bullied hadn’t done anything to hurt the bully.
One of the times that I used experiencism was after I learned about the idea that food was wasted by someone who didn’t finish eating all of his/her food. This was a type of experiencism that I learned from having lived in Taiwan. The negative thing about this was that the person I used this toward didn’t even once use his chosen experience of not having eaten all of his food to interfere with anything in my life, yet I used this experiencism toward him as an attempt to cause him to feel guilt, which is also a negative thing.
Another negative thing about this type experiencism is its hypocrisy because not even once have I read or heard about this experiencism from someone who understood that the aging of a human body, as I’ve talked about on the homepage of this website, doesn’t mean an unavoidable worsening of his/her health until death.
As someone who used this experiencism, I thought that I knew what was better for someone else’s body even though I didn’t know at that time that the worsening of a human body’s health is an option. The hypocrisy of this comes from the fact that I didn’t understand this, yet I flattered myself into thinking that I knew what was better for someone else’s body when I didn’t even understand my own body. I’ve been more connected to my own body than to anyone else’s body, so how could I have known what was better for someone else’s body? My self-flattery and my arrogance were inseparable parts of my experiencism.
I used the fake “We” once when I was on a vacation with my family. Someone in my family was able to get a cabin so that everyone in my family could sleep in it during one night, but I showed my arrogance and lack of appreciation by saying something like this to my mom: “So we have no money?” What I meant by this was that “because ‘we’ have no money, this cabin was all that ‘we’ could afford.” I’ve noticed five negative things about this:
1. This was one of the dumbest and most irresponsible things I’ve said because I didn’t know whether or not someone in
my family paid to get the cabin, but what I said showed my assumption that “no money” was involved. I established a
fake connection to the knowledge of how everything was done so that everyone in my family could sleep in that cabin
when I knew nothing about how it was done.
2. I had zero jobs at that time, so I earned $0, but at least one other person in my family was earning money by working;
however, in my mind, I established a second fake connection, but this time, it was to his money as though his money
was also mine even though I did zero work to earn it.
3. I used an attitude of entitlement by thinking that I deserved better than that cabin even though I had zero jobs, and
over 50% of the time, I did zero housework, so I contributed $0 to getting this cabin. How could I have deserved better? I
4. I used guilt toward my mom even though she didn’t promise that I would be able to sleep in something that wasn’t the
cabin, but even if she had given me this promise, it wouldn’t have justified my using guilt because she would need to
have used guilt toward me first before I could justify my using guilt toward her.
5. I didn’t get anyone else’s permission to talk for any of them, yet I used this fake “We” as though I did.
I call this the fake “We” because it’s used to talk about one or more fake connections. If I use it consistently, then everyone’s money would belong to everyone else. This would mean that I could have zero jobs and do zero work, and I could still use some or all of everyone else’s money that I wouldn’t earn, and this would be aligned with love. This would also mean that I could constantly commit crimes, and the consequences of all of my negative actions would be equally distributed to everyone else, or, as an example, if 7 billion people exist on Earth, and if I earn a $7-billion debt, then it would become everyone’s responsibility to pay $1 to completely repay this debt.
Someone else could do something like this, and everyone else would suffer the consequences of this person’s actions if this fake “We” were aligned with love, but it’s not because although it exists as an idea, this fake “We” itself doesn’t exist.
I’ve heard some people, including me, in America say that they “hate” something or someone, but every time that they said it, they did nothing about the thing or person whom they said they hate. I used the word “hate” when I didn’t respect myself, but as I learn to respect myself more, I’ve started to think that hate is the opposite of love. As an example, if I love someone, then I would do all I could to protect the person, but if I could hate someone, then I would do everything I could to end the life of his/her body.
I don’t remember ever hating anything or anyone, but I’ve used a gun to kill some birds, and I’ve killed a toad by pouring some hair spray on it and then setting it on fire. Also, by living in both Taiwan and the US, I learned to act with arrogance, hypocrisy, and self-flattery to the extent that I was at least partly responsible for causing my younger brother to attempt to commit suicide because I repeatedly abused him, so when I said that I would repeatedly abuse a Taiwanese person or an American, I wasn’t just talking about it because the body of my younger brother is a mix of Taiwanese and American.
I didn’t hate the birds, the toad, or my brother, but I hurt all of them. To me, this means that if I could hate something, then I would do all I could to destroy it instead of just saying that I hate it, and if I could hate someone, then I would do all I could to end the life of his/her body instead of just saying that I hate him/her.
Hollow hate means that the word “hate” is used, but it’s used with the absence of any actions toward the thing or person who’s “hated.” This “hate” is hollow because zero action is used to prove that it exists.
I live in the United States (US), so I’ve decided to talk about the culture of hypocrisy in the US society.
In the US, both honesty and “having a sense of humor” are valued, but these two values conflict with each other because all of the people—including me—whom I’ve heard or read doing one or more of the following five things seemed to have flattered themselves into thinking that they were funny or that they “had a sense of humor”:
1. Lied about something or knowingly said something that was false and then said something such as “It’s a joke”
2. Faked a reaction of anger
3. Asked a question and then admitted knowing the answer (e.g. someone asked if water was moonshine but when given
the answer, the asker admitted to knowing that it wasn’t moonshine)
4. Said something that was false to tease another person
5. Smiled while and/or after doing one of the above
A person can’t show that he/she values honesty and “having a sense of humor” without involving hypocrisy because honesty conflicts with lying, with knowingly saying something that’s false, with faking a reaction, and with pretending to not know something. Anyone who starts to do any of the above five things while talking to someone else without having been invited to do it doesn’t “have a sense of humor”; it’s a demonstration of arrogance by showing his/her conformity to some of the lower standards of the US society.
Anytime that I did one of the above five things without having been invited to do it, I was also showing my insensitivity toward my own arrogance, hypocrisy, and self-flattery.
One other negative thing about the US society’s idea of “having a sense of humor” is that, based on my understanding of HCL, just because a person “has” a sense of humor, this doesn’t result in a positive outcome as some of the people in the US society seem to believe.
All of these negative things that I’ve talked about on this page form an unspoken pattern that I call “show-one-or-more-of-my-lower-standards-to-someone-else day.” I started to align my life with this pattern after I learned multiple negative attitudes and behaviors, such as arrogance, experiencism, hypocrisy, and self-flattery. After I did this, I brought these personal issues of mine to school or to work, and then I showed them to one or more other people as though I was adding something positive to their lives. I’ve explained an example of this under Using “Should” to Reject Multiple Results.
Under this topic, I’ve criticized only my behaviors.
In every situation, only the most relevant, existing results matter, not saying that something “should” be happening if it’s not. As an example, in 1995 or 1996, I was studying at a school in New Zealand, and I was given less homework than I was given in the US. Instead of accepting and appreciating this, I showed my pretentiousness by saying to more than one of the students in this school that more homework “should” be given.
My pretentiousness came from my arrogance, self-flattery, experiencism, and hypocrisy: I showed my arrogance by flattering myself into thinking that I knew better than all of the other people in this school (who were involved in getting or giving homework) some of the things that I thought they “should” experience even though nothing that they did or didn’t do interfered with anything in my life, yet I chose to show my experiencism by using “should” to verbally reject some of their experiences.
The hypocrisy of this was that I assigned myself the role of a leader, but I chose the role of a fake leader because I assumed the responsibility of talking about some of the things that I thought “should” be changed, yet I did nothing to change them. If I had been a true leader, then I would’ve done the following three things:
1. Realized that my wanting more homework was only my responsibility, not anyone else’s
2. Kept my mouth shut or said only one or more encouragements
3. Assigned myself more homework
My using “should” to reject multiple existing results, talking about multiple results that didn’t exist, and doing nothing to get them were all displays of my emptiness, faked confidence, faked importance, and faked maturity. If I want something to be changed, then it would please be my responsibility to please change it, not just talk about it while doing nothing to change it because in every situation, only the most relevant, existing results matter.