Study Guide

Some have been enquiring as to why at the end of a lot of my posts I write “Solus Sum” and what it means. It’s a Latin term for “I am alone”. Noel one day asked me what it meant to me. So this is what I am writing. What it means to ME. Amidst all of these self proclaimed prophets and other would be or want to be Nostradamus soothsayers, the topic of “Judgment Day” have been coming up quite often. And in several arguments with hardcore Christians, I wind up bringing this up. In life no matter what you do, you are the person who must do it and have chosen to do it. For example, lets say your driving to a friend’s house or something. You come to see one of the roads to get to your destination is blocked. It can be said that its out of ones control…or is it? You can sit their and pine about it all day, never getting anywhere, you can go back home, however wasting time, or you can take another way there. But this other way may be a bit more risky, a lot of blind intersections and all that, where Semis have a tendency of flying through without looking. But it just means that you can be a bit more aware of your surroundings and mindful of your driving, or say piss all and drive like an absent minded piss-at and put your life in the hands of “Fate”. But here is the thing about “Fate” or “Luck” and all that hokey stuff. Whenever you have a chance of “Luck” or whatever saving grace, means do not expect it to happen again. Next time, you can almost bet you will be dead broke…or just dead. So, it is up to YOURSELF, to take your life out of the hands of “Fate” or “God” or what have you, and start making things happen for yourself.

If you want a job, instead of praying to Allah that you get a job to the one place you sent in your application to, send out an application everywhere that fits what you may want, and make your resume sharp. All the praying in the world is not going to get you that job if you have typos on the one resume you sent out to the largest law firm in the country. And if you do not get the job, do not blame it on the dog, your wife or what have you. You, it was you. But this does not have to be a curse. Stand up, and get ready for the interview for the other job…that you might like more anyway. And when you get the job, you get the promotion, it was YOU, and YOU made it happen. Take responsibility for when you screw up; take responsibility for when something good happens. Some one can tell you to do something, but YOU have to do it.

I have made mistakes in my past, and I accept that, and I do not see any reason to condemn myself for it to even be forgiven. What is done is done, now its time to act. Nor do I feel I have to get on my knees to pray to a deity to forgive me either. Nor will I in the future. With full knowledge of the consequences of my actions before being taken, or even getting me in the situation, I accepted whole-heartedly the consequences. Good and bad. I know well and right and even then in the future, I did what I not just thought, but KNEW, it was the best I could do with that situation. So knowing that I did the best I can, I do not need to forgive myself, nor do I have to throw myself at the mercy of someone else, or the divine for forgiveness. I can and will live by it, and I will die by it. So if the Christians are right, and when I get to the gates of judgment, and am told to go to the Underworld of Hades for eternity because I did not pray to the god that “they” say I should, I won’t go screaming and clawing for them to take me, instead I will run full sprint into the great fires. For I know, that I did my best for the greater good of all life, I lived a productive life, in the name of “I” and the “Tao”, lived my life to my fullest capacity, and with full knowledge of possible consequences, I brought this on myself, and am proud of it. I found my own guidance, in myself and within All that is life. But I feel too many people condemn themselves before being judged fairly before the eyes of All. Their ideals of what is “good” and correct is only that which comes from what they read, or see on the TV. They have imprisoned themselves in a mental Hell for something that is of little significance. I am now free of guilt and will be free of guilt. When I have been dealt the worst possible hand, I made the best out of it…and lost as least out of it as possible, if not winning even still despite the odds. So as some would say, “the only fate is what we make” I have made my own fate and will continue to do so. I have no crosses to carry, just life to live, and an afterlife that to me that will be my reward for my efforts. But if the naysayers to what I do are right, then bring on the fires, for I am of water. I will adapt, as I have in life, so I shall in death.

Humanity has imprisoned itself on a convoluted ostentatious stage. Their illusions of grandeur have convinced themselves that they are irreplaceable. The unseen directors have herded them into their categorical roles in which they have specialized themselves to the point they are genetically created as servers of that role. However, this absent minded focus in their one role has rendered themselves the opposite. In the face of change, they crumble under the pressure; they hold-out and rebel. They feel their lives are in jeopardy when the famous star must become a supporting actor, when the hero must become the villain, or when they must not be seen yet still heard for the story line to flow as necessary.

Some are too slow witted to be able to improvise or improvise their roles, so instead they sit apathetically waiting for the script. Too lazy to be able to define themselves, they expect the answers to come down from the heavens. This state of malaise is the reason why the story never flows or why the there is never the “happy ending”. These very people are the same ones who complain that the story does not go the way they would like it to. As the old saying goes, “It is easier to point a finger then to lend a helping hand”. They are pathetic armchair enthusiasts who have become rooted to their recliner. Instead of trying to change the story themselves, they insist on complaining, but their complaints fall on deaf ears. There is no director or producer behind the cameras and the lights trying to create a dramatic tale. This is a comedy! Egotistical actors who are too stubborn to bend in their roles, dim-witted and slothful actors too lazy to attempt to change what they feel are wrong. No, instead the directors are sitting comfortably watching the action ensue from afar.

The truth is the denizens of the stage are mere puppets. They have no real, genuine memories, but those that are fed to them in the scripts. And even those memories, are but a lie. It is only the improvisers are the ones who are willing to change the story as they see fit, are the ones closest to the truth. They have no fear of being written out of the story, because they know there is no “real” story. They ultimately choose whether they wish to continue in this tragic comedy of a play, or reduce their role to something that is even beyond the eyes of the invisible director, or the audience that does not exist. They do not have the fear that the other actors have. There is no need to specialize in one aspect of the story, for it will only limit your roles on stage. There is no need to be fearful of being removed from the story. As sadistic and cynical as it sounds, the show cannot go on without their favorite puppets to abuse, even if it only comes down to one of them. Fear, fear is merely a blindfold to keep humans incapable of ever comprehending the truth. Over come fear and the truth can be seen, found and held. Succumbing to fear simply keeps you wandering blindly about the stage, with no memory or idea of who you really are inside but what you are told, and turns you away from the truth. If you turn your back from the truth, you remain nothing more than a puppet.

It's interesting how pursuing self-interest is viewed as a 'dark' thing, really. Alright, some do say that people help others out of self-interest or at least to make themselves feel better, what could be also viewed as egotistic, to some degree, but that argument devolves into generalised statements how 'everything is done for the ego', although that can't be really proven, since it's making statements about our deepest urges and motivators without any real proof, so, in the end, you can either accept it or not.

Anyway, I always had a strange belief that codes of honour and ethics could be explained in terms of self-interest. Many ethic codes were useful at some time, not nessecarily useful for everyone, but certainly useful for people who installed them. These codes do not grow obsolete on their own; either the interest group which was endorsing them loses interest in doing so, or another interest group starts installing a new one, for their own needs. The church's ideologies didn't vanish because people thought better ( or worse ) of them, they vanished because there were new ideologies propagated by new powers. Money, a new deity, didn't emerge because people thought it was a good idea, it emerged because someone, something, profits from it. Masses still follow the dominant ideology, the dominant code of ethics; not because they thought of it and said "oh, this is good", definitely. And, definitely, someone profits from them doing so. However, relations between ethics and profits aside, let's embark on a little experiment. It's not mine, of course, I can't be arsed to do anything like that, being a slacker I am, I stole it from somewhere.

The belief that the relationships of people or groups are competitive, where one side gains on the expense of the others, is firmly entrenched into the minds of many. Often it's compared to playing chess or other board games. If you've played risk, you'll remember that you gain territory by taking it from others. Monopoly, you earn money on the expense of others, mostly. Indeed, in these games with set rules, it's very hard to do things otherwise, and the rule that you gain only so much as the other looses is preety much correct. It's very interesting to see how most opponents of pursuing self-interest are in fact opposed to this, to the competitive (instead of a solidary one) attitude towards others. Of course, many people who claim to be interested only in profiting themselves take that attitude, without really thinking twice.

However, I think it's plain that relationships between people, competition between political parties, relations between countries are far more complex and cannot be explained by that simple 'I win, you lose.' theory. An old example is found in the classic "Prisoner's dillema". Two suspects, let's call them A and B, for the same crime are held in separate cells, without any ability to communicate. The prosecution offers both suspects a deal; if they testify against the other one ( we'll call this option 'cheating', since it is ), they go free, and the other one gets 5 years of prison. If they both testify against the other, they both get 4 years of prison. If both of them refuse to testify, both of them get 2 years of prison.

The paradox of this dillema is, basically, this: Egotistic self interest and logical thinking tells us to cheat. However, it's only reasonable to expect that the other person will cheat, too, using the same line of thinking. On the other hand, your egotistic self-interest would profit much more from cooperation. Still, how do you get people to cooperate? After all, criminals aren't very famous for moral... eh, how are they called.... ah, scrupules, although in this particular example they could surely use some. It also gives us some insight on why is cheating punished in society. Then again, maybe not. Who punishes the state for cheating poor criminals?

Also, it's a great way to describe trade. Imagine this situation; Two smugglers agree to meet on a certain place, exchanging drugs for money. They exchange their goods without really checking what's inside the coffers. Anyway, the option of cheating is clearly there. If one of them cheats and the other chooses to cooperate, he earns, say, 100 thousand and the other loses 20. If both of them cheat, neither of them earns anything. If both of them cooperate, both of them earn 20 thousand.

The rule is, basically, that profit from cheating is greater then the profit if both cooperate, which is greater then the profit if they both cheat, which is greater then the profit if you cooperate and the other cheats you.

Things get really interesting when this sort of exchange repeats itself more times. Then, the one-time profit you get from cheating is dwarfed by the long-term profit from cooperation. They lose out not through some kind of punishment for cheating, but through not being able to participate in the exchange again. Eventually, the strategy which is based on cooperation, in the long term, wins through and kills off other strategies.

A good example of this was an experiment conducted by Robert Axelrod in 1979. Competitors, of course, were computer programs, and the goal was simple; to gather as many points as possible using the following rules: Each program plays 200 times in a row against every other program. The program can choose either cooperation or cheating; for cheating the other, it gets 5 points, and the other 0 points, if both cooperate, both get 3 points, if they both cheat, they both get 1 point.

The winner, to nearly everyone's suprise was the smallest program, called "eye for an eye", by Anatol Rapoport. How did it operate? Simply, each time it started 'trading' with a competitor, it started with cooperation; if the opponent cheated, it would cheat the opponent next turn. If the opponent started cooperating again, it would revert to cooperation. It was the best program, by far. Why?

There are three really important traits of good programs; First, that it was a program which cooperated by default. In fact, only cooperative programs, which started off on a good note, got the good scores.

Second, it has the ability to quickly react to cheating and penalize it. This is important, as programs which have acted independently of the the other's actions haven't done very well, either. It reacted to cheating promptly. Programs which had complex algorithms which didn't seem to respond as quickly and efficently to cheating didn't do too good, either.

Third, the ability to forgive, or, in terms of the experiment, to resume cooperation after the other competitor stopped cheating, has also shown to be crucial. Ploughing on with the conflict after the other party doesn't want to pursue it, isn't really sound behaviour, according to mathemathics, at least.

Similar experiments were conducted later; and, almost every time, the winner was the 'eye for an eye' program. No program without the abovementioned three traits got to the top.

Even more significant was the 'evolution tournament' which composed of a series of Axelrod's tournaments. The number of 'offspring' of the programs was determined proportionally to the number of points scored in the last tournament. The goal was to determine what kind of programs will, in such a simulation of evolution, survive. Almost all of the survivors were 'cooperative' programs. The best program was 'eye for an eye', which didn't win by defeating others; it always scored equal or less points then the other program, but it couldn't be cheated without repercussions, it won by enforcing cooperation.

Cooperation, punishment and forgiveness may or may not be viewed as ethical; however, they can be, in most cases, very profitable. It may be that it's viewed as ethical just because it's in our interest to do so. However, this is an interesting example how behavior based on pure self-interest might be seen as behaviour based on ethics, although it isn't. It also provokes questions, like "Could it be that the world's dominant codes of ethics today are dominant exactly because they're based on pure interests which value nothing else but profit of some kind?", or, like "Could it mean that people ( parties, countries, etc... ) we see as moral authorities are behaving the way they are only because they profit from it, and, if the cirrumstances were different, would stop doing so only because it's not profitable anymore?"

There are a lot of questions which I can't even be bothered to state right now which are raised here, but, my final point would be that cooperation wasn't invented because it was ethical or morally sound; it was invented because it was, and still is in your interest ( financial or otherwise ) to cooperate. At least most of the time.

There is a fine art I'd like to introduce you to, definitely one of the crucial skills in life. The art of persuasion. Call it whatever you'd like; manipulation, communication, I don't care, but, basically, it amounts to talking someone else into doing something for you. Living mostly consists of interacting with other people, especially today, when your future depends on someone else in so many occasions.

Think about it, there are hordes of people who've got power over you. A simple clerk might cause a world of problems to you merely because they got up on the wrong foot that morning. An uncooperative cop might take your driver's license because you were hurrying to work ( there's always a few unbribeable idiots who don't know what's good for them ). A professor might give you a bad grade which might stop you from getting on university. You might get in an absurd argument with your loved one over something completely trivial, but resulting in a break up. The list goes on...

You see, the problematic part of people's behaviour is that they're acting based on subjective factors. After all, a human brain doesn't operate like a computer program with has a 'yes' or 'no' state. When you employ a human to do work for you, it's not like using a computer program, which focuses all of its attention on doing the task; a human stays a human. Meaning a cop isn't only a cop, he's also a human being with all the drives and prerogatives of one. If it wasn't like that, talking would be next to pointless. It's part that enables you to convince them into things that don't make sense, really. Each person is a case of its own, with their own psychological profile, and you have to take note of this when dealing with folks. Alright, with most people you meet, you won't have the time to studiously analise them, but you can learn a lot as you talk, or from stories from other people, and there's always intuition which's usually a good judge, for a start.

Any regulation, law or rule is as strict as the people enforcing it are.

People always turn out to be the weak links. If you menage to find someone's 'buttons', you can get people to do things for you (not to be confused with 'bottoms', which can also get people to do many things to you, too.). Push the 'buttons' in another way, you can piss them off or drive them crazy. I'll concentrate on the first one, because it's damn useful.

Most cases where you might need to manipulate people are cases where you screwed up, or want something you have no 'right' to get, or want someone to do things you are supposed to do. At least that's what would usually happen to me, I'd screw up and couldn't get something through official channels anymore.

It's very hard to define rules for manipulating people, because there are no rules, since you're dealing with different individuals and have to be flexible. Still, there are some pointers which are true in most of the cases.

First thing you must know is that 90% of the communication when you're talking to someone is non-verbal. This means that actual words carry only 10% of the message. The way you say it, that is, punctuation, tone, speed, voice, carries about 30% of the message. Body language does the rest. This is important, because if your body and voice are saying "get me out of here!" there's a good chance they won't even listen to your words, to what you're trying to say. It's important to project confidence. I mean, not act it like a bad actor, because that kind of things puts people off, but project it. It's really funny to watch nervous people try to be confident.

Anyway, here's a list of tips and tricks. Now, they don't all work in every situation, and which approach to use, when, etc.. is up to you to decide based on the situation you're faced with. There's no definitive way which always works.

I - Arrogance is for the inside. Be assertive, yes, by all means, but don't be arrogant to people. I'm not saying you can't be arrogant on the inside, but using it in most cases isn't going to get you anywhere. That is, except in special occasions when arrogance might win the day, what usually requires something to be arrogant about, too.

II - Be on the nice and polite side. Isn't a working tactic in all situations, but it's a good approach. Smile.

III - Relax. No worries. There's nothing to worry about. You and me are going to solve this all.

IV - Don't back off just like that, be persistent. This can work, if you can be enough of a pain in the arse to make them do anything just to get you off their necks.

V - If you ask people for information or services ask in a way that will inflate their ego if they know the answer. Simple trick, really. For example, you want information on something, you start talking about it in their presence. Make them feel like they're in the presence of a knowledgeable person, and they'll strive to prove how much do they know. People have a need to tell confidental things to make themselves feel knowledgeable. Use this. They'll even offer to do things for you to prove they can do them. Absurd, yes, useful, yes ;)

VI - If you've screwed up, don't take it seriously. Belittle your mistake, make a joke out of it, if possible. This way you won't let others take them seriously. Just be subtle about it. Saying 'it's no big deal' will more likely then not provoke a discussion, and they'll start telling you it is a big deal.

VII - You can also admit the mistake, express your regret, and quickly go on, saying you'll never do it again. Don't dwell on it in any case. Saying you'll never do it again kinda helps them get over it easier, what's, in any case, good. Of course, this means admitting you've done it, and there are cases when you can't afford to admit it.

VIII - Act like they already accepted your proposal. Heh heh. You can either do this with a trick question, or by making comments. You see, make it seem self-understood you'll get what you want, basically, but ask ( or start talking ) about details. If you ask people will they do something for you, it's much less likely they'll do it then if you IMPLY they'll do it for you. Just don't make it obvious, because they might figure out what you're trying to do and get suspicious.

IX - Try to look for I win, you win solutions. Everybody likes them.

X - If someone's selling you a lot of hogwash, ask for detailed explanations like 'How does this profit me?', 'How can you do it?'. If someone's trying to BS you, they usually don't have the facts to support it, and will give indecisive answers, trying to answer without saying anything. Bloody obvious, you know? Just insist on the detailed answer, don't get carried away by replying to misleading ones.

xI - Charm people. Doesn't get much simpler then that, does it? Just don't make it obvious, because a lot of people don't like it when you're sucking up, but everyone likes a charmer. Like me ;)

XII - Find a common enemy. You know, a joint attack on a common enemy brings people together. No better way to make a homogenous group then finding, or installing, a common enemy. Also, you can use a verbal 'attack' on a common enemy because of x charateristic they have to imply you don't have it. Choosing sides, you know? ( It's very disgusting to see how people slander others when these aren't around. I assume they're using the stated tactic subconsciously, because having a common enemy bonds people together. This kind of speculation is really interesting, because it tells you a bit about the psychology of people who just HAVE to malign someone. )

Anyway, this would be enough tips from ME. What I'd like you folks to do is to make your own. Invent new tactics, practice and improve existing ones, write them down, think of examples. Try analyzing who says what for what reason. All I said is rather useless if you just read it and say 'this is good'. If you think something there is a load of shite and why, then say it, put it up for discussion, because that way we can all learn, and that's what we are here for anyway.