My adult son recently brought to my radar his growing attention to the “Negative Peace” that’s a result of compromise for order over actual justice. His 2016 awakening during the contentious presidential campaign, and evolving storyline behind the corruption surrounding the political idealism of the GOP. He’s just shy of 29, and wants a better future than the shit storm mess being delivered by previous generations and their passive perspective. I’m proud of his awareness, even if I don’t subscribe to his presentation for his principles. All that being said, it’s inspired me to think out loud about the concepts at play here. Morality and Justice are words used in our discussion, and they represent grand descriptions of how we humans exist together. They require human consciousness to support their existence. As far as we know, no other forms of life have such principles in place. The notion of right versus wrong, good opposing evil are human constructs evolving with our consciousness. Language gave birth to writing, which in turn gave life to story sharing, and ultimately social guidelines. “Law and Order” are the conscious design to combat chaos and disorder. As this dynamic has progressed, so have its affects on human emotional states. This symbiotic entwined evolution brings me to the uncovering of my understanding for all of this. I lack an emotional catalyst for wanting to know more, it’s just the way I work these days. I’m simply an observer in the respect that I search for credible interpretations and discoveries to mold my viewpoint. There’s just not an emotional component to churn my quest into an opinion. I can easily be persuaded to adjust my viewpoint, where opinions are anchored by an emotional attachment, that binds them to self awareness and identity. This I assume is connected to confidence at a very basic level. What makes some people confident and others insecure? Both can be beneficial to some degree, but both can be detrimental when they become too extreme. Arrogance and Anxiety seem to represent some measure of this point. It’s these diametrically opposed qualities that are the foundation for the social evolution of mankind.  “Morality and Justice” evolved within this evolution to deliver more beneficial opportunities to more people. Communication has enabled the better organization of even more people throughout our history. This explosion of language, storytelling, and organization is the basis for all social development. Chaos was tamed by the advent of the “Law and Order” contained within the concepts of “Justice and Morality” and thus the institutions of religion and government. God and Human rights only exist within the human conversation. This is all made possible by something humans have developed and mastered in the benefits of cooperation. Compromise isn’t unique to our species, but we have mastered it as a tool for social innovation and advancement. Sharing and teaching from that connection has empowered our species to master all other species. The fundamental basis for this evolutionary development lies in the biological mutations that gave humans the capacity of the prefrontal cortex and its rational capability to impede our primitive emotional impulses. As a result, logical determination can be processed almost instantly based upon the valence of past experiences. Identifying and aligning this understanding to promote more awareness at a similar level is what divides our species into its various social segments. Each group is organized around a story they all accept or support. This is the context for my interpretation of the world around me, and now I can explain the foundations I’ve built that upon.



My quest for understanding has always been present within me. I have a very inquisitive nature about me that craves knowledge and understanding through learning and progressing my awareness. Unfortunately, I’m much more of an audible learner in that the process of reading was a discomforting challenge as a child and young adult. Couple that with some emotional dysfunction adapted from my childhood, and my awareness came from a narrow slice of the overall spectrum. Access to the total resources available was limited by my personal circumstances. I think this is pretty much the story of everyone to some degree, and my awakening was accelerated by the innovations surrounding the internet. Up until then, the number of books I’d read from start to finish could be counted on one hand. The amount of information I could access and absorb from viewing or listening to it was limited by access to it, and my lack of discipline for pursuing it properly. As with the majority of individuals, I chose a path of hard knocks over formal education in the years following my public schooling. It did give me a chance to do some emotional healing with my Dad, and experience enough exposure to things I didn’t want to do as a career. None of that period of my life was mapped or strategically planned out to cultivate an endgame outcome. It was merely a series of reactionary events that blockchained themselves into my adult development. The residue from that process did give me the skill set to evaluate information and weigh the trade offs involved in all decision making. Combine that tool with the confidence in myself to inject my presence into the outcomes surrounding my life. This beneficial combination allows me to avoid the victim role, the quest for power at any cost, and the ability to influence my future. Hungry for knowledge and experiences overlaying the access to as much as I can consume with the touch of my finger. This story I tell erupted with the digital world. First it was audiobooks on compact discs, then evolving into an Audible.com library of over 50 books I’ve consumed in just the past 6 years, not to mention the hundreds of TedTalks, podcasts, and documentaries I’ve watched and listened too. I measure the credibility of the author, researcher, or presenter for their background, professional acknowledgment, and degree of outspokenness in sharing their story. It doesn’t require a license to write a book, record a podcast, or produce a video. Freedom of speech allows expression of all kinds as long as it doesn’t violate the premises of truth. Even then, there’s no monitoring agency other than public opinion for reigning in its presence. Filtering and qualifying information as credible or not depends solely on the individual now. The notion of absolutes with regards to concepts relying on human consciousness to exist are becoming increasingly more diverse in their contextual applications. “Rights and Laws” pertaining to justice are more complex than ever before, as well they should be given the exponential increase in overall complexity of humanity. Distillling all of the information into your story is all about you and your ability to process life. This really fucks with the tribalism in play within the first part of this piece. Ideological structure doesn’t need independent thinkers. Believers are the preferred prospect for forming a following. They tend to be lead around easier than those suspicious independent types. That pretty much summarizes the foundation I build my story from. What my views of the varying stories supporting the various  groups of individuals is a bit more complex. 



Which system is the best way to govern groups of individuals is a constant source of debate, with no real objective way to measure it. I’m not an expert in any field that would give me the credibility to suggest such. This is precisely where the debate turns into an emotional shit show where all the various characters involved in trying to influence everyone not with them they are totally wrong in their ideology. With any concept that maintains such an extreme level of difficulty in proving, the arguments are all over the place. Understanding that knowledge is accumulative, the optimal process may still lie in waiting to be developed. The Roman Empire spanned nearly 1500 years, and was eventually dismantled for some accepted improvement. Democracy has its challenges, with socialism struggling to overcome the corruption associated with a Communist application. I’m not sure we’ve reached a utopian equilibrium for social order. Does existing within this “Negative Peace” absent of engagement constitute free riding, or should everyone throw themselves into the fray? I find very few constructive arguments taking place between individuals with a high enough understanding of what’s at hand, and who don’t belong to an existing political agenda. This is where the various tribes overlap just enough at the margins to form slight alliances sometimes resembling order, until the grab for power overwhelms cooperation and order is challenged. The one thing I’m confident in is that all of this evolved absent of a master plan, and is carried forward by the innate good nature that’s the biological foundation of our species. The need to cooperate exceeds our capacity to destroy. The innovations of technology and our inquisitive nature have accelerated our understanding of the human brain, and thus our consciousness so much in just the past two decades, we have to re-evaluate our perspectives drawn from what was accepted as the truth before. Decoupling the comfort of what was assumed and challenging it with a new norm is about the most difficult concept an aged society can undertake. It’s going to be a painstakingly slow transformation, and here we are back at the fucked up mess left for a young generation to deal with. Time for some fresh faces with fresh ideas to tackle this divide...



Fact of the business is I do have an idea for improving the current circumstances. Making enough people aware of it to launch a movement is the only challenge to lifting it to reality. That’s exactly the same challenge every new idea faces. Big stories take time to complete from concept to implementing. Truth is I spend a considerable amount of my waking moments gathering the fuel for my understanding and developing that into a story where more people thrive and not just simply exist. Honing my skills for delivering and inspiring a story with a different outcome best describes the present state of this involvement. Rest assured, I’m driven to create beneficial change involving the lives of more people everywhere. 




President George H.W. Bush  

June 12, 1924 - November 30, 2018


   "No problem of human making is too great to be overcome by human ingenuity, human energy, and the untiring hope of the human spirit."


I believe the man behind the imagery of his achievements represents the essence of what we define and identify with as character. That feeling comes to me as I reflect on my life during the influence of this man. George Bush was committed to guiding this country through the ever increasing complexity of a world in transition. My awareness wasn’t nearly as evolved as it is today, so blindly benefiting from the leadership of others was my existence. Awakening into a world transformed in my thirties, the fingerprints of President Bush were all around. Communism was this emotional weight from my earliest memories, and watching it’s threat to my mere existence was a part of everyday life in some form or fashion. There was a sense of relief when it collapsed throughout Eastern Europe and Russia. While not fully responsible for the fall of Soviet Communism, his participation was endeared into my memories. The idea of two opposing ideologies possessing the capacity to end the human race with the push of a button was incredibly disturbing to me as a child. Conceptualizing the understanding that me and everything around me was extinguishable with no consideration for what that meant to me was a dark cloud. The complete regression away from that confrontation was a profound moment in time for those of us affected by its threat. Facilitating this epic event ties this man to my life for the end of my days.  


“ truth


  1. the quality or state of being true."he had to accept the truth of her accusation"synonyms:veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candor, honesty; More

  2. that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.noun: the truth"tell me the truth"synonyms:what actually happened, the case, so;More

    3. a fact or belief that is accepted as true.plural noun: truths"the emergence of scientific truths"synonyms:fact, verity, certainty, certitude; More


    The truth is never an objective reality. There are no physical components within the universe verifying its existence. Truth is a human quality, that varies with culture, beliefs, and ideology. The only basis supporting any value with its existence is the community holding it up for proclamation to everyone else. It has to be a story worthy of telling to an audience willing to listen, and capable of believing. When placed within this magnifying context, the construction becomes very similar to what we identify as unverified gossip. This correlation between truth and gossip develops around the individual as they sort through the emotional context for how they receive their information. The reality is most humans are emotionally driven decision making beings. Identifying the appropriate instances for where emotions are relevant is as alien to the vast majority of people as quantum physics is to a first grader. I constantly test this theory by telling people I engage in discussions with some of the facts I’ve discovered from my reading, that I find profoundly enlightening. Their response constantly tells the story of how hearing something that creates that emotional dilemma gets denial instead of intrigue within the individual. Case in point, I informed my mom during a conversation about WWII that research discovered only about 20% of combat solders actually fired their weapons at the enemy. Her immediate response was “I don’t believe that”, to which I quantified the statement with the source of my information. She simply dismissed all of it in disbelief because it cut through her understanding of what she believed. She couldn’t offer any research supporting an opposing viewpoint, or anything tangible to suggest an alternative assumption. She simply didn’t like what I said and how it made her feel. We moved the conversation beyond that sticking point without a heated discussion about the validity of my commentary, but often times people not respecting another’s alternative viewpoint deteriorate into an emotional state of disagreement. Sound familiar? The spectrum of individual awareness is wide from the perspective of its extremes, supporting the notion of how functional Literacy is distributed throughout society. The awareness of someone proficient in this capacity is greatly enhanced comparatively to someone who’s Literacy capacity is only basic. This dichotomy supports the the wide range of any truth as perceived by a group of human beings. The size of the group supporting an accepted understanding is all too often the decisive factor for acceptance. So, if a large group of individuals with a similar capacity of awareness accept something emotionally appealing as their beliefs, it becomes convenient for others to bind to that belief without rationalization of why. This is precisely the mechanism behind all ideology. Now we have the majority with less than proficient awareness holding up the belief systems of a community, culture, society, or nation state. Here in lies the dysfunction of Democracy and what is present in today’s “Left vs. Right” confrontation. 



The content of any truth must also be analyzed in comparison to the broader perspective of its context. A narrowing of perspective into a generalization is the go to methodology for that majority I continually reference. Oversimplification of a concept gives those with a lesser capacity for awareness the emotional comfort of a quasi understanding, meaning their beliefs attain some level of relevant support. “How I interpret something compared to the mainstream...” It must be the truth because everyone else believes it to be, or at least those who are present in my life. Think it’s an accident that like minded individuals connect and congregate into clusters of similar held truths? This behavior is supported by at the very least 100,000 years of social evolution, where we followed those around us to survive. Truth is extremely relative to the tribe supporting its presence. Tolerance for questioning these tribal assumptions wasn’t widely tolerated until the advent of Democracy into the social structure. This adoption of collective scrutiny opened the floodgates for human discoveries and development. Today, it’s growth and opportunity within its umbrella are what’s being challenged by the social consequences of avoiding the solution to our problems, in lieu of focusing on the symptoms. We simply lack the adequate distribution of enough individuals with the capacity to create innovative change. Our biggest impact is only pacifying the burgeoning expansion of the basic and below perspectives. There has to be an extreme sacrifice for a delayed benefit from a group, who may not accept their realization of their reality. Overcoming this emotionally charged argument, and lifting the future benefits above the immediate needs, is the most epic realization for a generation that’s never been forced into such stark introspection. Accepting the truth facing them is where the battle is being played out. Only now can we identify the importance of qualifying what the truth actually represents. Blending one truth into another and have it express the same valence to those who hold it to be self evident is the dilemma. Merging multiple truths into one requires a shit ton of compromise by everyone involved and affected. If it traverses multiple generations, then it’s complexity  compounds exponentially, as well as with cultural divergence. The shift away from the dogmatic constraints of a previous realization to the rocket like explosion into the new reality will represent the ultimate challenge to our extinction. Our inability to create social change at anywhere near the same pace as technological influences will not allow our species to provide enough benefits fast enough to offset the social detriment associated with human expansion. The change I’m identifying has to happen if we are to survive as a species. 



Agreement of truth and acceptance of whatever sacrifices that reflects postulates the notion we can do better than what we see around us today. Is this as good as it gets? I don’t get too riled about how this reads, nobody fucking reads it anyway. The point I’m trying to make here is that across the spectrum of all the collective interpretations of all the groups of people in the world today, no single truth reigns supreme as “The Truth”. Science probably comes the closest to reaching this nirvana, but even there lies conflicting disagreements about details. The basis for developing a unified understanding is built on the foundation of accepted principals of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. The open ended aspects of these disciplines allow for their constant updating by those exploring their domains. This openness to change offers the capacity for advancing all who follow, and creates the incentives for everyone engaged to participate in furthering the understanding of everyone. Contrast these dynamics to the sluggish dogmatic social groups we’ve referenced throughout this piece. Advancement only reaches the upper layers, and is never fully integrated throughout the populations of any specific group. The only possibility of improvement lies within the development of a higher level of acceptance through a collective shift in understanding what’s truly beneficial, and what’s emotional clinging to irrelevant comfort. The path of least resistance lies with the children. Shaping and molding their perspectives is the best opportunity. Extraction of benefits while diminishing the contamination of cultures is the challenge there. What feels right versus what promotes individual growth.



  #change #truth