Since the dominant beliefs that underlie the official socio-economic system are in denial of the principles of epistemology, denial of the principles of language is a requirement to psychologically sustain the revered fallacies. This is the purpose and function of word games. Word games are language usage that does not conform to reality. Since the language usage does not conform to reality, what is being said or written is a lie or fallacy. A lie is usually thought of as deliberate deception whereas a fallacy is often believed by the promoters to be true. In either event, the purpose (conscious or subconscious) is to deceive others or self.
As opening observation, on any given day how many times do you hear or read the term, ought, or, the term, should? What do they mean? Do they connect to objective reality? If so, how? If an individual is to achieve a specific goal, the individual MUST apply appropriate means. Obviously, ought is not a scientific term. So, where does the term come from - and where does it come in? Look to the admonition, "ought to obey God's will" to reveal source and meaning of the term, ought. It is simply an expression of personal preference imagined to be a universal value. The idea that anyone can actually disobey nature is, of course, a contradiction. The ought itself indicates the subjective reference for the term. That which is objective is. There is no "ought" involved. "Ought" has no objective support other than subjective personal valuation.
The most damaging word games are those necessary to promote the illusion, confusion, intrusion, contradictions, and self-delusion in the prevailing philosophy of rule. Few seek to look at the philosophy exposed by removing all the non-definitive rhetoric and connecting it to the real. Without these word games, the truth is laid bare and the philosophy loses much of its appeal; indeed, I submit that without these word games, the philosophy of rule would disappear altogether.
Since definition and denotation connect to reality by entity identity, playing word games requires the dismissal of definition, denotation, and entity identity in favor of interpretation, connotation, and non-identity. There are millions upon millions who constantly play these word games as a matter of philosophical course. For the most part, believers actually believe what they are saying. The problem is that they don't know what they are saying. They are simply floating along with emotions and imagining these emotions to be objective reality. They are completely oblivious to the deception (self and others) and most are bent on staying that way lest the truth disturb preferred self image. As an excellent representative example, lets look at an item from a junior college text book that is alleged to explain the American political system. It asks the question:
"WHAT IS GOVERNMENT"
The text offers this as answer:
"The words 'government', 'politics', 'power', and 'democracy' ought to be clearly defined. The difficulty is that political scientists, philosophers, and kings have never been able to agree entirely on the meanings of these terms."
"Ought?" Notice that the "definition and meaning" of the term, government, is dependent upon subjective agreement. Duly note the inference and significance of the inference: In this thinking, definition is not connected to anything objective and fixed, nor do the believers see any need to do so. "Definition" is totally dependent upon subjective preference and declaration. This means that the "definition" of a term can vary infinitely between individuals and within the individual choice of each. Thus the "meaning" of a term can change a thousand times in the space of a few minutes. How is this idea of definition going to work in practice? Keep in mind, this is the usual thinking and attitude that saturates the social and philosophical environment and is evidenced in word games without end.
The text continues:
"The ancient Greek philosopher Plato and his pupil Aristotle speculated on their meaning, and the process has continued up to the present day. Bearing in mind that no universal or perfect definition exists, we can still discuss the words and arrive at a general concept of what they mean."
No definition exists? General concept? In continuing confusion, vagueness, and evasion, the text book states:
"Even in a primitive society, some form of government exists. A tribal chief emerges with authority over others and makes decisions, perhaps in consultation with the elders of the tribe. The tribal leader is governing."
"Emerges" - How "emerges?" Did the tribal chief just suddenly rise up out of the sea or ground with unexplained "authority" to govern? What precisely does it mean to govern? In the next paragraph, the author gets very close to the truth, but dances around it with non-definition and more word games:
"Government, then, even in a modern industrial state, can be defined on a simple level as the individuals, institutions, and process that makes rules for society and possesses the power to enforce them."
Thus government is "defined" as individuals (real entities), institutions (abstract mental inventions) and process (mental and physical action) making rules for "society" (abstract) and possessing the power to enforce the rules (offensive physical action). Real individuals are mentally and verbally lumped with abstracts as cause and beneficiary of enforced rules. Getting very close to the truth, but in continuing evasion via an "infinite entity", the text states:
"In short, government makes the rules to decide who gets what of valued things in a society."
Observe the common practice of positing "government" as a causal entity, an "infinite entity." Since government and society are abstracts, not causal or beneficiary entities, this leaves an individual or individuals to fill in as fact where fiction was before. To rewrite in step with reality: "In short, some individual or individuals make rules to decide who get what of valued things; i.e., to decide whose will will prevail." Relate this to the "power to enforce" and you're closing in on the meaning of the term, government. Where did "they" get the "power to enforce"? >From the "will of the people", of course - another abstract. However, the text inadvertently exposes the truth of the matter:
"A century ago, Boss Tweed, the leader of Tammany Hall, the Democratic party machine in New York City, reportedly expressed a simple, cynical philosophy: 'The way to have power is to take it'."
Cynical or not, this is the truth of the matter. It is actually the "law of the jungle" with intellect used only to "justify" the predatory action. In support of this truth, it is also worthy of note that this textbook says that "Power is the possession of control over others." In other words, it is ownership of others. Thus even after the truth is laid bare, it is ignored and the status quo and supporting word games go on and on.
For all the sidestepping, dance arounds, word games, and confused rhetoric, the term government is easily defined; not by subjective agreement, but by reference to objective reality and the actual entities involved. First, we know that there is no such thing as an infinite entity and that the term, government, necessarily denotes a relationship. The actual entities involved are human individuals. The base options of relationships between individuals are non-initiation of force and non-coercion, or initiation of force and coercion. It makes no difference how many different subjective labels are put upon the situation, the objective fact remains that at the root of it all, these are the only two options. The former is in recognition of the individual as a self-owned entity. The latter is based on the idea of an individual being the property of an "infinite entity"; which is the "justification" for rule by the individuals who hide behind the abstracts and exercise their will to dominate and control all others.
The subjective and arbitrary labels arbitrarily associated with government such as democracy, socialism, communism, etc. are purely for the purpose of self-delusion. Although form of implementation may vary and some versions start closer to ultimate self-destruction than other versions, the common and identifying objective content of each and every one is initiation of force and coercion. Millions may volunteer for such an anti-social system and play self-deluding word games for the sake of preferred self-image, but all the pretense in the world and "definitions by agreement" will not erase the truth about government, nor prevent the certain violent consequences of initiation of force and coercion.
Fallacies propagated and promoted by word games are easily detected by a constant mental reference to the principles of epistemology and corresponding principles of language usage. After a while, it becomes mental reflex. Unfortunately, most are so psychologically caught up in the fallacies and the word games scene that they have no idea that such references exist. Nevertheless, whenever you hear or see an "infinite entity" posited as a volitional, valuing, causal being, you can safely bet your last peso that a con is going on. In fact, since word games are part and parcel of the prevailing backwards epistemology and confused philosophy of "abstract entities", the con is always going on. Behind every mythical "volitional and valuing abstract" is a real individual bent on imposing his(her) will.
When a politician proposes to "get the country moving again", what does it mean? Nothing really, but it does have appeal to "patriotism and national pride" and emotionally connects the politician with those he is trying to convince. When a campaigning politician says that he will "create jobs", how is this promise to be translated into action? What do you suppose would happen if one required the politician to explain just exactly how he proposes to create the jobs? Suppose that in his explanation, he is not allowed to posit abstracts as beings. What then would be his answer? How is a job created? There are two ways: Free market or non-market.
Free market method: In addition to providing for his immediate needs, an individual works and produces something of value to another individual. The other individual does the same. A voluntary trade is made. Each, in effect, creates a job for the other on the basis of production and free market supply and demand. Isn't it amazing how rarely that one hears of voluntary trade and mutual exchange for mutual benefit?
Non-market, i.e., political method: A politician does not produce commodity goods or services, and has no production of his(her) own to trade. He (she) "creates jobs" by confiscation and allocation of what others produce. This may be done by distribution of tax dollars, subsidies, grants, regulatory legislation, etc. In all cases, it is the use of initiation of force or coercion favoring some at the expense of others. (If you stole a million dollars and spent it, wouldn't you be increasing demand and "creating jobs" in the area of your spending no less than the area chosen by a politician? Why is it illegal for you to do that which is the paid profession of a politician?)
This truth about market intervention is obscured by the word games placing abstracts as cause and beneficiary. The reality of the individual as cause and beneficiary is buried under all the abstract rhetoric that is common to the prevailing epistemology and philosophy. As horrible as economic intervention is, word games have an even more directive and sinister effect in other areas. Mind manipulation by word games is the mainstay of the prevailing socio-economic system. I am not talking about consciously deliberate superficial and transient effects. I am referring to subconscious mind programming that is a near universal practice embraced and endorsed by nearly all. While the conscious teaching of subservience is bad enough, it is the logically derived subliminal directives that lock in the concepts and carry them to their maximum destructive potential. By reference to mind principles, let's analyze a highly visible and popular belief as representative illustration: The Pledge of Allegiance.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
What exactly is taught by this pledge? Philosophically and psychologically, what does it mean for a person to pledge allegiance to a flag; not just any flag, but the symbolic representation of the United States? Why allegiance to this flag and this country? Why not Canada, England, Mexico, or all the others? Why swear allegiance at all? What's the purpose? There is no point to the pledge to a specific flag except to segregate. There is no point in segregating unless the U.S. is considered superior to the others. There is no preference in equal valuations. The lesson subliminally taught is that Americans are superior and more valuable than other "national beings." This conclusion is supported by the ever popular "proud to be an American." Completion of the statement is saying that one would be ashamed to be another nationality.
What core psychological relationship does the pledge express and imply? The denial of self and subservience to the "United States of America" is an open and clear declaration. Via logical inference, the pledger is positioned as property of the "United States." The essence of ownership is control. Ergo, control of the pledger by the "United States" is inherent in the pledge of allegiance. The oft heard phrase, "America's children" and similar utterances are not just a meaningless figure of speech. It states the condition of being regarded as property that nearly all accept with "pride".
Within the pledge and in direct self-contradiction are the "noble sentiments", "liberty and justice for all". Thus is liberty and justice verbally and emotionally equated with servitude. In this thinking, the concept freedom is tied to the concept rule and subliminally culminates in the conclusion that freedom means the "freedom to rule".
What does the pledge mean in terms of translating these dominant beliefs into physical action? Notice that the pledge reveals two mutually exclusive psychological factors within two mutually inclusive tangential psychological factors. The pledge of subservience denies and excludes the individual as the real. In its stead is an "alternative", "group identity"; in this instance, "national identity".
Inclusive of "national identity", via denial of the individual, is loss of the sense of individual responsibility. Also inclusive of "national identity" is the concept, "superior being". Since this is the sustaining premise of each and every "group identity", the inherent "superior being" dominance psychology assures perpetual antagonism among all "group identities".
With real individuals left out of the thinking, "group identities" such as American, German, Russian, black, white, men, women, etc., presumes to "identify" on similarity providing unlimited latitude for judgmental purposes. Keep in mind as well that the decision as to enemy or friend is not made by the pledger, but by the "United States" to which the pledger is subservient. Since the United States is an abstract and not an entity, superior or otherwise, what happens to the pledged allegiance? Who receives it? How is it translated into action? What action?
The questions are answered by the underlying psychology and subliminal directives. Independent thinking and sense of individual responsibility are gone. The pledger lives only to serve. Serve whom? Roosevelt as he orders the round up and incarceration of "America's enemies" decided by physical features similar to the "Japanese enemy"? Hitler as he set his sights on conquering the world by the "supremacy of the Ayran nation"? Stalin and company in the endless bloody purges to save the purity of Communism? Or some present day "powerful leader" who seeks self value in domination? Or perhaps just follow the "leader" in blind obedience in a methodical destruction of the socio-economic system? In the final analysis, the whole thing comes down to unquestioning obedience, not to the "infinite entity", United states, but to a finite power-hungry human individual with the will to rule. While few if any individuals would openly and knowingly turn their life over to another individual without qualification, in the pledge and psychology of the pledge, this is precisely what they do. This is the ultimate destination of those who succumb to word games.
Copyright at Common Law, Delmar England,
1997
Permission in hereby granted to copy this work for personal
use or for FREE distribution provided that the work is copied or distributed in
its entirety and that this copyright notice accompanies each copy.
