Page 1

 

Now, I've been talking a lot about jars and WHOs recently, but there's something missing from the equation that must be mentioned, first and foremost, before we can continue any deeper into this book. We need to discuss the layers of observation if there is going to be any real value provided for you all.

It's not enough to know how to categorize what it is that you just observed. It's also critical to focus on only observing the right things at all, so as not to waste your limited time left in life. As such, while it is great that we have begun assessing the world based on WHOs, the truth is that it's not okay to just assess the world based on WHOs, alone, either. It's also vital to start assessing the right WHOs on the right layers of our worldview. Of course, because observation is vital to the practice of "embracing the unexamined," this can very easily be applied to Whats as well. We're simply starting off with WHOs because they're the main focus of this book.

"WHO is it that can tell me WHO I am?"

- William Shakespeare

To refresh our memories on the value of using more unpredictable and less examined methods, we're going to talk about the normalization of "being normal", how this actually creates prejudice, and how to avoid that sort of hatred from within yourself. 

We'll start this topic with a little monologue about colleges. Bare with me, though! This'll sound like a set-up to some crazy conspiracy theory. It will start out very emotional, and it may not seem very logical, or rational, right off the bat. I'm sorry. I can't change that. I can only promise that you will be able to make sense of what I'm saying by the end of it all. It is up to you whether or not you agree with me by the end.

We speak, all the time, about how the US is "Against the monarchy system", and how "Democracy is king", but have you ever thought about how that works in terms of the college system?

I mean, sure, it's based on more than just "the king's word" against mine, but by how much exactly? Teachers, who make the quizzes themselves, then have you take these exact same quizzes, and then tell you if you passed enough to get a degree, and therefore a job... (and therefore a comfortable life), based on how you answered a test they designed. It sounds like a pretty basic "he said, she said", thing to me. You may state, "Well, Author, there are rules in place that the teachers must follow in making those tests; and in other things."

Well then, let me ask who's proven that those rules are still fair for our more modern age, or who creates those rules, enforces them, and then uses them for the most part? Is it not either present-day college staff, older age ones, or at the very least, the people who earned their authority in the field... by going to college? College professors often need to have some form of degree in the field in which they are teaching, which begs a series of big questions.

If people have had their entire worth, monetary and otherwise, based almost solely on the degrees they have, and therefore the colleges that created and dispensed those degrees to them, when they're asked for their opinion on whether or not their degree's value is based on anything real...

Do you really expect them to admit that it isn't?

If a person whose monetary value, and entire life's work, is based solely on the college standards proving that they have authority in their field - if a person like that is then asked to answer on whether or not our college standards are justified... do you really expect them to say "No."?

 

Page 2

 

Besides, the system itself is BUILT to be a monarchy. It's no longer about having the "divine right to rule." There is no bloodline anymore, but there is a paper trail... an ink trail, as it were. You see, you have a man with a degree, who goes and finds all of his possible successors by gathering them in a classroom... to some of them, he gives... a lesser form of his own degree. Some of these "new generation students" will grow up and decide to pass on their knowledge (but not their genes, oh nooo! that'd be too obvious); they pass on their grades to the next generation of students, and so on, and so on, generation, after generation, after generation, by degree, after degree, after degree. Hence, the paper trail, the ink line, rather than the blood line. It's academics.

After all that talk about not being a monarchy, about kings and queens and terrible tyrannies, our country decided to make the "big leap" of having an "academic right to rule", instead of the "divine" one. Keep in mind, that since intelligence can't be measured directly, it, therefore, must be founded on a matter of different tests, and these tests are DESIGNED by the previous generations, in order to find successors for the newer generations, by seeing if they "pass" or not. They're allowed to filter out those to whom they deem fit to give a degree. In fact, being filtered as the most submissive, and therefore compliant student, is considered a good thing. This is actually MORE controlling than a monarchy, because at least the monarchy had a limited range of options (blood relatives) to choose from in order to force their ideologies and perspectives onto family as a way to control the future leadings of their own communities. This sometimes led to them having to fight, and struggle with their children, in order for their ways of ruling to stay on top. Sometimes they'd even lose.

Now, thanks to it being an "academic" right to rule, our leaders can just filter, with a testing process, for the ones who listened most and complied most with their teachings (the ones who get the highest grades by doing what they're told, and repeated the enforced, and then repeated quizzed truths.) Why do you think that quizzes exist? Give it 2 seconds thought. It's pretty simple right? If you tell the teacher what they want to hear, then you get a good grade, and then a good job, and then a good life... or at least, that's what they'll promise you. Then the teachers pass on their authority to those mindless drones, who have listened and complied instead! There's no more need to fight for the future. They simply convinced everyone they should be fighting to be brainwashed instead. It's a competition to see who can repeat the dogma back the most, and they're literally tested on it. Bowing down and giving up on freedom of thought is considered an honor now, not a punishment.

And besides, to the students, it seems to make their lives easier - in the short term. They don't seem to need to know how to think anymore, which can be quite exhausting and take actual effort. They won't need to do this if their informants can just keep telling them what to think for the rest of their lives, without question. 

Honestly, it's no wonder things were progressing as slowly as they were before the internet came around. Before then, we had the same old set of leaders for generations; only going by different names; and by different ages. First, it was "Tom", with his Ph.D. Then it was Sarah, a student of his, with her own PH.D., given by Tom, and then it was her student, and then their student, and the student after that, and so on and so forth. My question is this: If Tom's thoughts are all that was ever told, and commanded to submit to, via grades and tests and quizzes, if Tom's rules were all that was set to obey, then what is Sarah's name, her student's name, and everything else about them mean, if anything, in terms of change, progress, and new ideas? What do the countless names matter if the thoughts and ideologies remain single and the same?

Why not just call our colleges "The Church of Tom"? He pretty much seems like the academic "God" at this point.

Now, yes, advancements have been made in all forms of knowledge and academic fields. We aren't still living under the belief that the sun moves around the earth, for example. My only question is, "What percentage of those advancements have been made by a professor WHILE THEY'RE TEACHING IN THE CLASSROOM?"

It seems to me that all advancements have been made either by the students, or by someone academically inclined while they were not in a college for their PH.D.

Progress, my friends, is not born in the classroom. Creativity breeds progress, and the college atmosphere often kills creativity; at least for its students. The big exception here would be when a professor gathers an epiphany through their mental walk-through with their students; or when students are having an epiphany about an outside interest as well. In short, serendipity can happen anywhere, even in the classroom, but, again, the fact that this can happen anywhere means that it cannot be used as evidence for a classrooms usefulness, or need to exist.

 

Page 3

 

To be fair, the outside life isn't all rainbows and unicorn kisses either. There are still people who try to take on apprenticeships, like the blacksmiths in the days of old during the more "divine" rights to rule. It's honorable work, but what happens to the working man, the farmers, or the shield makers of this new, modern age? The service works, or customer support, the servers or delivery staff? The people that just... work their way up the corporate ladder through mentoring and through apprenticeships? What happens to these blacksmiths? Well, the same as before. They're treated like the common peasant by royal college grads, whether this apprentice can do better than them or not.

And then there are people like me. People who know how to stir up a crowd, people who know how to make their voice heard, even if they don't have the "academic right to rule," I'm the one type of peasant that's allowed in the court, allowed to take part in the feasts...

I'm the court jester. Now, to be fair, many times, when the jester isn't all that bright himself; having him whisper into the ear of the king can have TERRIBLE consequences. This is like when celebrities try getting into political discussions too far outside their own field of knowledge - but that's not to say that there can't be jesters, who know more than the kings and queens that command them. They are simply left unexamined, by the usual crowds, more often than not, and as I've said earlier: embracing the unexamined may just be the most empowering thing that anyone can do, so that we can protect both the progress and the potential of all of those that we care for.

But, I digress,

My point is that, if you judge things from the wrong layers, by listening to the rest of society, and only embracing what has already been embraced, then, either way, you're screwed. College is a Monarchy, but entrepreneurship, especially with the dawn of the internet, is a completely real democracy. If you go to college, you'll spend loads of money trying to work in a system that'll eventually take you, for WHO you are, and rip What you are, so far away from it, that until you decide to fight back, you'll basically be just a dead person walking. You will have, no permanent satisfaction.

If you work within the system by being an apprentice instead;  for all the time that you'll be learning, you'll simply be a paid slave, working the 9 to 5, every day, until you either break free from the idea of hourly wages or until you simply die.

My point is that by listening to what everyone else is already examining, you'll end up broken, unhappy, or at the very most, somewhat numb to the majority of the gifts that life will bring to you.

And so, one more time, this book is written in honor of the unexamined. Don't just listen to people without first attempting to see the truest reality for yourself; and just because many people are viewing items by their Whats, don't assume that you should be, too. Even a crowd can be wrong if it's led by the blind. If there is only one type of limitation that I must fear most, it isn't the blindness of the eyes, nor is it the deafness of the ears. A blindness of your eyes, or any other sense, will stick with you, but a blindness of the mind? Now that shit's contagious. Keep your mind open, work on it's muscles to have it see clearly, and never lose sight of the value, of thought, pure, untainted, personal, thought. Never forget to think for yourself, even when questioning me.

 

Page 4

 

A key example of viewing the wrong layers is how we take views on others' relationships. You see, a relationship is a special kind of What in this case, because a relationship is actually a larger container than WHO you are alone. As I've stated, WHOs are containers for Whats, and every What has a WHO. Picture it like this:

 

 

Imagine this image as a container viewed from the top down. There is a big black Tupperware and two smaller white Tupperware inside it. You see, if inside the friend's WHO contains repellent or disgusting Whats, then, by being in a relationship with them, most people mistake their Whats for your Whats as well, because they are contained within a singular space. This, however, is not actually the case. As you can plainly see here, yes, a relationship contains both your Whats and the Whats of your partners, BUT, these are 3 separate containers. Your WHO is still completely distinct, and separate from the WHO of your partner, and since YOUR WHO contains YOUR Whats, then your partner's Whats are not yours, because YOU, specifically, do not contain them. There are only two containers here with those nasty traits inside; both your partner's and the relationship's, because your partner's WHO rests within the relationship's WHO. Your partner is just an item that rests within the concept, and therefore the jar that is "your relationship", and so every What your partner has also belongs to the relationship. It's just separate from you because "you" do not contain your partner.

Also, please note that the relationship has extra space outside of both WHO you are, and the WHO behind your partners. This means that certain other Whats, not contained within either of you, can still be owned by the relationship itself, separately. As such, two people who are selfless when apart can become narcissistic towards each other in a relationship because the relationship itself contains narcissistic traits. In this case, narcissism is the What of the relationship, but not of either of the WHOs that rest within it.

I've even seen a few narcissistic relationships. They eventually break up - not because they don't love WHO the other person is - though they probably believe that's the case. The truth is that what they hate most, out of all of this, is the relationship itself.

 

This should also clarify that the ownership of Whats, and of WHOs, is a two-way street. You may have a relationship, but the relationship also has you. The relationship belongs to you, but you also belong to the relationship. You may have a coffee to drink, to fill your stomach, but the coffee also has you, the drinker, to fulfill its purpose of being drunk. You may have a world you live in, but that world also has you, living inside of it. The world can, and most likely has, changed your Whats through that connection, but you, in turn, can change certain Whats that the world has, in itself, also. You have the same chain between you and all the other Whats as those Whats have with you.

 

This is why I, personally, got my life in order by only containing Whats that match with WHO I am, specifically, in myself. I did it because that made all of the matching simple. It's simple when I used my own WHO to fill in my Whats because ownership is a two-way street. If your Whats have a WHO that aligns and fits well inside of yours, then the reverse will also be true. Your WHO will fit well, and comfortably fill in, your Whats, just like how it works the other way around. With that in mind, I look for the items and ideas that match my own, personal WHO, in both ways. Everything that I obtained or traded for matched with WHO I am, AND What I am. It doubled the speed, and halved the effort that I needed to put in to feel truly fulfilled.  

Of course, if you'd like, you can try this method, too. I just wouldn't pretend that it's the only one to exist.

 

Page 5

 

To be clear, just because ownership goes both ways, that doesn't mean that control does, or anything else in a relationship for that matter. A tyrant has you beneath them, and you also have a tyrant above you, but that does not mean that you have the same amount of power, control, respect, or anything as the tyrant. This is the same for WHOs and Whats. A WHO has almost all the say in the WHATS that they have, but the Whats themselves have NO SAY in WHO they may be. So, to clarify, even if you dislike something, that doesn't mean that it's bad. Disliking is an emotion, and emotions come from WHOs, but applying WHOs is not a matter of choice. You only have a choice in how you apply your Whats. This does not mean that Whats are a more valuable unit of measurement. It simply means that it is a looser one.

Sometimes the chains of ownership are a downhill - and easy ride for you, but an uphill battle for the other side. Sometimes it's the other way around, but the more you climb, and the more you fight to see all these connections, the more you'll be able to appreciate the world as it truly is: just a near-infinite web of connections, and relationships, even between people who don't really know that they have any effect on one or other. If something has you by the throat in this world, chances are that you can reach back and grab them as well. Pain, like any other What isn't a one-way street. Pain may be holding on to you, but you may also be holding on to the pain, and maybe it's time for you to let it go.

Consider the art of straw-manning as well. This is the idea of taking someone's words and twisting them into the most weakened position and skewed point.

For example, if you said that you felt sad because you were alone during your birthday, and another person said “That’s on you. Just because someone’s alone doesn’t mean that they have to be sad.” This is a straw-man argument. They are rephrasing your argument to change the scale of focus so that its weaker.

Instead of “I was alone on my birthday.” They’ve change your point to “I was alone.” Which is not the same argument, but that’s the arguement they choose to fight against because they don’t know how to combat the real one. This can be by zooming out and attacking a point that was less specific “I was alone”, or more specific “I was alone on my birthday, but the cake was yummy.”

Just because the cake was added doesn’t mean that being alone isn’t a valid reason to feel sad for this individual, and that’s why they phrased it the way they did.

Essentially, strawmanning is about taking the smaller or bigger Whats that could be seen as contained within What without what they’re saying, and attacking those weaker pieces. In short, it's all about purposefully viewing another person's argument from the wrong layer, so that it appears much weaker than it actually is, and attacking it from that viewpoint rather than a legitimate one.

Using one's traits as a victimizing strategy is a brilliantly devious use of this, because each What has a WHO, and as such, they contain several other Whats; but something that most people don't realize is that ownership is a two-way street; in such, by saying, "You're only disagreeing with me because of my race." You've actually done much more than it at first appears.

 

Much like how a relationship is both smaller than you, and larger, every other What will be both smaller and larger as well, because ownership goes both ways. In such, by stating that someone attacked your race, you aren't just saying that they've offended you. You're also stating that they're offending a whole community of people, because you have a What. That What is your race, but your race also has a What, that What being a community, and that community has several Whats, several individuals, and you're one of them.

 

Here, just take a look at this:

 

You have a race. That race has a community, and that community has you.

And you have a race. That race has a community. That community has you,

 

and so on.

 

 

This means that by playing a victim, an unnecessary casualty of war, specifically due to What you have, in that instance, you have made yourself a king, queen, or general (because many people will be likely to have a similar What)  if you state it's their What that's being attacked, it's like saying the someone is attacking their baby or another precious thing that they have for themselves. You've just brought a whole ARMY of troops into this, against one, small opponent; and have done so, all while appearing to be the victim. (Smart! Evil, but smart.)

Of course, these claims can be accurate, too. Don’t get me wrong. Racism is still a very real issue in this world. What we must understand is that within each “race” there is a community, and so this smaller piece of you will also be a larger piece by which you reside in, whether that fact is used malevolently or not. In my eyes, the one’s I’m worried about most are the ones that were born with two parents of different ethnicities. These have two racial communities, and if both communities are at war, that makes them either an ally to both sides, or an enemy with no side to stand on.

Worse yet, if you are of a different race, or against the war happening at all, you too are considered an outsider without any say, or even another enemy, still with no side to stand on.

In such, the most neutral voices, with no reason to be prejudice towards either, or who at least are trying to maintain a level head, are the exact one’s ignored most during times of wrath and hatred. Your smaller traits also contain larger communities for you to belong to, but neither one of them is really “you”, despite how much it determines the roles your play during your everyday living.

The big problem isn't just that people are judging you based on your Whats. It's also that your Whats are in a completely separate circuit from your WHO and so going from Whats to WHOs is much more difficult than the other way around; because going from What you have to What you are is an uphill battle, and going from What you are to WHO you are is near impossible.

 

Page 6

 

Imagine it this way.

Most people assess you like this:

 

But this is going almost entirely uphill and will be very difficult, if not impossible, to do within a single lifetime; especially since new Whats to be had are created and destroyed every day. Hence, the rules of the game, down in this bottom half, are almost always changing. Because of how often people give up early, assuming that since the climb was so hard, they must have already reached the top, this mindset will often lead to prejudice and misplaced assumptions, from the small harmless ones like mistaking one person for another, to the much larger and dangerous ones that can lead to genocide and "cleansing." 

Instead, you should try viewing things like this:

 

From the top down: Not only is it easier, but people who do this will have a much easier time being empathetic and loyal, in spite of What traits someone has, or even beyond traits, into what people call “more legitimate things” like the stupid mistakes or dumb errors/flaws another person may make or have. What someone has, or What someone is, does not necessarily define them, and of course, people who judge you by your race, gender, age, religion, or other forms of basic prejudice are being just that. PREJUDICE. Even if you think that you're starting with a person's WHO, if you find yourself thinking "Yep. This is exactly what I thought an Asian would be like." Chances are, my dear ignorant child, that you are NOT actually viewing them for WHO they really are. You are incorrectly viewing their race as a teacup instead of the jar.

Your race might exist, and it may be similar to others, but that doesn’t mean that what it CONTAINS is the same as others. The prejudice of racism is like this: You view their race as a specific type of cup. Let’s say that it’s a mug. If you’re racist, you’ll say, “Oh, you’re a mug, that means you must have a handle, and handles are important.” You’re claiming that their concept can be broken down into several parts, called stereotypes. But remember that in truth, our concepts for the world are made of unbreakable containers, with other containers fitting around the outside of them, and placed within them. These types of teacups cannot legitimately be broken into any piece, not even by breaking off the handles. If we’re viewing this tea cup accurately, then its value is determined more by what drink it’s holding within than by what design it has on the outside. Again, WHOs are like jars and Whats are like tea cups, but every What has a WHO and every WHO has several Whats. Your traits have a WHO. Your race has a WHO, and, in terms of accuracy, how you identify something should almost always be done using WHOs. 

Your race is not like a tea cup to be broken into pieces. It’s like a jar to be filled by them. Yes, depending on your group you may have different colored jars, but that doesn’t change the fact that you can fill your jar with WHATEVER you damn well please. You want to be a criminal? Put “criminal trait cookies” inside the jar. You want to be a lawyer? Put “lawyer flavored jelly beans” inside. The choice is yours, and it’s up to you.

Make no mistake, races do exist as a form of category, and whether that’s good, or righteous, or not, they’re not going anywhere anytime soon. It must be understood, however, that they are merely a concept. The fact is that we’re all human. That’s What we are. These roles and social dynamics that are forced down our throats do not define us. Only what we choose to allow in our indentity and our judgements does.

We must remember that while reality will often break into pieces, how we sort reality will often be using unbreakable containers by which to hold other concepts. Trying to mix the two will lead to inaccurate views, and therefore bad actions, and therefore unsavory results.

 

 

To be more general, when it comes to people, our view should look something like this:

 

Keep in mind that we're talking about applying the WHOs and Whats here, while using them as an item, all on their own. It's an odd system, but that's why people normally get it wrong. Your WHOs are a great way to measure your WANTS and choices, but those choices are just a form of Whats. Again, they're What choices you make and What wants you have.

So, keep in mind that the chapter on self-love still stands. You can need a What, but you cannot need a WHO. You can only desire and want such a valuable thing, and while you may say that you can't change your needs, and so you shouldn't be able to change your Whats, or say that since WHOs are all about wants, and so they should be the one's that can changes...

Well, we'll be discussing in even more detail why that's wrong in Chapter 22. Although we've already discussed it plenty before, in previous chapters, there is still more to learn from there; when the time is right.

And when it comes to wants, there are very few things that you should want to hold onto longer than your own precious time left in life. This includes offering your time as a trade-in for anything else, even money.

It's funny, isn't it, how we have something called "minimum wages" for working hours. I mean, you get paid for different segments of your time. You know, the thing that was talked about by Alexander The Great, many years ago:

"When we give someone our time, we really give them a portion of our lives that we will never take back."

- Alexander The Great

 

Page 7

 

Now that we've talked about professional school life, it's time to talk about your work lives. You see, if your time is a portion of your life, and yet you get paid by the hour, then slavery didn't really go away, did it? The price just went up, from $0 per hour paid to whatever your wage is. This is why many rich people suggest trading in a product, or other systems, for money instead of time. It's hard to get rich in life, if... well... if your life isn't really your own to begin with. If someone has hired you, for 24 hours a day, let's say for an extreme example, then they own your entire day, don't they? That day isn't yours to use anymore. It's theirs. You must simply do as they command you. The same can be said of any other segment of time as well. Plus, seeing as to how any segment of time can be seen as a measurement of your life... that means that they pretty much own a portion of your life here on earth, as well, now doesn't it?

You could say that "Since the employees could leave anytime, this isn't slavery.", but can you really leave your sources of money behind in a capitalistic society such as ours? One that values What you have, over WHO you actually are? How would you pay for food, or shelter, if you have nothing to trade? Aside from hourly wages, you could start by selling something of value that you created, but you'd need to HAVE the resources necessary to create that product in the first place, which'll cost money, or time in prison for theft. Ah yes, such freedom of choice: "work for us, or don't work for us. Go ahead! Go out, live on the streets, and wish that you were dead... or simply go ahead and, literally, die." What beautiful choices these hourly wages offer you. I guess you're right... That doesn't sound like a slavery-inducing dilemma at all. (Sarcasm, people, sarcasm.)

Yes, I know that I, myself, am living proof of not "needing" a 9-5. The key here, again, is that WANTS are more powerful than NEEDS. Most people don't want to be scared. The fact that not working a 9-5 has been turned into this near-impossible concept is exactly why this is considered enslavement to me. Do you think that slaves wanted to be there? NO, but did they fear the repercussions if they left (such as death, or some other form of terrible, maybe even worse punishment) even more than their desire to leave? Hell yeah! Obviously. Can't imagine any OTHER reason to stay.

Was there a curse that said they'd always die, magically, instantaneously, if they left? No, but nobody took the slaves seriously. Nobody would take them in and shelter them against the white man, and so they had, or so it at least appeared that they had, nowhere to go. White slave owners made damn sure that it was NOT clear that self-sustainability was possible.

Now you need to ask yourself: Do these multimillion-dollar companies take you seriously? Do employers make it clear for you that the internet has opened some new doors to test out? If you don't do as the college's demands, and/or if you don't work within an already established industry, for another person, via job hunting or mentorship...

Who will bring you in? Who will shelter you if you leave this life behind?

Or does it simply seem like you have... NOWHERE to go?

Hey! At least we're getting paid something we can... sort of... live off of, huh? Better than the "non-slave" kids, that are paid a penny an hour for working in the sweatshops, am I right?

Disgusting.

 

Page 8

 

To be fair, they give us "benefits" or non-directly monetary things, like paid vacations or health care...  if we work for them...

You know - the freedom to be healthy and live your life in a liberated sense, that we should have for no cost at all, every day of our lives… but while we're working here, we only get a limited amount of days for?

Beautiful stuff, isn't it?

Now think of this: when you’re looking for employment and finally get a job interview. Even for minimum wage, they almost always ask about your past experiences in different workplaces, and they make it sound like they’re trying to understand WHO you are. In this case, they’re not even judging you by what you have. They’re judging you by what you had and then left behind. They’re judging you based on your garbage. Ah yes. Now that's a fair assessment for them to use.

Imagine you went digging in someone else's trash (Strictly as a professional, of course), and you find a Rolex. Well now! That’s quite a nice piece of equipment they used to have, now isn’t it? (That’s a great job they used to have, am I wrong?) But this brings up a lot of questions. Mainly, “Why did they throw away a frickin ROLEX?!?!” Was it broken? Is it a fake? Do they take special things like this for granted? Did they acquire it through less-than-honorable means? Did they steal it? Why did they throw out a Rolex? And Why do they want my watch now? Will they even cherish it?

In terms of jobs, for those who don’t understand, this means: Why did you leave your job? Was the environment bad? Was the position not as good as it sounds? Did you just not appreciate how much of an amazing position that was? Did you trick your way into the position? Did you lie? Why did you leave your job? And Why do you want a job here now? Will you even work hard if we hire you?

Do you see the problem here? Immediately, if they're basing their perceptions off of your Whats, then no matter What you have, extremely bad, or even extremely good, you’ll be forced into the situation of guilty until proven innocent. If we were talking about romance, this would be like your new partner asking to check in with all of your most recent exes to make sure that you’re a good person. Either the ex is terrible, and now they’re wondering if someone with as bad a taste as you is only choosing them because they’re just that bad, or you were simply unworthy of anyone better than your ex. 

Even worse, the ex may be extremely kind and understanding, which makes it seem like the breakup was all on you, and that you might have been an idiot for leaving them or ruining the relationship. Keep in mind, of course, that when you leave a job, the job is no longer in your life. You may have learned from your experience there, but you’ll most likely not have any real connections with the job itself anymore, moving forward, unless you’re a networker like me. This means that they’re not talking to an ex you’re still friends with. At best, what they’ll see is an ex who is amazing. You both loved each other, but you both still decided to completely go your separate ways and try out new relationships because that seemed like it’d be a more profitable use of your times.

Now, that’s either crazy, or simply too good to be true, but it’s certainly not someone that I’d be thinking, “Wow. They’re so loyal and good in a relationship. I would just love to be in one with them.”. This is why, during an interview, I always aimed to keep their focus, mainly on the present, and then to be as charming of a candidate, myself, in that present, as possible, during as high of a percentage within the interview as possible. That was usually the easiest, and most reliable method, that I had.

"God hath given you one face, and you make yourself another."

- William Shakespeare

 

Page 9

 

This isn’t to say that checking on someone’s past is a BAD thing. It’s just that you have to do it from the right layer, and with the right understanding. Their past has a WHO, and if you want to see if your WHO aligns with their past, then that's completely fine. The thing is that you need to view it as only that - a past that they have - completely separate from WHO they are as an individual. It’s simply a What that they have. WHOs are a great unit of measurement, but only of their direct owner. The WHO of someone's past is not a WHO to measure them by. It should only be used to measure their past as a completely separate entity. It's not just interviewers who do this. 

This, my friends, is how society comes up with first impressions, based on your Whats, and we value those impressions so highly, without even asking a single question as to why. You're treated as guilty until proven innocent, even if treated as guilty of having wonderful traits. Some people may assume that you're more amazing than you actually are, based on your Whats, only to become disappointed in you later, when you had no say in the matter. 

It's your near inability to determine their perception of you that makes this unfair, and it's impossible to determine it, because the logic that they're trying to use simply doesn't work on Whats directly. This makes the results less consistent, reliable, or predictable. If you can't predict it and understand it, then what chance do you really have of stopping it? Not many chances; I'll tell you that much. People do try, very often in fact, in spite of this fact though.

Finally, after school life, and after work life, comes... the personal life:

My friends, you are always being seen as guilty until proven innocent, when society bases your value on What you have, instead of WHO you actually are. It's the theory of the actor-observer bias that makes this so critically obvious (“APA Dictionary”).

Consider social media as an example. When people post a short, 10-second video, of a waiter falling flat on his face, what's the usual reaction? What do people do?

THEY LAUGH!

"Oh! He's such an idiot!", they comment.

"People are so clumsy." another would reply.

This happens to the point where people will change what clothes they wear, or even what body they have, before posting on social media. It's because people judge you by What you have, not WHO you actually are, and so you change What you are, and What you share online, to make yourself look good.

Let's be real here! If people went to your social media because they cared about you, then why are you only posting pictures of your restaurant food, or the view from a mountain without you even in it?!?!?

Come on, Becky, THINK! Be real with me here!!!

(No offense to any Rebeccas out there. 😜)

The answer is just 4 words long, my friend:

"Guilty until proven innocent"

Why else would you feel a need to prove your own worth online?

It's because people don't see you as worthy NOW. This isn't because you're unlovable. It's just because they're idiots; and biased idiots at that.

The actor-observer bias is academically described as “the tendency for individuals acting in a situation to attribute the causes of their behavior to external or situational factors, such as social pressure, but for observers to attribute the same behavior to internal or dispositional factors, such as personality” (“APA Dictionary”). Basically, if you are the “actor” and you do something silly you’re much more likely to believe that it was due to external circumstances, not as an excuse, but a real, true belief. This is how you view the world. However, in this theory, if you were to “observe” someone else do something silly or foolish, you’d believe that it had to do with their internal characteristics, like just being a plain idiot. 

In the previous example, this means that when someone else trips and falls, you assume that it’s connected to what they internally and characteristically are (AKA: You assume that they are "an idiot", or "a clumsy fool"), but when you fall it's different. As the "actor," in this case, you see things differently for yourself. When you trip and fall, you'll be much more likely to blame it on something external, like a slippery floor.

My theory is that this happens because it's much easier for us to view our own WHOs, than it is to view someone else’s.

The problem for you is how you view yourself as a clone (as mentioned in our Clone Example). And so you’re finding it very easy to measure yourself as an outsider, rather than as the defended person that is “yourself”.

We’re now entering a space in time where people are becoming disconnected from who they really are, and by extension, we are becoming disconnected from the emotional world around us.

You cannot change the overestimation that people have for the value of your Whats, but you can change how much you value them. Luckily, by viewing the right layers, you don't need to condemn others to the same emotional prison that the outside world has locked you in, and maybe, at the very least, you can find some comfort in knowing that you are refusing to add to the problem. In fact, you may take the many lonely souls around you, and create a world for them to live in, your own kingdom, or island, for them to stand on, and feel safe living their lives in. In this way you can protect the people that are as lost as you once were. 

For example, you can create a company, named Wishful Tinkering, and share it with the world.

 

Page 10

 

Have you ever seen two people and known that they both wanted to be friends with each other, but neither one commits right away? It's funny, isn't it? Each person has the exact same and very clear thoughts on their minds: "I really do want to commit to this person, but they need to commit to me first, in order to earn my commitment to them. I, personally, would never be the first one to commit. That's just emotional SUICIDE. I mean... What if they give nothing back?" This is because they're basing the prospect of having a future relationship with you; not based on you, but based on What it is that you can give them, What you won't give them, and What it is that you might need to take from them, or are looking to trade-in, for yours. All relationships have simply been turned into a more casual form of business transactions. In this case, they're looking for What amount of commitment you'd be willing to give to them, and if they'd be willing to trade with you for their own.

Listen, and listen well. In almost every relationship that I've been a part of since discovering WHOs, the other person has almost always said the same things. They ask, "Why are you so kind to me?" Sometimes they replace the word "kind" with words like "nice", or "good", or something like that, but it's pretty much the same old thing, and honestly, while this is a pretty sad statement about the world, all on its own, the next part that they all share, is even worse.

You see, it's not just that they ask "Why are you so kind to me?". It's that they say "Why are you so kind to me? I've done nothing to deserve this." Or "I don't deserve this." or, "What did I do to deserve this?"

They treat kindness like a thing that they have to EARN.

 

That just makes me sick. 

pardon my language, but...

it IS, fucking, disgusting.

 

You shouldn't have to EARN kindness. You should have to earn unkindess, rudeness, or something terrible like that. Whatever happened to being "innocent until proven guilty"? If it's almost impossible to take love by force, but it can be very easy to give love, why is it that, before anyone gives it to you, they ask that you PROVE that you've earned it first? Just give it to people already! You don't need to be in a relationship with them in order to be kind. Again, relationships are based off of much more than just emotions or kind gestures, but the very least you can do, is just NOT BE SELFISH OR AN ASSHOLE.

Understanding that you have multiple layers of Whats and that every What has a WHO, something should become clear to you. The problem isn’t just to not judge yourself by your Whats and to only judge by your WHO. Each What has a WHO, after all, so that would make no sense. The trick is to view the correct WHOs on the correct levels of the tea cup (Review the tea cup metaphor from Chapter 3, if you must). You see, the problem isn’t just that you judge youself based on your Whats. That is a huge problem, but it's not the only one. Another problem is also that, even though this could be a decent starting point if done properly, it RARELY IS ever done properly, and it should ONLY BE used as a starting point, nothing further.

Besides, Whats don't define emotion, and this book is about learning to love yourself, and feel confident and fulfilled, BUT, if you're aiming to remove emotion from the equation, and simply look at getting things done, sometimes subtracting humanity and life from the equation is actually a good idea. Sometimes that needs to be done, and during those times using a What actually IS the correct course of action. As I've stated previously my friends, sometimes, what matters isn't if you dislike it, or even if you like it, sometimes all that matters, is What it is.

If you have to choose between a smaller piece of what you’re measuring at any given time, or a larger piece, it’s almost always better to start with the larger piece (the largest container), because it’s usually easier to keep track of, and move down from. This is not always accurate though, and you should only do this until you’ve reached the right level (because every layer is a container), and going too far down makes it far harder to look back up. Of course, this is based on what YOU view to be the larger container, since, either way, so long is they're right sequentially, whether you agree with me or not, you'll still be right. This is because, again, all of your Whats are both smaller than you and larger than you, at the same time.

Sometimes, you’ll even need to take things apart; taking a look at the smaller, and smaller pieces until you find the right spot. You should test each layer with the technique described in The Goblet, The King, The Slave. Each layer should be seen as the hypothetically correct one, but not as a certainty. In fact, you should be attempting to disprove each layer of any WHO as best you can. Only then, if it still stands as seeming to be the right WHO, do you know that it's rested on good foundations. It may not be correct, but at least you can say that it's sturdy.

If you find that even one of these layers is being the remedy for a certain type of question, keep it in mind for the next time you ask a similar question. Using WHOs, once learned properly, makes things much easier to analyze, and you’ll often find yourself asking the same sets of questions, over and over, and over and over again. This allows your mind more freedom to come up with new questions that no one else has even bother to ask or answer, because you'll have free time, and the freest mind to do so. Do NOT let such an opportunity go to waste. Questions, are the keys to progress, my friends. Intellect is merely placing your hands upon the gates.

 

 

 

Work Cited

“Apa Dictionary of Psychology.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, dictionary.apa.org/actor-observer-effect. Accessed 19 Jan. 2024.