SOME GREY AREAS (BRAIN)

Without going into the extensive details of the neurological system and design, I just want to bring to attention a new way of thinking (no pun intended) when people refer to the term “Its either black or white” —– No No No!!

There are a lot of “GREY AREAS” Considering that Grey matter contains most of the brain’s neuronal cell bodies like regions of the brain involved in muscle control, and sensory perception such as seeing and hearing, memory, emotions, speech, decision making, and self-control.

SO—— THERE MIGHT BE SOME IMPORTANT GREY AREAS LOL

Advertisements

LAWS ARE PRECISE IN BEING INCONCLUSIVE LOL (RANT)

It’s about time I rant about this topic. Well, first off, how could I not pick on this topic when it is way to easy.  I’ll have to try and focus on one specific area at a time (something that laws have difficulty doing)!

What a field day I can have on this topic. **I’M NOT A LAW STUDENT, LAWYER, OR HAVE ANY OTHER TYPE OF LEGAL BACKROUND** SO DON’T PANIC! I WIL NOT BE USING THIER LEGAL LANGUAGE! WE, STILL HAVE DIFFICULTIES WITH THE WORDS WE USE ON THE DAY THE DAY LOL                                                                                                                          LAUGH NOW BEFORE THIS GOES IN LEGAL LITERACY 101- CHAPTER 1 IS TITLED “THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING” (THEY EVEN INCLUDE PIG LATIN- I MEAN LATIN) JUST TO THROW YOU OFF LOL WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH THAT?

DOES THE LATIN LANUAGE REMAIN DUE TO LAZINESS, OR FROM BEING PREOCCUPIED  (REVISING, CREATING,  AMENDING ALL THE OTHER LAWS)? OR, IS IT THERE JUST TO PISS PEOPLE OFF? MAYBE, ITS PART OF AN OVERALL DESIGN WHICH MAKES PEOPLE FEEL THE NEED TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY, AND ENTER INTO PROCEEDINGS, TRIALS, MOTIONS, APPEALS, PLEADINGS, JUSTICE, AND BE AWARDED COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING IN WHICH YOU NEED TO SHARE WITH YOUR ATTORNEY, LOL

EVEN IF LATIN WAS NOT INVOLVED THEY USE A LANGUAGE THAT CONSISTS OF WORDS WE GENERALLY WOULD NEVER USE. EVER! 

THEY HAD A GOOD RUN UNTIL THE INTERNET POPPED UP. IT IS NOW POSSIBLE FOR THE CLIENT TO RESEARCH INFORMATION WITHOUT REQUIRING THAT MUCH EFFORT.

THERE WAS WIDESPREAD LEGAL PANIC LASTING AT LEAST 2 OR 3 MINUTES UNTIL THEIR EDUCATED MIND SAID “THESE ARE PEOPLE, YOU COULD POST THE INFORMATION ON THEIR FRONT LAWN AND THEY WOULDN’T GIVE IT ANY ATTENTION, SO STOP PANICKING” !    LOL

We might as well start with general understandings and interpretation of law. Already, without going forward I can start ranting on my opening statement.  Interpretation and understanding of laws is so comedic and irrational that they have a “built in safety clause” This is to apply when I Law is considered to be vague, and not clearly understandable by any “reasonable person” lol

I can’t help but laugh as I’m writing this. How could you reasonably identify a reasonable person, from someone who is not reasonable? Especially when a reasonable (sensible) person would possibly have a more difficult time understanding the laws because already presented with conflict that an unreasonable person is one who would break the law by action made through a mind without reasoning capabilities. That would mean that an unreasonable person could not violated a law but not have understood the law, which would make them free from guilt..

A person who is reasonable that will challenge a law or possibly break a law with a logical and valid REASON will be guilty because they knowingly defied the law of record.

There is a lot more to this, you didn’t expect it to be simple, did you? Just writing what I just wrote I’m suffering a mental meltdown. I’ll stop here for now. Think the new defense will be not the glove doesn’t fit, it will be I don’t get it. Oh one last thing consider. There are a few laws that referred to the public morals. Naturally people have different morals, which would cause question to what would violate A person morals considering everybody has different ones. Just you know the law says that the public morals is decided by the government of what they consider to be moral and apply that to the public. Ha ha we won’t even get into that, but if you didn’t know what was considered to be the public morals, then you could legally violated because you didn’t know lol

I’m going to make this post without reviewing it. My brain hurts enough just from writing it. I’ll review it some other time

“THE WIZARD OF OZ” MY CRAZY INTERPRETATION- OR NOT-

POSSIBLE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION TO THE STORY OF “THE WIZARD OF OZ”

This one of those things that came to me out of nowhere, completely unexpected, and have no idea what caused it to pop up! Whatever the reason, I began seeing a very legitimate and rational psychological application that my interpretation of the story seems to fit.

IT’S BEEN MANY YEARS SINCE I’VE WATCHED IT….. EVEN STILL, I’M PRETTY SURE THIS IS HOW THE STORY GOES SOMETHING LIKE THIS-****READ MY UPDATE I PUT IN THE COMMENTS**** I WANT TO KEEP MY ORIGINAL POST UNEDITED… ANYTHING I’M GOING TO ADD AFTER WILL BE IN COMMENTS SO I CAN KEEP MY ORIGINAL UNEDITED VERSION 

AFTER SHE LOOSES CONSCIOUSNESS! AFTER THE TORNADO

Dorothy, is following the yellow brick road leading to the Wizard of Oz in Emerald City…. Along the way she comes across a Lion, Scarecrow, and the Tin Man…

These characters (INSIDE HER MIND) all were missing something! Courage, a Brain, and a heart…… da da da da dah…..

-I’m not even going to get into the wicked witch (neighbor toto bit before this unconsciousness), or the relevance of any other characters (right now) ! lol

BUT!

PUT TOGETHER ALL THE “TRAITS” OR “NEEDS” OF HER “UNCONSCIOUS””FRIENDS” AS SHE FOLLOWED THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD…. JUST THINK ABOUT THESE TRAITS/QUALITIES BEING APPLIED TO AN INDIVIDUAL—- IT’S LIKE THIS STORY WAS A DEPICTION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY, OR AWARENESS. LOL  ——

(THE ROAD LED TO THE WIZARD, AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE WIZARD WAS ACTUALLY NOT EVEN A WIZARD AT ALL! -THANKS TOTO!- HE DIDN’T GIVE THEM ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR RECOGNITION THAT THEY ALREADY ATTAINED WHATEVER IT WAS ON THIER OWN DURING THIS JOURNEY….) NO? YES?

BUT!

RIGHT AFTER THAT, SHE JUST WANTS TO CLICK HER HEELS TO “GO HOME” TOO MUCH FOR HER TO HANDLE I GUESS….

MAYBE, SHE COULDN’T HANDLE BEING IN A LOGICAL AND MENTAL STATE OF COMPLETENESS – BECAUSE SHE REALLY JUST WANTED TO GO HOME! WHERE EVERYTHING WAS “NORMAL” AGAIN LOL

FOLLOWED THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD ALL THE WAY TO THE ANSWERS, AND THE GREAT OZ!-

THAN RIGHT BACK TO -“THERE IS NO PLACE LIKE HOME”

— THIS SEEMS TO STILL BE A COMMON BEHAVIOR FOR PEOPLE….. PUTTING IN SO MUCH EFFORT TO FIND AN ANSWER TO SOMETHING THEY MOST LIKLEY WON’T BE ABLE TO ACCEPT, THAN TURN/RUN AWAY FROM IT SO THEY CAN  RETURN TO “NORMALITY” … BUT AT LEAST THEY KNOW THE ANSWER LOL

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Directed by Victor Fleming
Produced by Mervyn LeRoy
Screenplay by
Noel Langley
Florence Ryerson
Edgar Allan Woolf
Based on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
by L. Frank Baum

JUST SO WE ARE UNDERSTANDING (RANT)

RANDOM THOUGHT—

EVERYONE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE UNDERSTANDABLE IS ONLY WHAT IS EXPECTED TO BE UNDERSTOOD. WHEN SOMETHING COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD IS NOT TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING, THAN IT IS TO BE MENTIONED AND NOTED THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. A COMMON UNDERSTANDING BY OTHERS DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TO ASSUME YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY UNDERSTAND.

IT IS VERY SIMPLY,.,.,HAHA

LET OTHERS KNOW WHEN YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY THOUGHT YOU UNDERSTOOD, THIS WAY THEY KNOW YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND. USUALLY THIS WILL CAUSE THEM TO TRY AND MAKE UNDERSTAND. AS THEY ARE HELPING YOU UNDERSTAND, TRY AND UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE EXPLAINING IT AS BEST AS POSSIBLE TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND ENSURE YOU ARE IN UNDERSTANDING OF ONE ANOTHER…..

UNDERSTAND ?!?!?! HAHA

AS LONG AS EVERYONE IS OPEN TO UNDERSTANDING ONE ANOTHER, IT WOULD NOT BE UNDERSTANDABLE FOR ANYTHING TO GO WRONG!!!!!!

HAHA

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IS CLEAR ON WHAT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE? LOL

I COULDN’T RESIST SHARING HOW ARTFUL, EXPLICIT, AND DIRECT THE LAW IS…. ACTUALLY TORTURE YOU ALSO LOL

A penal statute cannot be extended by implication or construction to cases within the mischief, if they are not at the same time within the terms of the act, fairly and reasonably interpreted.’ Bishop on Statutory *205 Crimes, § 190e; Huffman’s Case [Huffman v. State], 29 Ala. 40; Young’s Case [Young v. State], 58 Ala. 358. In the case last cited this court said: `One who commits an act which does not come within the words of a penal statute, according to the general and popular understanding of them, when they are not used technically, is not to be punished thereby merely because the act contravenes the policy of the statute.’ Again, such statutes are to reach no further in meaning than their words. People [ex rel. Johnson] v. Peacock, 98 Ill. 172. `No person is to be made subject to them by implication, and all doubts concerning their interpretation are to predominate in favor of the accused. Only those transactions are covered by them which are within both their spirit and their letter, reasonably interpreted.’ Bishop on Statutory Crimes, § 194; Cearfoss’ Case [Cearfoss v. State], 42 Md. 403.” Scott v. State, 152 Ala. 63, 64, 44 So. 544.

EVERYONE IS CLEAR ON THIS NOW RIGHT ? LOL

NEW DEFENSE—- I DON’T GET IT-  LOL   <<< MIGHT ACTUALLY NOT BE FAR OFF == I’M NOT A LAWYER OR ANY LAW SCHOOL SO I DON’T ANY IDEA

Understand why it’s hard to understand

I’ve decided that I should include some informative content without my attempted comedic alterations or disguise. This category will be for that purpose only.

The first thing I could think to talk about something relevant to understanding my blog.  So I’m going to briefly explain the psychology that makes it difficult to entertain or accept new ideas.

Don’t panic! I’m not going to make this complicated with scientific or medical research studies, or use medical speech like influence and function by the amygdalae medially within the temporal lobes primary role in the processing of memory, decision-making, and emotional reactions….. lol

Only reference I’ll make is this one
Leon Festinger (1957) proposed cognitive dissonance theory, which states that a powerful motive to maintain cognitive consistency can give rise to irrational and sometimes maladaptive behavior.

I’m just trying to show that there is more to the way we think than we are consciously aware of.

Complex vs Simple Quote

“Complexity is comforting to me while Simplicity is scary to me. I enjoying working and engaging in complex or challenging things. Anything simple I just have a difficult time trusting”

Stephen James