Marketing Ideological Neutrality: Can I Do It?

                   Without money or a cult of personality, just counting conversions won't tell me if my cult is truly ideologically neutral. "COMPLEMENTARIANISM" isn't neutral just because I say it is. That "COMPLEMENTARIANISM" is unbiased ideologically, may be unimportant. Finding a base case for an "Institution" with a "Neutral" ideological bias is difficult. We want our institution to survive. Perpetuating a tradition biases our ideology, I think.

                   Saying that I am starting a new religion under the pretense of a non bias is just here say. Even if I can do it. My induction hypothesis says: "I can do it." (Do it? What is It? Start a "Harmless Cult?" Is it even possible to create a "Harmless Cult?") Measuring conversion rates as of yet, tells me nothing. I can't even identify terms that can signify unbiased personal opinions for our potential converts. Doesn't matter. Our non biases don't necessarily match up in the first place. Everybody and their dog has tried starting their own new religions under all kinds of noble intentions. And for me to do so for some academic justification is equally silly. But I'm doing this anyway. My motivations may never be pure no matter how innocent I may want to be.

                   Question is: Can I sell it? "The Anti Bias, Bias." "COMPLEMENTARIANISM,"

                   Starting a Sub Cult for those of us with rational "Bias Fear" is a really good idea. But it may prove nothing by itself. Pretending to be Agnostic is not the point. Yes I do know exactly what's going to happen. And I'm not telling. Telling would spoil everything. This experiment must be handled very delicately. I want to see people buy into my religion of non bias by conversion. The trick is going to be tracking how and why.

                   If you haven't seen all the supporting work that has brought us to this point, (or even if you have) this all must look very silly indeed. I want to track the development of this theoretical "Religion" from it's beginning. I'm going to establish my domain name and website to anchor the project into usable business culture. While retaining independence I want no money.

                   The question is no longer, "Can I do it?" I am doing this. Question becomes how and why.

What Are We Trying to Prove; The MARRIAGE of SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGIES

                  My consort and I, (You may call her "GOD.") have planned parenthood. We've conceived a church of "COMPLEMENTARITY." (If there is "GOD" I am so not worthy of this opportunity to create a lasting institution of Spiritual Technologies. But we have to start somewhere.)

                  I am serious about giving life to our entity of learning, I'll document the process as it unfolds. Cults are here to stay. I want to design a "Good Cult" that is harmless and demands nothing of anyone.

                 Can I do this? That's what we are here to find out. The spiritual technologies already exist. Now I just need to hook up the machine. Any Questions?

Strengthening Your Induction Hypothesis / TEST POST MAGAZINE

                   Social Induction. Conversions. Cults of Personality. Presence. I want to map influence.

                   Influence in time is information. I'm experimenting with the statistical analytics features on my social media. Releasing data, media or content on to the web each carry a signature trail of influence. I can easily trace my own media in a "Campaign" using the objective of conversion: I use models for the longest campaigns possible. Time encapsulated campaigns. Only our children will know. I'm totally open to staying simple. The "True Hoax" has now become a Game.

                   Influence. I'm designing an institution of "Culture." {"COMPLEMENTARIANISM"}

                   As the so called pro psychic I am my own worst critic. I am totally skeptical.

                   I want to promote my free magazine, <ZENOPHILE>. (I probably can't use that name.)

                   I really am a psychic and I know what people want to hear.

                   The Proof: I want to see if people will want me to "Read" for them. (Proving I can sell magazines?) I need better proof.

                   Starting with the wind, we may be able to map for influence in say; Documentaries and their resulting changes to popular public opinion. And how long does it take. (In my magazine, I am also the reader.) "Influence," and the dissemination of influence through media moves social dialog in mass culture. Spreading and disseminating new information can be tagged. We are disseminating identifiably new data with this "Test Post Magazine. Cultures change, opinions change. These boundaries are trackable. Eventually.

                         "Conditions and Requirements"  I keep records, My demands. My offering.

                    1.) SUB CULT. I am designing a sub cult. I am generating buzz without expense.

                    2.) CONVERSIONS. I get people to want to be readers too, starting small.

                    3.) EDITORIAL INTEGRITY. I do my job right. Honest. Be brief.

                    4.)  INVISIBILITY. I don't exist. This is an unrealistic literary exercise that might succeed.


                                                            CONSTRAINTS

                     #.1 First Failing. I don't want money. I won't play around with business. (I'm not stupid.) Big frailty on my part. Sorry. No Compromises.

                    #.2 Safe Sound Practices, Marketing used for Good.

                    #.3 That's it. Thanks. I'll try to make this a lot clearer as we go along.

                    Constructing a propositional assertion that can be proved by social experiment is hard. Imagine checking all the terms of analysis. It's not easy. Constructing hypothesis in expression strings do not allow trivial generalities. Computer math is sensitive about weak and faulty logic. Assumptions become those little lies that creep into a psychic's career.
               

Everybody Wants to Be "It."

                   I've been looking at the google analytics for my social media. I really enjoy reading things I can do with data. Marketing for things like "conversion rates," It must be "point of sale" and I really laughed. I enjoyed reading about features and actual systems analysis for data modeling. It was really fun and I honestly don't know If I'm going to be able to keep up with this. I do like a good social experiment. I'm going to see if I can do this, it's not a big thing. I'll stay open. Can market teaching people "How to be Psychics," Classes taught over the web without ever having to meet you. And I am actually already doing this professionally. (I actually am. My magazine has both content and learning modules. I'm not worried about money. Nobody should trust a psychic with money anyways.)

                   I love math. Instructions speak about tracking real behavior in your markets and marketing. I was reading something beautiful and poetic, not vague. I got it.  I think I get it now. "It's" that quality of something, or someone indescribable. "It" is market gold. You want "It." You have to have "It."  You have to get "It." Everyone wants "It." Now is the whole point of "It." Now is very "It."

                   And now "It" has become very measurable. (google analytics) And I had a good laugh and feel very good about what I read. It gave me a kind of hope. Targeting an audience (Analytics) can be a very dynamic medium for communication, you can get individual consent to participate, screen and/or filter involvement in that analytic.

                   I ask you, "Can Marketing become a Force for Good?"  Similar to your own personal social media, your data can be what and who is accessing and interacting with your media. Questions like, What accesses your market? In what way? By Whom, When, Where, and much more subtle details.  How do you identify Yourself to your market? These can be your metrics, just like time, proximity, age, etc. You can segment your data. Each parameter sets for scheduling, usage, length of a campaign. Hard for me to keep up, but it sounds fun, so we'll see. Fun Huh? I'm going to see if I can do this. Thanks as always, you are a blast. "It" has taken surfing the web to another completely unexpected place.

                    P. S.  Nobody wants to get permanently stuck inside of the "It" box, at least not for very long. We are happiest when we matter to other people. Creates beautiful things. Be very creative, a completely different challenge entirely. Enjoy simplicity. We are "It" already. Forever! (Buzz on google analytics, kind of creepy,.. I laughed.) Are we there yet?

Groupings

                  Today we will attempt to discuss the Topological Algebra of social co-boundary definitions. We have already looked at the "Dyad." This most primary of social groups can also describe the self separate from an individual group, self to groups, or group(s) to group(s), as long as they are defining two separate "subjects." But when we get into the topological algebra of more than any "2" separate things, (groupings) we are dealing with a much higher order of boundary relations. I will spare you the deliciously tedious geometrical configuration notation for combinatorial spaces where we count vertices as well the edges of lines connecting each vertex. (Big words, simple ideas.)

                  In doing couples counseling I often have to do the math of identifying both people as individuals while respecting that third entity of their shared relation. "The family is a delicate flower and it must be preserved at great cost." When "I" am talking to you, you are the center of my universe. (Sorry, that's a personal challenge of mine and it is why I much prefer public speaking to say group therapy, or worse yet board meetings.) So when I'm with a couple, I feel I'm switching back and forth between two completely different personalities in me. Talking to that couple inclines me to want a singular identity. I've had to do the math and see the absurdity of wanting to reduce multiple people to closed groups, no matter how conventional. As mathematical relations modeled on co-boundary chains we can think of individuals as vertices forming a central point for the intersection. (Where "i" is the enumerative index. Sorry, math joke.) But we can also turn our social model inside out and start with each of the individual dyad relations (lines of connection) as individual vertices themselves. (This is because each individual relation is discreetly enumerative, but this is descriptive of that singular line of connection forming an edge boundary for separate planes of inter relation.)

                  Some simple groupings can be mapped onto flat closed networks. But in this kind of 2D model, once you add a 5th entity to a model must take on a higher order of space in order to avoid crossing the "Edges" of these individually countable unique relations in an otherwise flat graphically insufficient 2space.

                  Although when "God" presides over the joining of two people in this sacred marriage union, we still must respect the "Discreetness" of all people as individuals. Same for all family members. And separate people in groups. No matter how tightly we pack our "Groups" we are still talking groupings. I've had some of my greatest challenges come from disentangling these "Groupings" issues. I would like to go into the covariant and contravariant notations for mapping co-boundary triangles leading us into these higher orders of co-cycles in relationships. But not only does my blogger not handle fonts for boundary chains, I know that the subtle but also potentially apparent dynamics of relations don't need over examination, at least not here.

                  ({r=2sin2phi*sin2theta*sin(phi)} Is the parametric equation I used to demonstrate subjects in spacial relation. Each of the graphic models are different angular views for this same expression. Four like subjects projected into a 3space, demonstrates the limitations of 2d networks for mapping more than three things in relation to each other.)

More on the Abuses of "Cold Reading"

Sunday, April 13, 2014

The Linguistics of Violated Boundaries

                   I found on close reexamination of my post on "The Fine Art of Cold Reading" (Tues. June 4th, 2013) I neglected the whole issue of psychics who lie and then make up excuses. Cold reading usually means making overly general statements with the intent of fishing for "Hits." We've all seen amateur psychics who believe their own hype, wrecking things for everyone.

                   I can do better. Instead of being overly general, I much prefer to use language that makes people think. The real problem with "Cold Reading" is the violation of trust. We are all reading each other by different degrees all the time. But this is something that, out of respect, we do carefully and with discretion. Boundaries are delicately set to respond to any and all points of contact. Sensitive boundaries are the ones we train to interact with the dynamic social and physical environments. We may be able to recognize when others are feeling an attraction. Do I really want to know if that attractive married woman over there is attracted to me? No. Definitely not. Those perfectly healthy feelings of attraction that normal healthy people feel can occur for any of a variety of reasons. None of which are any of my business at all, ever. She in fact could be very happily married, much to contrary of that very destructive prejudice that says that happily married people are somehow incapable of enjoying the aesthetic stimulation of other healthy beautiful people. Any assumptions on my part, even if I do have an inside understanding of the micro expressions that can be read, would be a total violation of the basic codes of the ethical treatment for people, as well our right to the pursuit of individual personal happiness.

                    One of the ironies of my 2nd Vital Paradox, "Are there any Real Psychics?" is that there are so many phony psychics. (General Concepts, April, 9th. 2013) VIOLATION: Lying to people in order to get paid is always a "Moral Hazard." Forced Listening, just like Mind Reading is strictly verboten. Why don't we just put all the so called psychics into a cage and let them read each other? Oh yah, we tried that in the future and, well it gets interesting. I still believe it is wrong to take advantage of people by playing on peoples gullibility. Also, I have no respect for people who grope for approval from "True Believers. Pinging someones Sensitive Boundaries is going to sometimes happen accidentally anyways. Besides, making a big deal out of being able to easily read people is one of those things you generally want to play down. Being a good reader is a mixed blessing as well as a thankless job. What it is possible to know about a person will shatter any sense of privacy a person may have. I also believe in making people make their own decisions, always. And I will say it, repeatedly. "Everyone has Blind Spots and everyones Blind Spots are different." (2nd Rule)

                    Basically, here in this blog, we are building bridges to a Language of Mutual Reflection, by turning boundaries into identifiable points of mutual contact. Understanding our Sensitive Boundaries is at the core of the techniques and technologies we are learning.

"OCCULT" Sexy Meta Tag or Superstition

                   I had an interesting conversation with a Republican Christian about his Pentecostal upbringing. He had come to challenge Racism in himself and his family and asked me about Nazism and it's supposed connections to banking, Judaism, Satanism, the so called Illuminati, Free Masonry, and "Secret Societies" today. I mentioned how very sensitive I am about the resuscitated Nazism that has crept into general New Age culture. Things like the "Hollow Earth Theory" which in fact was a part of Nazi propaganda, is very upsetting for me as I identify strongly with Holocaust survivors. Of course the new age with it's idealism is not totally good or bad, but neither is it immune to popular disinformation from cults seeking rapid conversions. I don't believe we should ever give up on the question of faith, but this young man and his curiosity faced his own prejudices. I myself resent having the occult thrown in my face. But this man needed to ask me hard questions. Partisan religion and spiritual abuse polarizes already suggestible people.

                    That being said, "Why did I go to school to learn the "Tools of the Trade?" If I don't believe in psychics, why did I study divination? My teacher said, "The greatest evil is claiming to be an authority, when one is in fact ignorant. (Business as usual.)

                    The etiology for the word "Occult" implies that which is hidden, Secret. So, Occult and it's implied pretense of authority appeals to many of those instincts which incline us toward a sense of belonging and identity, and the desire to believe. This is it's blatantly (anti?) "Catholic" Blasphemy. My Grandfather would say, "We should have sided with the Nazis, at least they aren't godless communists." (of course these were the later dark ages.) My friend admitted to doing a certain amount of soul searching for himself and had considered some very unpopular movements. (Bless you my much younger friend.)

                     As a culture, we have made a lot of progress distinguishing "Occult" from what are in fact only foreign cultures. But as always, popular prejudices do reemerge. There still is a need to stop confusing the unknown with with the power of some occult force. Proxy Dependencies are an inevitable necessity but responsibility still falls on us as individuals to make up our own minds, for ourselves. We have more information than ever, but that capacity for ignorance, evil and the abuse of power persists. I believe that the appeal of the "Occult" is contrarian. Hence it's "Sexy Meta Tag." What's your sign? (I don't care and I'm not telling you my birthday.) The popular appeal of taboo in a changing culture is greatest when groups and group identification (Proxy Dependencies) breakdown.

                     Contrarian dogmas are by design antagonistic. Getting yourself identified with the "Psychic Arts" can be an invitation to get punched in the nose. Thank you very much. But I am merely a "Complementarian" and I prefer to suspend judgement. Proofs from my social experiments will continue to be published as they become available. I hope to be able to construct thought experiments that will produce healthy supportive results.