Decentralized Capital Flow

The delay in completing this essay is due to my vacation. I'll pick it back up when I return to CA.
https://video.img.ria.ru/Out/MP3/20170725/2017_07_25_DOUBLEDOWN70250717_54bfn3bm.umf.mp3
This essay will be my first attempt at critical theory taken from Marxist criticism, Kenneth Burke, and Jean Baudrillard and applied to the flow of capital from central banks into decentralized crypto-currency. I intend to learn through analysis what the exchange of value and trust means especially when trust becomes an integral part of the transaction (a computer process rather than a legal consequence). Concepts for exploration will include corporate, political, and governmental migration which must naturally follow the decentralized flow of capital. The conclusion will question what the transition of the world into a global community on a level playing field of exchange might mean.

Just a note from a FB post. It reminds me of the religious arguments I witnessed between Chris Brown and Nan Gerlinger at Jenny's parent's place. Nan was more rational than Chris but his argument caused a lightning bolt to strike the garage. I decided that the truth with a capital T can't be known. But, the transmission of information, the ways that people come to believe that I can study and influence. So, that is what I do. I've seen the awareness of my ability to program computers come upon me like a demon, like a musician that imagines sounds and then realizes they can play an instrument to recreate and follow where the sounds lead. Then I met thousands of these musicians of open source, the best of them, the founders of Linux and the inventors of the software that created the Internet and put the videos that I took of them onto the Internet. I watched the internet grow from the inside and witnessed the changes on society and I saw what governments and politicians have done by comparison. They are useless and a waste of time. Mostly they are destructive and degrading and puppets of a far more sinister group of decadent individuals. And, now the same as I have seen the influences of open source software on our lives, I see the transformation of trust and value from governments and the evil influences behind them to an open source base of decentralized systems more powerful than governments or the power to influence through media. Where capital flows governments, corporations and society follow. This time it is a global society. A society without borders, oligarchs, militaries and human governments.

Note 2:  It is nonsense to think about Russians under the bed when you have the deep state being recognized as real. What the hell is a deep state doing existing in a democracy? Did you even think about what is being said today in politics? Nothing works like you think it does when you believe in political parties. That stuff is all last millennium. It's the same with National budgets. Once Clinton did away with Glass-Stegall the way that the US financial system works changed. The National budget is a fiction because central banks coordinate the exchange in value function through derivatives based on debt. Dollar based budgets are fictions. This kind of thing is possible with simulations of which the dollar is very much a simulation. Nothing freaking works the way you guys think about things in these posts. The world is very complicated. I used to think that government could be replaced by computer software. It already has but by bankster and deep state software. It needs to be replaced by open source software bitchez.

Note 3: This is an interesting read on cryptocurrencies by the FEDs stock manipulation participant but she is so far behind the times on what she talks about when she gets to crypto currencies and quantum computers that what she says is not valid. A number of crypto currencies are already quantum computing resistant and crypto currencies are no longer currencies--that's the big one that she is missing. Capital flowed into an entirely new abstraction where the currency value of a crypto currency is one of an infinite number attributes.

ZEROHEDGE.COM

Note 4: Objective Ethics In 15 Minutes | Universally Preferable Behavi...

Nice, I'll check out the free stuff. There must be gray areas like within tribes where it 
is universally accepted behavior that each tribe is expected to commit violence against the other tribe. Another, where people accept theft through taxes so that social systems don't collapse and so on. So, in collective situations rather than individual situations, exceptions seem to exist. As Jung says, it is only the individual that has the capacity for morality. And, in the examples that you state this is so. The gray areas within the individual are areas of cognitive dissonance and concerning the big 4 of murder, rape, assault, and theft the gray areas are special situations that occur under duress in which case it may be possible for a person to commit the act and the act be judged neither moral or immoral in light of the situation. In other words, the morality of the act is absolved by the situation. Therefore the act exists but the morality of the act is transcended by the situation into the realm of the abstract; the classic example of whether or not a soldier can be held morally responsible for an unjust murder.

Bitcoin could go to a million. The billions being created out of thin air by central banks every month has to go somewhere and now it is flowing into crypto currencies, Everything is changing; even the domain name services system is being circumvented. You can go to a website now by putting in its crypto currency address. I love it. I rode the wave of the internet build out and now this. I posted earlier about the Startup Societies Foundation that is like an enthusiast group of like minded individuals that are getting together to create localized systems of governance. Crypto is bigger than the internet because it has capital attached to hybrid forms of contracts and software functionality all guaranteed by unique database entries. It was the ability for humans to create a unique entity that allows everything else to unfold from it that created this revolution. Blockchain entries are the monad, the true simulacrum from which all things emanate and return to. It is an attribute of God given over to the will of people from around the world. Blockchain tech will make a blind person see, a deaf person hear, and a lame man run. It is the second coming of the Holy Spirit made manifest. And, atop the mountains, and through the valleys, in the rivers, and in the oceans a sound so beautiful was heard that the voices of the hearers' contained new meaning: new knowledge of the unity of all things; an implicit part of each action. And lo, in the thousand years to come I saw a light shine into the darkness of the past; of how far we had come. And so on. Go Bitcoin.

https://video.img.ria.ru/Out/MP3/20170725/2017_07_25_DOUBLEDOWN70250717_54bfn3bm.umf.mp3

They (cryptos) are not currency in the old sense. They are hybrid forms of capital. Since they carry executable software code they are a kind of infinite capital that is rapidly transforming the social. They are a pure simulacrum since they are unique elements. What they bring with them are the infinite possibilities of a virtual truth. "The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth--it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true".--Jean Baudrillard. Cryptocurrencies represent the first time in human history when people could create a unique item. Crypto is the creation of something out of nothing given over to the will of humans. Crypto is not like gold or money but more like the Holy Spirit made manifest. The change that they will unleash into the social is complicated. The decentralization of wealth is but one of many more surprises to come. Yes, what I've written is strange but open source software is strange in that something moved people to realize that they had to code even if it was without pay until the internet and Linux flourished. The mission imagined in the minds of those diligent and undying efforts was to democratize information. Now it is with crypto to democratize through decentralization of existing social and monetary systems. And, hence came the monad from which every creature and plant of the field formed--the indivisible atom. This came unto man for whatever reason might be dreamed that a new age of understanding should spread through his numbers. Go crypto go whatever you may be.

I liked McAfee’s piece. I likewise believe this to be the most important event in history. Once you have a point like in mathematics the rest becomes possible. An entry on a cryptographic blockchain ledger is such a point. And, infinite possibilities may be attached to it. The ledger entry is a trustless reference. As a paradigm changing element it has the component of a point of reference: a referent to humans symbol producing system. And, it is a point that did not exist before.

The fact that we're even close to doge should excite you. The fact that a meme coin has a 188m market cap after 3 years of being on the market, and we nearly touched their ath market cap after two days should excite you. Then consider that ZRX represents a useful product that might be used by the largest up and coming d apps and exchanges. consider that the tokens are of limited supply, and crypto is becoming a more and more valuable asset as time goes on. Ethereum is becoming huge, so many tokens are being made every day on the eth net. Sure the market is due for a bit of consolidation, and people will soon stop buying into shit tier ico's, but there will still be hundreds of eth based tokens, and a need to trade them for years to come. The market will favor the coins that make a name for themselves, and coins that have roots in the industry. I think 0x is on its way there. What happens when they perfect the protocol? Whats next for 0x? ZRX will be a part of that too, since their operating funds are entangled :wink: I find it funny that I just now realized that a bunch of 0x team members are in this chat. hey yall. Thanks for working hard. I believe in your vision! --Maximillian

The Truth Behind Today's Cognitive Dissonance

As matters of perspective, relativity, relationships, and those others responsible for my feelings of cognitive dissonance enter into the conversation of this essay. I attempt to establish an understanding of how the interpretation of media may not be taken so seriously that it triggers an emotional response which in turn shuts down dialogue. I argue that a solution, at least in part, to the problem of cognitive dissonance, may be found through the assignment of a less significant value on symbolicity that references things further away from first-hand experience. Aristotle’s views on ethics and Kenneth Burke's key terms, consubstantiality, and terministic screens provide the basis for my argument. Carl Gustav Jung’s statements on psychological conditions during the height of World War II provide a cautionary note for reference. Censorship, propaganda, and freedom of the press are all parts of this essay’s explication of how media establishes particular viewpoints valued as collective opinions rather than facts. The exigency for resolving existing tensions is due to an acceleration of collective acts of violence and claims that instances of a de facto censorship—the silencing of contrary views by Google’s search engine and its role in advertising revenues. If communications are shut down between those holding different opinions then not only will the conversation be silenced but also the possibility of the resolution of conflict. Indeed, if the terms of our terministic screens--the lenses through which we view reality--become unstable, then where does that leave our personal relationship to one another; the relationships wherein our soundness of mind and sense of belonging reside?

How predisposed should we be of facts when they come from media possibly no more than hearsay? According to Professor John Duffy in his essay “The Good Writer: Virtue Ethics and the Teaching of Writing,” “we inhabit a rhetorical climate in which there is no widely shared agreement as to the nature of fact, or what counts as evidence, or how to interpret such evidence as may be presented” (242). Duffy takes an ethical stance on why to teach writing as an exercise in ethics and states that  “when we write [and converse] we define ourselves ethically” (230). But to thoroughly examine the principles of communication over the Internet, and within the current social environment, let us first gain a general understanding the Burkean terms "Identity," "Consubstantiality," and "Terministic Screens." And then, let's analyze a conversation between two persons at the heart of the matter of the "Fake News" controversy. By doing so the state of our symbolic system that interprets our world will become apparent and give us a better perspective from which to make ethical choices.

The fake news controversy in media questions what the truth is and in that respect touches the very base of our symbolic system of understanding the world. If something is not true, then it will not be a valid term in the terministic screens through which we view the world; the world that we interpret through terms as reality. The discussion between Chris Martenson and Melissa Zimdars is an excellent opportunity to introduce Kenneth Burke’s concepts because Chris and Melissa (I’m going to use their first names to bring them closer together as people who share common values) question and analyze what exactly the term fake news means. The common values, as well as the individual values that Chris and Melissa have, may be explained according to Burke as consubstantial--they are two distinct individuals that share a set of common values. Chris and Melissa are educators, and as such, they have students, Melissa has students in academia and Chris has students on his website. Both have identities that must remain faithful to their peers. So their identities share a lot in substance. They also do not share a lot in common because of things they simply have not thought about, and they have their particular political biases as well as all the differences unique individuals have. In light of Burkean philosophy, they both have their individual terministic screens through which they interpret the world.

I introduce the ideas of Kenneth Burke, psychologist and literary theorist of the mid-20th century, to help us understand this particular interview and what is taking place within it. Burke describes "terministic screens" when he says, "the nature of our terms affect the nature of our observations, in the sense that the terms direct the attention to one field rather than to another . . . In brief, much that we take as observations about reality may be but the spinning out of possibilities implicit in our particular choice of terms" (46). The words that we use for thought processes bring with them their potentialities as a lens or tool through which to see. Each term in itself blocks out possibilities while allowing other symbols to come through and become part of the mix.

Burke enters into his discussion of terministic screens  as follows:
It is my claim that the injunctino, 'Believe, that you may understand,' has a fundamental application to the purely secular problem of terministic screens. The 'logological,' or 'terministic' counterpart of 'Believe' in the formula would be: Pick some particular nomenclature, some one terministic screen, And for 'That you may understand,' the counterpart would be: That you may proceed to track down the kinds of observation implicit in the terminology you have chosen, whether your choice of terms was deliberate or spontaneous. (47)

So this is what we will try to discover in the interview about both our host, Chris, and his guest, Mellisa. What terministic screens are they using to "track down the kinds of observation implicit in their terminology"? What words or terms are they using as research tools and or filters to view things uniquely. Both Chris and Melissa use their terministic screens to filter out the truth that they choose to guide them, and I would go so far as to say that they use their terministic screens to filter the facts that help to identify them.

The following is taken verbatim from Chris Martenson's website PeakProsperity.com as the introduction information to the soundtrack of the interview:

In the aftermath of the 2016 US Presidential election, 'fake news' was blamed as a major reason for Donald Trump's upset victory over Hillary Clinton. A wide range of players, from Russian propagandists to paid partisan puppeteers, were accused of fabricating stories which were then widely circulated via social media to influence the hearts and minds of voters. A national debate then raged -- and still does -- about whether 'fake news' truly exists and, if so, should it be tolerated. And, immediately after the election, a number of major media outlets, including Google and Facebook, announced planned steps to block 'suspect' content sources on their platforms. Amidst this tumult, a college professor compiled an aggregated list of 'False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical 'News' Sources', which quickly became known as the 'fake news list.' The mainstream media immediately latched on to this list of culprits, and circulated it heavily across the headlines of major outlets like CNN, The Washington Post, Fox News, The Boston Globe, New York Magazine, USA Today, Business Insider and The Dallas Morning News (Full disclosure: this [Chris's] website, PeakProsperity.com, was initially included on the list. We've learned it has since been removed.) So many questions have been raised by this list. Is naming these sources a public service? Or it is censorship? What criteria are used to declare content 'fake'? Who comes up with those criteria, and who is making the decisions? What are their qualifications? Is it the media's job to 'protect' the public from information? Or is it the reader's responsibility to judge for themselves what is and isn't a trustworthy source? To explore answers to these -- and many more -- questions, on this week's podcast we discuss the 'fake news list' with its creator, Dr. Melissa Zimdars, assistant professor of communications at Merrimack College. Chris' line of inquiry is brutally direct. And many of Dr. Zimdars' answers are more nuanced then many of her critics will expect. Wherever you fall on this topic, you'll find this an exceptionally open, frank debate of the key issues at stake on the public's right to information in the modern age.

 Please note that the transcript is available below the video (if you scroll down) at this link to PeakProsperity.com.

After listening to the interview or reading the transcript, if we were to analyze these two individuals separately, in Burkean terms, starting with Chris, we might say that Chris is an individual with a terministic screen that brings things to him with which he identifies. For instance, his MBA from Cornell University and his PhD. in pathology from Duke University provides him with a terministic screen that enables him to analyze the way that oil companies promote energy independence across newly established fake websites that look legit but in fact are publicity fronts. The way he makes his conclusion through the way many articles are exactly the same from supposedly independent journalists. As he says it “is [his] business is to be very deep into the information system on the web and understand what’s going on.”  What he identifies with then are source materials which he can read and authenticate that the claims made on a website are authentic and not taken out of context. Chris lists the rules for posting legitimate articles on his website at PeakProsperity.com.  Chris's identity is dependent on factual information. If his facts are overly pretentious or untrue, his website will fail. PeakProsperity.com depends not only on Chris's personality but on his integrity which in turn has given rise to the membership that respects his ideas enough to pay for them.

Chris's consubstantiality with his guest Melissa during the interview is in the way that they share the same concerns about the truthfulness of information but have different terministic screens to help them identify fake news sites. Whereas Chris's identity finds a relationship with sources found through the terministic screen such as one might expect of a scientist, Melissa's terministic screen as a professional academic who wants to provide a way in which her students might obtain truthful information expresses itself in part through a list to locate credible sources. Her list is entitled "False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical 'News' Sources." 

The effect of Melissa's list on the collective symbol system revealed itself when she became a target of slander; a collective note of discord made itself known. But, through Chris and Melissa's consubstantiality, during the interview, as two individuals with a shared interest in fact-based websites, the discord lessened. The essence of the interview echoed her website's mission statement: "to empower people to find reliable information online." The dialogue between Chris and Melissa as two intelligent individuals provided the audience with a sense of rationality rather than what Internet media had implied by suspecting that Melissa's list would be used by governmental or corporate interests to censor all other sites. In a way, the interview revealed truth where before massive speculation existed. Nonetheless, the discord produced within our collective symbolic system something previously not known, not well understood and something that might require censorship to keep the symbolic from falling apart. In other words, Melissa's list revealed to us just how fragile our sense of stability is.

Chris's consubstantial participation brought up the issue of censorship. The term censorship is one of those words that Chris was not sure if he understood in common with Melissa. One ambiguity arose over the previously mentioned fact when Chris and Melissa's terministic screens that function to enforce their identities clashed over the fact that Chris found that phony petroleum sites might be listed as legitimate on Melissa’s site. The issue is that if Melissa and her associates lacked the technical knowledge to expose sites created as propaganda by big oil then how could her list filter out misleading websites? The requirement that a list such as Melissa’s must have qualified people across the spectrum of all expertises was only implied, but Melissa agreed that in contemporary journalism “there is definitely a lot that needs to change and become more transparent in how we relay information to the public.” Most importantly, together they decided that censorship was not the right choice for providing truthful information on the Internet. And further, Melissa said that she would work with any site and modify her list accordingly. To her credit, she also noted that she was skeptical of her authority to create her list and because of that she develops the list via her collaborative group website Opensources.co. The interview thus removed any indication whatsoever that her website and her list is intended for censorship.

According to John Duffy "'To practice the virtues of reasoning well' in Aristotelian ethics is to react appropriately to a given situation” ( 234). In the interview both Chris and Melissa listened well, judged accordingly and made accommodations toward the most reasonable course of action. To me, their conversation is the substance of truth. It is that prime first-hand experience of the intermeshing of terministic screens to come to a higher realization. They have "proceed[ed] to track down the kinds of observations implicit in the terminology [they] have chosen, " and both became identified with a better version of their individual terministic screens. After the interview, I believe Melissa's terms have become more malleable, and Chris's opinion of Melissa seems to be one of admiration rather than resentment. By listening to their conversation we are left with an enlightening conversation between two very bright and conscientious speakers that let us understand that "Fake News" is not a symbol that connotes an ideology but rather a term that may be changed based on conditions. The dialogue during the interview, independent of what we make of it, is the kind of first-hand experience that we can trust.

By taking a perspective based on the insight that symbols further away than our personal dialogues and experiences are less stable, we may see that the terministic screens of millions of viewers of some of the sites on her list experienced cognitive dissonance over not only the threat of some of their favorite sites disappearing but also the fear of a possible violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. The larger issue of freedom of the press is still at stake, and millions of emotionally charged people discuss it. Their threatened identities share an attribute of consubstantiality with others that they never before could have. The term "Fake News" in effect establishes cognitive dissonance, the uncertainty of truth, the shaking of a nation presumably governed by the Constitution, and oddly, "Fake News" in some cases establishes shared concerns about the First Amendment with those that hold opposite socio-political views. What I am attempting to persuade my reader to see is that the truthfulness found in first-hand human relations is that which resonates most meaningfully with our symbol producing system. And, that is something that brings us back to Kenneth Burke.

Burke expands on the symbolic representation of our reality through terministic screens:

And however important to us is the tiny sliver of reality each of us has experienced firsthand, the whole overall 'picture' is but a construct of our symbol systems. To meditate on this fact until one sees its full implications is much like peering over the edge of things into an ultimate abyss. And doubtless, that's one reason why, though man is typically the symbol-using animal, he clings to a kind of naive verbal realism that refuses to let him realize the full extent of the role played by symbolicity in his notions of reality. (48)

The "role played by symbolicity in [our] notions of reality" is where I think many people go astray. They allow their identification to become meshed with their terministic screens to the point of losing sight of who and what they are. They become angered over fake news sites when not only do they not know what "Fake News" sites are, but they aren't even aware that the term is something that is dynamic. It is a phrase that is open to reason and dialogue and can change. Publicity through media made Melissa's list to guide students into something of a national sensation by bringing it into the symbol producing systems of the entire world where its meaning became embellished by each person that read or heard about it. And so it is with political opinions that are as far or farther from firsthand experience, somewhere lost in the realm of symbolicity, manipulated, propagandized and turned into a performance. Burke commented on such a matter by saying, "[t]o mistake this vast tangle of ideas for immediate experience is much more fallacious than to accept a dream as an immediate experience. For a dream really is an immediate experience, but the information that we receive about today's events throughout the world most decidedly is not" (48).

The "Fake News" issue is but one of many instances that now force us to question the terms that make up our terministic screens; terms that compete for recognition and conflict with our perception of reality; terms that now give us cognitive dissonance. Another instance comes from a research paper out of Princeton University that suggests that the United States may, to put in Baudrillardian terms, be a simulation of democracy that serves an oligarchy. The Princeton study “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” concludes:

analyses suggest that majorities of the American public have little influence over the policies our government adopts . . . Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance . . . But [they] believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened. (Gilens 577)

We have no further to look to agree with the Princeton assessment than to President Trump's foreign policy as compared with President Obama's and President Bush's: three different presidents and the same policy.

Another particularly disturbing development by the U.S. Government in regards to what the terms of our symbolic systems may mean comes from the 2013 and 2017 NDAA enactments. The 2013 NDAA, although not stating directly that the Government will use propaganda to persuade U.S. citizens, included the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which states:

SEC. 501. (a) The Secretary and the Broadcasting
9 Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appro-
10 priated or otherwise made available for public diplomacy
11 information programs to provide for the preparation, dis-
12 semination, and use of information intended for foreign
13 audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and
14 its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pic-
15 tures, the Internet, and other information media, includ-
16 ing social media, and through information centers, in-
17 structors, and other direct or indirect means of commu-
18 nication. . 

In an article by John Hudson on foreignpolicy.com you'll find an explanation of what this means. According to the website the act allows for the Board of Governors to broadcast programs like "Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks" within the U.S. And, according to democracynow.org, "press freedom advocates are raising alarm over a little-known bill rolled into the [2017] NDAA, which will create a national anti-propaganda center. Under the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act, the State Department will actively work to 'recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests.'" The key terms in the quote, "counter" and "non-state propaganda" in conjunction with the wording of the 2013 NDAA shows a progression towards government-produced media as a form of persuasion to promote whatever is meant by the phrase "national security interests." What is not mentioned is the word Internet, but the progression from broadcasts like Voice of America to countering non-state propaganda implies in the least that propaganda over the Internet to promote "national security interests" is more likely than not. Even the possibility of "Fake News" information produced by the most powerful nation in the world shakes our sense of what might be considered true.

The danger from the lack of authenticity of news, the threat of government propaganda or the fear of a shadow oligarchy comes not so much from any one of these instances but from the way that people tend toward collectivism during times of uncertainty. According to Griffin, "[l]ogically speaking, to keep decreased dissonance in our lives, we avoid information that may increase dissonance. We prefer things that are our beliefs, such as opinions, literature, and people. By taking care to ‘stick with our kind,' we can maintain the relative comfort of the status quo" (211). And, quite naturally, people often join forces to fight a common enemy. But, the problem resides in the breakdown of meaning within the symbol producing system of each of us. Since the enemy comes from within, collectivism enhances the aspect of terministic screens of which Burke says:

During a national election, the situation places great stress upon a division between the citizens. But often such divisiveness (or discontinuity) can be healed when the warring factions join in a common cause against an alien enemy (the division elsewhere thus serving to reestablish the principle of continuity at home). It should be apparent how either situation sets up the conditions for its particular kind of scapegoat, as a device that unifies all those who share a common enemy. (51)

Not only did the U.S. have a contentious election and now, six months later, we hear talk of impeachment, some are beginning to see the rush toward collectivism as well as the use of social media to drown out the voices of individuals who represent the only source of morality.

Carl Jung notes in Two Essays On Analytical Psychology, first published in German, (1943 and 1945) what takes place psychologically during such times when freedom of the individual is restricted: “This disregard for individuality obviously means the suffocation of the single individual, as a consequence of which the element of differentiation is obliterated from the community. The element of differentiation is the individual” (149-50). One such example of differentiation is the dialogue that takes place via two individual's terministic screens that in turn raises ambiguities which then become differentiated. He continues on to say that "[i]t is a notorious fact that the morality of society as a whole is in inverse ratio to its size; for the greater the aggregation of individuals, the more the individual factors are blotted out, and with them morality, which rests entirely on the moral sense of the individual and the freedom necessary for this . . . . Without freedom, there can be no morality" (150-51). Despite the apparent influence of Nazi Germany on Jung's comments, his emphasis on morality and the location of morality within the individual alludes to an associated value between morality and the first-hand experiences of the individual: relationships between proximity to the real and morality.

The truth behind today's cognitive dissonance is the recognition of the instability of our psychological, symbolic system of references. The basis for which we believe things to be, the basis for our sense of reality, and the basis for morality as presented above call for a more personal way of thinking about things. According to Duffy the "moral ambiguities, as we know, are often the impetus for rhetorical action, and we need rhetoric most when we can discern no rules or certain paths to follow" (240). By placing a relative value on terms based on their distance outside the scope of first-hand, personal experience we effectively build terministic screens made up of terms close to the reality in which we live and share. Through the rhetoric of the voices of individuals, friends, family members, associates at work and in college the inter-meshing of terministic screens offers the possibility of reestablishing the morality that the current move toward collectivism attempts to erase. The ethos of how to live and act will not be left to the law but instead, rely on the underlying ethos of a symbolic system built on the health of the human condition. As individuals with direct first-hand experiences, working with one another to the benefit of each other rather than through abstract and symbolically distant ideals, we can together resolve the problem of cognitive dissonance.

Works Cited

Burke, Kenneth. “Terministic Screens.” Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. University of California Press, 1966. rhetwritcult.wikispaces.com/file/detail/BurkeTerministicScreens.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017.

Democracy Now. Independent Global News, 2017, democracynow.org/ 2016/12/27/headlines/obama_signs_defense_bill_establishing_anti_propaganda_center. Accessed 1 May 2017.

Duffy, John. “The Good Writer: Virtue Ethics and the Teaching of Writing.” College English, Vol. 79, No. 3, January 2017, www.ncte.org.libproxy.csun.edu/journals/ce/issues/v79-3. Accessed 10 May 2017.

Gilens, Martin and Benjamin I. Page. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” scholar.princeton.edu, Sept. 2014, scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_- testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2017.

Griffin, Em. A First Look At Communication Theory Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill Education, 2003.

Hudson, John “U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans.” foreignpolicy.com, 14 July 2014, foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban- spreads-government-made-news-to-americans. Accessed 1 May 2017.

Jung, C G. Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 7: Two Essays On Analytical Psychology. Bollingen Foundation: Pantheon Books Inc., 1945.

“Melissa Zimdars: The Truth About Fake News.” PeakProsperity, 30 Apr. 2017, peakprosperity.com/podcast/108594/melissa-zimdars-truth-about-fake-news. Accessed 1 May 2017.

OpenSources. Professionally curated lists of online sources, available free for public use, www.opensources.co. Accessed 11 May 2017.

PeakProsperity. Insights For Prospering While Our World Changes, peakprosperity.com. Accessed 1 May. 2017.

“Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012.” gpo.gov, 10 May 2012, www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS- 112hr5736ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr5736ih.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017.