The "Establishment" the Third Person

The word "Establishment" seems to be one of many the buzz words in play today. Nearly equal though is the quieter buzz word that's left standing in its shadow the word "Anti-establishment".

Another word be the vagueness found within the word "Politically" correct.

What if common Sense were seen as something intangible that must be "Created"?

Not to suggest something that's made in a Lab, Test tube, warehouse or on some assembly line, but such a thing manifest as the result of positive interaction between people and their conclusions which then manifest as the essence of those conclusions they've mutually "DRAWN"?

We're living in a world where the invisible "They" we all like to refer to as we explore talking points has also become the dumping grounds for our emotions. Such a place which includes many of the things we don't agree with.

As we talk or converse we also flirt with this "Third Person". This third person who conveniently never seems to be available or there in the moment to defend themselves, further emphasize or expound on what they've "Supposedly" said!

This format of conversing doesn't fit together with words such as "Heart Felt, Compassionate, Understanding, Considerate and last but not least "Thoughtful" and leaves much more to be said about the essence of humanity encrypted within a face to face transfer of thought(s).

It's easy to assume everyone else that's part of our conversation(s) knows exactly what we're talking about as we try to populate and in turn polarize the atmosphere with our words.

Take for example a husband and wife conversation within an otherwise neutral day that turns "South" into an argument without any supposed "Early notice" when a simple question such as "What do you want to eat for dinner" gets placed on the table?

Really, is it true though to suggest there was no "Early notice" or would it be more accurate to clearly state that this was there all along and simply waiting for a place to happen?

Keep in mind within this example it applies to two people who claim they love each other through vows taken, yet imagine if the spirit of what I'm suggesting were to take place between two people who've yet to confess any type of coherent, long term and favorable devotion towards each other?

Yet NOW you have two people who are still choosing their OWN methodology as to how both are now somehow trying to "Cope" with this thing (relationship) they have since taken upon themselves and enjoined in?

SO what's the easiest escape plan should things not work out where no one is "Willing" to find agreement? How long does agreeing to disagree work within a lasting marriage? That is before the real essence of the DISAGREEMENT later and makes the choice to resurface some where else?

You know that obscure :"Somewhere Else" such as another argument that started out about something Totally different?

Obscure to mean where someone see it as a need to pick a fight in order to "Eventually" get heard? One where the results of any supposed real fight is pain? Away from which any Normal human would also look to escape from? Does it make "SENSE" to you?

Back to the dinner in question, "They" start out talking as if they're on the same page, but let something as simple as "Where do you want to got eat" come up and one of the two might easily find themselves sleeping on the couch either that or silently staring at the back of their mates head or out the bedroom window all night long.

More often though, isn't it true that if a talking point stays on the table for very long what usually gets fleshed out or maybe "Flushed" out is the not so obvious "Us vs Them"?

What about what's in their Heart?

The substance of the heart of ones heart everyone hopes to be able to find that on one occasion can easily be expressed yet in another moment of time the right words are not available or are no where to be found?

How much of this mystery truly has to do with the type of atmosphere, sense of their awareness of their OWN presence that is IN ORDER to where they CAN find themselves "Able" to express what's in their heart?

When any two people honestly sit down in an attempt to converse, like it or not we each give away tiny tid bits about ourselves. These things may be encrypted, yet they're most definitely in the air we move around with the sound of our "Voice" and with the added punctuation of our not so silent body language.

Herein lies the danger in trying to rely too heavily on someones words alone via texting or email. It all boils down to a form of comfort in My opinion. That comfort being what each person CAN handle or accommodate within their own logic Tree"?

Some might argue with, "But what about hand written letters throughout antiquity"? The medium where people for centuries found themselves able to convey trustworthy thoughts regardless of the miles that separated them?

I'm firmly of the opinion, "A person CAN find out more about what they may or may NOT know about a person best when they're NOT present. Meaning many of those things "Said" we suggest to ourselves we "Know"! That is until the strength and weight of the undeniable comes along and whispers to us otherwise.

My argument is that today people are NOT weighing not only the words of others by the same standards "They" used to but also "They" are NOT weighing their own words by that same standard before the jury pool has been seated.

We have more people (another form of Media that may of may NOT be just) telling us today not only what everyone has said, but their intentions and motivation for having said so as well.

In this type of frame work not only is there barely enough room for the personage in question, much less what may or may NOT be true that concerns other Narratives being offered.

What ever happened to the age old phrase, "I don't know ask them, they are of age and can speak for themselves"? Why the need for so many other opinions today before a person is believed?

Surely there's a Righteous response EVERYONE can agree with floating around out there somewhere that's JUST waiting to be heard? Some might even refer to it as "Common Sense"?

Others might even relate to this answer as "True Wisdom"?

Today there's rarely a clean and clear delivery of words that ALSO find themselves without the need for some form of validation (bias) being mixed with them (words).

I've heard of a "Horse or Dog" whisperer what claim they know what's going through an animals mind, but what about a "Human Whisperer"?

I fully believe there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with "News" in and of itself yet only when it's NOT been tainted with "Bias or Slant" of any kind.

The dispensation of unbiased news these days is nearly "Impossible" to find. Why is this? You simply can't find this "Medium" on any Radio or TV network these days.

We might claim we're ALL speaking the same language, yet TRULY are we? The day when we ALL do speak the same language what will it sound like? "Common Sense" maybe?

Many side show reporters are attempting to try and sound like they are without bias and that by way by way of  Trashing "Everyone"!

Usually all this type of horse play (no pun intended) is turns out to be is a ploy to try and get everyone to switch over and listen to them.

How easy is it to learn to loathe a "Politician", yet how many personalities have failed see what they have to say is beginning to sounds much like a "Politician". sw

My suggestion is? Refuse to be someone else's experimental project. Stop investing in conversation that's obviously NOT going anywhere or getting you them anywhere that's also 'Meaningful"!

Especially if the word Meaningful were being viewed as though it were an additional "Sense" that's full of the willingness aware of all that is held in Common.

The acknowledgement of having One and the same creator is The Best place to start looking don't you think? Who better would know than the one that did create "Man Kind"

Such a place might not only "Prove" to be where "Common ground is found, but a ground that is solid as a "Rock" and can be built upon.... Just saying!

SW