the activity of God, including the activity of language

Al Franken: God Spoke

Al Franken: God Spoke (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

This is a reply to a comment on another blog of mine:  http://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/the-supremacy-of-language-heaven-god-and-society/

Let us notice that there are two kinds of interactions. First, there are direct physical interactions, like heat from the sun and shaking hands and the power of gravity. Second, there are interactions through the medium of language, which involves neuro-chemistry in the processing of sounds or (in this case) various little shapes of black on this screen (letters and words).

In the audio of [the prior] blog (and perhaps in the text- I do not recall and did not check), the speaker (me) was very specific that the supremacy of language is relative. There is no such thing as absolute supremacy. Language is a relational or relative process. The supremacy of language is the recognition that language CAN guide other physical process, and itself is distinct from other physical processes. However, given that language is entirely neuro-chemical, language is actually just another physical process.

So, humans have the capacity for highly-developed language. You may be a native speaker of some language unfamiliar to me. I may use some words that are unfamiliar to you. Language is only supreme or superior when it is and how it is. Without neurology, these shapes on this screen are not language, but are only shapes on a screen, though they would not even be recognized as shapes on a screen for such recognition already implies the labeling or categorizing activity of language, which further implies active neuro-chemistry (perceiving).

One of the ironies of the title [of the prior blog post] is that supremacy is so often presumed to be absolute. That is one of the subtle points of this content. “Supremacy” is just a word. “Absolute” is also just a word.

“The absolute supremacy of God” is an entirely valid phrase, though it is entirely linguistic, as in neurochemical. Language itself has no direct influence over clouds or puppies or anything at all. Language is exclusively an indirect influence.

Can the words of a particular language alter the activity of clouds or puppies? Not as scribbles of ink on a sign, nor through sound waves. Only through the mechanism of neuro-chemistry. The neuro-chemistry can convert the sound waves or shapes of writing in to another form of energy. It is real energy. It is real influence. It is through language that bridges are built and through language that soldiers burn down bridges.

Language is just “software” or programming. Without hardware and power, it is useless. (However, how useful is hardware with electrical power, but no software?)

With hardware and electricity and language together, there is great potential. Further, the idea that language CANNOT influence clouds and puppies is entirely a construction in language, an idea, a belief, a superstition. Language is magic- just as magical as crystals of quartz that can “send and receive” radio waves and convert them in to sound in cell phones and TVs and radios. The crystals of course do not really “do” anything.

Teresa had written:

“I do not agree that language conditions; a behaviorist traumatizing a human individual would try to use an euphemism – ‘Language does it’. No. The trauma does it…. I don’t really understand the question of supremacy….”

As for behaviorists and trauma and operant conditioning, everything is conditioning. Everything is influence.

Consider the word momentum. It means an existing movement. Psychologically or spiritually, an existing momentum is called a motive or karma. It means the moving of energy or force.

You are the moving of energy or vital force. You do not have karma so much as you are karma.

In the absence of karmic activity, there is no linguistic activity (neuro-chemically) of the identifying of an isolated self. That is just a program of conditioning.

What is actually happening? There is neurological activity- like in reading these shapes but also in the organizing of this specific sequence of shapes. Further, these shapes were invented.

That is the activity of Logos or Language or God’s Will or God’s Karma or the Divine Word or the Tao. The activity of the Tao includes when a brain forms a signal that produces the firing of nerves and the twitching of muscle tissues and the typing of these words as well as the prior construction of these computers. The activity of the Tao includes the invention of language and alphabets and the formation of species and the invention of nerves and neurology and planets and chemistry and so on.

So, words can present a hierarchy or chronology. Of course, these will just be a bunch of words, right?

One hierarchy is that the originating category of Tao or God or Life or Nature FORMS ITSELF in to a subcategory called heaven, (like a seed sprouts in to a trunk). Next, the subcategory of heaven branches and branches and branches and eventually forms itself in to humanity and then all the various language groups and then the various societies which can distinguish themselves from other groups of humans that speak the same language.

What “divides” the social organization called “the United States” from the social organization called “Canada?” To the extent that both are subcategories of the speaking of English, we can say that the boundary between them only exists within the English language. A native american may call both societies “the European colonial occupation” which is an entirely valid linguistic construction in whatever other native language (translated in to English of course). What divides the state of California from the state of Arizona? It is a categorical distinction in language. The activity of language organizes all other divisions or distinctions between the operations of California and the operations of Arizona. Outside of language, California and Arizona do not exist at all.

Again, these are like branches of a hierarchy. God divides in to heaven and earth, then God as earth divides in to various neurological momentums which God as earthling calls “language” or “human language,” and then God as earth and earthling and language further subdivides in to individual societies or in to individual organisms or in to
personas and personalities.

The Supremacy of the Heavenly God is like the activity of a mustard seed. It branches. The original vine of the Heavenly God abides in each of the vines or branches.

When God knows itself as Heaven and Earth and Earthling and Language and Personality, then there is a “fulfillment” of social conditioning. An individual is born spiritually. God (as society) gives birth to itself as individual. This is not the same as the persona which is entirely a construct of social conditioning. This is the birth of the awareness of language and God as the same process.

God is not a personality. God is a symbolic code in the English language. God represents an idea that is represented with other linguistic codes (words) in other languages. God (or Allah or Brahman etc) is the label for the origin of languages.
God is a linguistic unit for what is supreme over language (the source of language). Language is supreme, through ONLY the authority or supremacy of God- supreme over all categorizing and labeling and organizing that happens through the linguistic neuro-logical programming or structuring of experience (experiences). When God recognizes itself as language, that is the presence of God.

One can recognize that there is only the presence of God, in many forms. One can also deny the presence of God totally or reject the presence of God in a particular case, such as “I am the isolated individual branch over here and God is the distant trunk over there, and now I need to struggle to connect with God. What is the best way for me to struggle to re-connect with God?”

Again, that is all just a bunch of language. In other words, that is all just a variety of forms of the activity of God.

So, does a quartz crystal “send and receive” anything? Not really. Does “Canada” actually do anything on its own (isolated from God or Nature or Reality)? Not at all. Do I “do” anything? Only as an instrument of God or agent of God.

The language that recognizes God within is distinct from the language of the isolated personality that does not recognize the presence of God within. Both patterns in language are formations of God. Formations of God are all God.

Formations of God can construct patterns in language of “I am not a formation of God, but only a formation BY God.” However, consider that formations of God do not in themselves “do” anything. God can divide in to “formations by God,” but that “dividing” is like the dividing of the front of the hand “from” the back of the hand. It is only a division in language. It is only a division within God.

There are no linguistic units that are isolated from language. There are no branches of God that are isolated from God. God is within every branch of God. Every linguistic unit is intrinsically the activity of language.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

33 Responses to “the activity of God, including the activity of language”

  1. ramanan50 Says:

    Sound is the basis of Language.
    Sound is the Breath of God and Hinduism declares that Sound is the expiration of God -Brahman, Reality -it is called Sabda Brahman.
    All sounds originate from three places in the Human Body.
    Mouth-“A”
    Throat-“U”
    Stomach(pit)-M”(ma)
    Reality is said to represented by these three .
    The combination of these is “OM”
    Specific intonation has specific power.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Within the context of human physiology, yes the various sounds are powerful simply as sounds. However, that is not especially what I was referencing as language. Even hearing the sound “OM” or being in the midst of the reverberation of gongs or other musical instruments certainly does have influence on human physiology as well as other physiology.

      Certainly, the neurological capacity to make sounds and hear sounds is the basis of the neurological process of language. That is rather obvious, and while much of the rest is obvious, too, it can be distinctive to actually “trace back” or deconstruct what is happening with language. Is there something prior to language, such as what is called “Brahman?” How is it important?

      Brahman makes physical bodies and various sounds through them. “Brahman” makes up words like Brahman and Tao and God and I and Hindu and Atma, and indeed all other languages, other words, and all sequences of words. This on your screen now is the activity of Brahman. Further, so is EVERYTHING else.

      You are the activity of Brahman. You are the formation of Brahman. You are a gem in the net of Indra.

      • teresapelka Says:

        The PIE means Proto-Indo-European; the term is very tentative and does not imply any Hindu or Buddhist origins to all speech. Such a theory could not be defended on language grounds.

      • teresapelka Says:

        In the context of my previous comment: a label like Proto-Euro-Indian would have had two /r/s in proximity. The term ‘Proto-Indo-European’ does not mean that European tongues would come from the Hindu Valley. There are significant differences. I am an evolutionist with regard to the origins of speech. Undeniably, there were spontaneous and independent inventions.

      • ramanan50 Says:

        Interaction is a form of action, whether voluntary or involuntary.]
        As to the statement that Hinduism neglects individuality, self realisation is meant for only individuals and not for a group.
        I may add that that nowhere in the, Vedas ,The sacred Text of the Hindus , there is mention of collective worship or even idol worship in public.The concept of Building a place of worship,a temple came later by the Agama sastras which is not an authority on Indian Philosophy Hinduism highly individualistic.
        .Yes, your thoughts are influenced by the language you speak,more specifically by the Culture in which you are placed.
        As to some one’s comment .”many people were illiterate and not aware of their speech production facts.’ speech came first and not literacy.
        Tell, how do we speak?By analysing the ‘speech production?
        Truth does not change for one’s interest..

      • teresapelka Says:

        @ramanan50 The comment you quote for someone’s is mine; saying ‘some one’s’ you’re neglecting my individuality. Interaction in the context of intellective behavior may not be equated with action. You’re neglecting the objective language reality. Would you care to refer to a dictionary for the terms? I mean that language facts HAVE CHANGED. Whether speech came first in some ancient times, or maybe not – do you know in person? – language form is not primarily phonetic to most humans nowadays. There’s no religion to revert the PROGRESS. What WAS true a few thousand years ago about human thinking is no longer the verity. You say the ‘language’ (singular) I speak influences me. I don’t speak and think only one language. You might try for yourself to stop translating from your one…

    • teresapelka Says:

      Sound is not the basis for all languages. There are dead languages. Their written form is the primary form to perceive. You can’t speak with your stomach actually: the role of the diaphragm in phonation probably got explored later. I mean many religions reflect on their states of arts. When Hinduism, as well as Buddhism, were being formed, many people were illiterate and not aware of their speech production facts. Atman would be the breath – the lungs rather than the stomach. Speech sounds as originating from the three places – the mouth, the throat, and the stomach – are not possibly of my interest. There’s still the brains… :)

      • ramanan50 Says:

        Sorry about saying as ‘some one’
        I started writing about all the comments in general and ended up with a particular comment.
        Again it is not intentional-regret.
        As to the other points you refer to ‘no comments’

      • jrfibonacci Says:

        As a brief note to Teresa, consider that one form of religion is “science.” If you consider the fact that scientists within the same field can have fierce debates, that politics influences science, that different sciences have distinct but similar rituals, then you can at least recognize a similarity between religion and science. Maybe you will even say that religion is a branch of science.

        Or maybe, we would call science and religion as two branches on the tree of culture. No matter what, language is involved. Consider that, in its “highest” forms, religion is the science of language.

        Consider the scientific theory that the planets revolve around the earth. When a “more developed theory” (with the planets revolving around the sun) was accepted, the prior or lesser theory was discarded.

        Similarly, while “lower forms of religion” may be overly simplistic (not especially valid, but not entirely invalid), consider that once a “higher form” is recognized, the prior or lesser model can be discarded. One does not need to argue about it or condemn the lower models. One can simply use the model that fits best.

        Also, for “those stuck in the dream of language,” life may be experienced as suffering. There may be another possibility.

  2. teresapelka Says:

    Continuing my reply to ‘The Supremacy of language, heaven, god, and society’, I’d differentiate interaction from action. We can say ‘the sun is shining’. Hardly anyone would perceive this physical action as a voluntary or purposed act on the part of the solar system. The sun does not have personality. You can’t interact intellectively with it.

    Further, I’m distanced from perceiving language as strictly neuro-chemistry. Neural tissue alone cannot explain idiolectal individuality. The fact does not require forcing any metaphysical perspective.

    I disagree language itself would guide. This is the human language user to use his or her decision-making capacities to take physical action.

    Language can be compared to a program. The comparison would work more like a noun however, without the verbal implication of any possibility to program. Human brains cannot be programmed. Humans can learn as well as choose not to learn.

    I asked in my comment why try to introduce any notion of supremacy. I used books for my example. You do not have to pile books one on top of another. You can arrange them on a shelf.

    Even if you put them in a stack, needing them for your work a given moment, in the intellective dimension, books may have a semantic arrangement not to involve vertical or horizontal prioritizing, that is, hierarchy.

    Notions for ‘supremacy’ become redundant just like those for ‘inferiority’.

    Sometimes, when you are monolingual, you might realize that collocations in the language you speak influence your picture of the world. This up to yourself to resolve on this possibility.

    Hinduism and Buddhism have their major disadvantage in neglecting individuality. Populations grow. Humans have personalities. To be reborn without actually the memory and personality – more, as a person of opposite sex or an animal? – this could not be much of a promise to me.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Teresa, you mentioned PIE. When I said “deconstruct or trace back,” I was not referring to word origins at the time. I was referring to neurology and the origins of language itself. I was not very clear, so let me elaborate.

      >
      it can be distinctive to actually “trace back” or deconstruct what is happening with language. Is there something prior to language, such as what is called “Brahman?” How is it important?
      >

      Neurology developed first, including hearing. Then, human neurology eventually evolved the capacity for making complex sounds. Then language began to form.

      Once language formed, then a new complexity of decision-making was possible. The rationalizing or reasoning possible with language is quite distinct from the “reptilian” reasoning that is earlier in the evolution of terrestrial neurology.

      With reptilian “reasoning,” it is all reflexive and reactive. With “advanced” or “higher” reasoning, it is still all reflexive or reactive, but just much more complex. Our responses depend on neurological development, nutrition and biochemistry, language development, the specific language (English, Hindi, etc), the specific socio-cultural conditioning, and even such things as personal trauma or the traumas that behaviorists use ritually in religion, public schools, and media.

      /
      Which is most “mechanical?” Which is “most alive?”

      a reptilian brain?
      a calculator?
      my laptop computer?
      my entire brain right now?
      my entire brain if I was drunk from alcohol?
      my grandfather clock?
      my microwave?
      /

      Now, one could say that all of my perceptions are the product of my perspective. I can perceive “I made that decision” and I can perceive “here are the reasons I made that decision.” Lots of people can make the same decision and give different reasons for it. All of them are valid. None of the stated reasons are “complete.”

      Here is what I mean. I do not actually think “I picked this girlfriend because of the following 723 factors: (1) When we first met, she was wearing an outfit that reminds me of an outfit that Olive Newton-John was wearing in the movie GREASE in the 1970s and I had a crush on Olivia Newton-John and so anyone wearing a similar outfit has my attention from the start….”

      We do not typically recognize the details of the complexity of decision-making. We do not think about how to figure out how to pronounce the word “hysteria,” we just make the sounds AUTOMATICALLY.

      We may claim the supremacy of the personality. That is one possible claim in language.

      “No, there are no unconscious factors involved in my decisions. I carefully analyze every single possible alternative and then I randomly choose one.”

      It’s all a bunch of words. The experience of “I” is just a stage of neurological development or neurological activity. At one point, there is no experience of I, then there is, then there is the experience of persona and personality, then “I change” and “I grow up.” Later, I fall asleep and suddenly “I disappear.” I have a dream (or a dreaming happens) and then part of the dreaming is a dreamer (“I”) and then in the middle of the dreaming, the dreamer splits in to two people and “I can see myself walking next to me” in the dream.

      By the way, in the dream, I am not a human. In the dream, I am a mermaid. It all seemed totally natural at the time, too.

      However, in the dream of being a mermaid, I make decisions and I experience the reasons for my decisions. Then, I wake up and I decide what I just dreamt about and the reasons why- I look for the meaning in the dream. I decided to dream of being a mermaid because I watched a movie the night before about mermaids.

      Does that even really make much sense? Some does more than the rest, right?

      Again, those are ALL just a bunch of words. Where did they come from?

      Where does experience come from? This is what I mean by deconstrusting or tracing back or introspecting. I also love to trace word origins, but that is not what I meant in the prior reference.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Hi Teresa,

      Thank you again. Have you noticed that choice is not universal? You do not choose to have eyes and you do not choose to grow hair.

      Choice is a label in language. Choice does not exist as an objective reality outside of language.

      The sun does not choose to shine or to rise or to set. The earth does not choose to rotate. Gravity does not choose to happen. Canada does not choose to increase it’s population.

      I did not choose to learn English. I did not choose to have breakfast this morning. I simply had breakfast this morning. I could say “I chose to have breakfast,” but that is subjective (linguistic!), not objective.

      Did you choose to be sitting in that chair right now? If someone else was in the room with you, would their direct experience be that you chose to sit in the chair, or just that you are sitting in the chair?

      What is an objective fact is that there is a word choice and that sometimes it comes out of people’s mouths. However, it is not a fact that choice exists, at least not in regard to the past. Choice, if it exists at all, is at best extremely limited- or is it?

      I have no choice in regard to the past, at least not any more. Did I ever? It may not really matter anymore anyway.

      Choice ultimately is about the future. My perception of the future is informed by the past. I have no choice but to occasionally experience choice.

      Or, perhaps I can re-interpret the past. However, based on what?

      New patterns of language allow me to re-interpret the past. Where do these new patterns in language come from? Do I choose them? Do they choose me? Do they come from somewhere?

      Within social interaction, others may interact with me as if I chose certain behaviors. I have no choice about that really, right?

      Society may condition me to accept that I chose my past and my present. I may be identified as personally responsible. If so, I have no choice about that.

      I may have been trained to speak to others as if they can choose. I have no choice (not now) about how I may have been trained.

      I may speak to “the world” as if the world can choose to reject me or choose to accept me. I may speak to the world as being the one who chooses to accept or reject.

      The world may speak through me. I may speak through it.

      Again, all of these are just sequences of words in language. Further, all of this language corresponds to certain patterns of neuro-chemistry.

      Neuro-chemistry chooses. Language chooses. God chooses. I choose. The sun chooses. Canada chooses.

      The only reason that I choose instead of “I chooses” is a convention in language. Neuro-chemistry, in contrast, does not “choose.” Neuro-chemistry “chooses.”

      In some languages, such as Hopi or Chinese, there may be a somewhat different rendering of ideas related to choice. There may be more precision as to “degrees” or “forms” of choice. There may be less precision.

      All language is subjective. All language is symbolic. All language is “imaginary.”

      • teresapelka Says:

        I don’t know if you’re Canadian – you might be trying to make the impression – you have not told me if you’re a linguist. Canadian and British Englishes have little in common. An easy puzzle for a linguist would be however, what language a refugee learned before he or she wanted to go to New Zealand, and he or she did not want to go and stay in England or Canada. AE. American.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      As for supremacy and superiority, consider my shoulder, my arm, and my hand. My shoulder positions my arm. My shoulder and arm position my hand.

      My hand is dependent on my arm and my shoulder. The shoulder, relatively, is supreme. Relative to my hand, my arm is superior.

      Supreme and superior are terms of relativity. I am very precise about this in the post above.

  3. jrfibonacci Says:

    Well, again my thanks to Teresa for adding new energy and new direction to this conversation. My thanks also to Ramanan for the same.

    On the same tree, two limbs can both come from the same trunk, yet go in different directions. Their branches and twigs can overlap a bit, yet be distinct. That is how your conversations are to me.

    I invite each of you to consider taking some time to listen to the audio on this post. (I assume you have read the text in full already.)

    I happen to be a native speaker of English. Sometimes, there is some degree of challenge when two native speakers of English communicate, including obvious things like a 5 year-old with a certain accent and vocabulary communicating with an 80 year-old with a certain accent and vocabulary.

    However, does language limit our possible interactions or add to our possible interactions? When two non-native speakers of English communicate, is it to be expected that there would be a tremendous opportunity for clarity yet also a possibility of the experience of challenge in the interaction? There could be frustration, right?

    Should we as adults (not knowing your ages, of course) expect no confusion ever and no frustration ever? Is that realistic? Or, is such an expectation a guarantee of confusion and frustration and resentment?

    I could expect Teresa and Ramanan to have the exact same vocabulary, for instance. Isn’t it natural to presume that other people are the same as me? Until I know otherwise, I presume that others know the words I am using and have similar life experiences. I could easily presume that all men are the same as me and that all women are the same as me, too. I may presume that all ages of people- all people- are exactly the same as me.

    Then, I may recognize that other people are not all the same as me (or each other). I could either accept that or reject it. I could reject it by saying “well, but they should be more like me!” I could confuse my own experience for other people’s experience- as in expecting others to be identical to me.

    So, if I reject something or confuse it for something else, then I can experience frustration and resentment and animosity. In fact, what if everyone else does experience that eventually? What if it is an essential developmental stage? What if confusion, frustration, animosity, and so on are natural and normal and nourish some other development?

    I could naively expect other people to all be able to speak English. How old was I before I recognized that there were other languages than English? How old was I when I recognized that some people could not hear (deaf people or hearing-impaired people) and so it was not useful to talk to them- or I had to raise my voice to be heard? I had the opportunity to learn to adapt, right?

    “Why doesn’t this baby respond to me when I speak clear English? Is it deaf? Is it stupid? It does not even know the words pretentious or mitochondria or elasticity! In fact, I suspect that this baby is not even a human. It is just a baby dog- a puppy. This puppy should be more like me. It should understand me. No one understands me at all! Life is so frustrating! Life is so confusing!”

  4. teresapelka Says:

    I’m not able to listen to the audio now, I’ll try later, if the content is supported for pcs, now I’m just mobile. My spontaneous impression is that you’re either not a linguist or someone to pretend not a linguist very skillfully. Same vocabularies would not be really possible. Neurology would not be all. Would there be any profile of jrFibonacci I could read?

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      I think you are asking about my personal history. I have never trained as a linguist.

      I was a highly-regarded student in high school, receiving a full academic scholarship to several universities. I studied Interpersonal Communications as an undergraduate. I entered graduate school, then dropped out to get a job.

      I had been interested in many religions “all along.” I was raised Christian (United Methodist) and I studied Buddhism as well as the “philosophy” of Jiddu Krishnamurti.

      In the mid 1990s, I had an unusual experience in which the neurological “dream” of personality briefly ceased (very briefly). In other words, the physical life of the organism continued along with waking consciousness, but no filtering of perception through a self-consciousness or psychological identity of isolation or separation.

      The body was awake, but there was no one there except awareness. The neurology of “I” was bypassed or “crashed” (like computer software) or whatever.

      The experience without the personal identifying was “blissful.” Then, the personal identifying resumed. By the way, choice was not experienced because there was no one there to choose (“Anatma”).

      I then “chose” to visit a Soto Zen (Buddhist) Monastery for a few months. I liked it enough to stay that long, but overall, “not all that much.”

      To me, they had lots of ritual and relatively little “religion.” That was pleasant enough, but not satisfying. Life went on from there.

      Also, I have done a lot of writing, including writing songs for the last 25 years or more. I am a talented guitarist and vocalist.

      One distinction of my writing is that I published forecasts of the various major global economic changes of the last several years. In 2004, I published “…The Real US Deficit: OIL” and first used the name Fibonacci, which is not my legal last name. That publication details a model of why global fuel prices had reversed in 1999 and what would happen within the next few years to reverse various economic and political patterns within the US (and, evenmoreso, in oil-addicted Europe). My long-term analysis has been accurate without exception.

      I never trained formally in economics or forecasting. I am self-taught, though of course I had the resources of an extensive range of authors represented on the internet. I am very analytical. My language skills are also rather well-developed.

      I recognize certain patterns faster than almost all other people. There is no choice in this. It just happens, like recognizing the words of English “just happens.”

      My experience has been that many people find it frightening or disturbing to be around me (and I can relate to that). A few people instead find it extremely appealing to be around me, though some of the most intense frustrations and resentments may arise for them occasionally.

      For instance, when people talk about their financial choices, I used to be more inclined to correct them or even to interrupt and criticize their irrationality and illiteracy. Now, I am more reserved and test for receptivity and commitment before speaking much on subjects that may frighten or anger others. I am less frustrated and less confused. In fact, there is “less personality” happening for me- or less of a specific limited range of personality and more of a well-rounded or mature “personality.”

      You can see more about me here:

      https://www.facebook.com/jrfibonacci

      or

      http://www.youtube.com/user/144jr144

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      I have never been to Canada or Europe or Asia or Africa. I have been within the US all of my life so far except for a few days when I went to Mexico for a vacation.

      I am not especially familiar with linguistics. I am more familiar with the social sciences and propaganda and mythology and neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), which is the study of the programming of neurology through language in particular and through communication in general (which could include such things as “behaviorist trauma”).

      To me, all of the social sciences are neuro-linguistic programs. Propaganda is entirely about neuro-linguistic programs. Mythology is just one type of propaganda, with parables and archetypes that form the basis of much of social science.

      Language is the foundation of all of these. Not linguistics- but language itself (the “Logos”). Without language itself, there are no words such as linguistics or mythology or I.

  5. teresapelka Says:

    Hi JR,

    You say, ‘Thank you again. Have you noticed that choice is not universal? You do not choose to have eyes and you do not choose to grow hair. Choice is a label in language. Choice does not exist as an objective reality outside of language. The sun does not choose to shine or to rise or to set. The earth does not choose to rotate. Gravity does not choose to happen. Canada does not choose to increase it’s population. I did not choose to learn English. I did not choose to have breakfast this morning. I simply had breakfast this morning.’

    I see you can envy me. I chose. I chose a language freely. I chose and I have followed up with my choice. This is enviable: to choose your language skill. So many cannot. Freedom is enviable. Why don’t you try to have your freedom? Instead of breeding your envy… I love my freedom.

    You say, ‘I could say “I chose to have breakfast,” but that is subjective (linguistic!), not objective.’

    Language reality can be objective.

    ‘Did you choose to be sitting in that chair right now? If someone else was in the room with you, would their direct experience be that you chose to sit in the chair, or just that you are sitting in the chair?’

    I am not sitting in a chair.

    You say, ‘Society may condition me to accept that I chose my past and my present. I may be identified as personally responsible. If so, I have no choice about that.’

    I made an exercise for teenagers about language and predetermination. All can be hypothetical:

    ‘If they would not/could not have a place in human discourse, words would not/could not/might not be telling anything meaningful. That place yet had to be/needed to be only hypothetical. You could not/might not predetermine all speech. There had to be/needed to be a reasoning faculty if hypothetical thinking was/should be possible; this yet could not/might not depend on a stimulus-response reaction. Jim looked round. There were no eagle nests in the Hatcher Pass that year.

    Hopefully, the exercises show that memorizing definitions and options for learning a language does not make sense. Let us now try to embed our story in time. We can think about a particular winter and particular circumstances.

    It might have been enough that you went EPIC terrestrial and you could see that the temperatures would have allowed only Colderstones in the role.

    Although you would not have gone to the Hatcher Pass to do your STEM paperwork, you might have/could have felt like presenting the language time planes to your common sense, and the wide plains of white in a shiny winter Alaskan morning might/could make these intellective objects sensible.

    Jim might have/could have liked to think about a space of time. Space and time might/could become a source of perplexity if you would have/should have thought about times outside the present, however. If you would have/should have looked to the form strictly, you might/could resolve only inevitably negative on the premise and the conclusion. Fortunately, there was still intuition.

    Word form might have/could have been indicative of reference. If you would have/should have taken word stems for part the reference, not all words really might/would have stems. As here, the proper noun phrase ‘Hatcher Pass’ came from a human name. The name might/would not have any meaning of hatching to it, same as you would not/should not see Jin Baker about your breakfast roll. Jim smiled. Jin was an excellent counselor with a federal literacy program.’

    Teenagers can get it: you wanna bet? :)

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Choice is about awareness. I am already breathing, right? However, if I choose to breath, then I connect the neurology of attention with the breathing.

      Choice is a real experience. However, it is only so important.

      I did not read all of your reply. Let me note this: when a teacher is in the process of fulfilling the role of influencing the behavior of certain students, the teacher can be trained to train the students to experience “choice” and then train them in particular value systems for making choices and then provide information with expectations that the children will respond by “choosing the *right* choice.”

      We can say that the teacher chooses to do all of that. Or, we can say that the educational system chooses for all of that to be done and chooses a teacher to do it. Or we can say that God chose for the educational system to choose for the teacher to choose for the students to choose some particular activity or habitual behavior.

      The point here is that “choice” has no isolated reality. Choice is just a term of duality to contrast with restriction.

      Can an 80 year-old choose to suddenly be 18 again? Choice is a way of relating to objective reality. Choice is one possible subjective experience *in language.* Choice is a way of interpreting or identifying or labeling reality. Choice is not a fundamental reality.

      However, the experience of freedom or choice may be “inevitable” or “unavoidable.” Consider the operation of a personality (like in a dream in which the personality believes in various restrictions to their choice). When that operating of a personality in neurology is not active (ceases), then the experience of freedom may “far surpass” the “freedom of choice” of the isolated personality.

      God is free. The one who tries to flee from God experiences being trapped by a confusing, frustrating quest to become free.

      When someone wants to become free, that can be called pre-occupation. When life is free- not just an isolated personality but all of life- my family, my co-workers, my neighbors- then the experience of freedom is vast.

      My choice is to accept life or reject life. Spiritual language for this is to accept God or reject God. However, it is BY GRACE that “I make that choice.”

      When I recognize the ongoing reality that a branch is a formation of tree, and that “my personality” is a formation of a prior source, I am “free” of an earlier stage of experience (“isolation”). I am not one isolated branch trying to manage other isolated branches and rescue them from the tree (from the influence of the tree).

      That is not “freeing them.” That is “binding myself to being on guard all the time, trying to eventually earn my way in to heaven from hell.”

      Beware of what you have been trained is heroic. Governments need heroes to rebel against the government in order to maintain the tension of their systems of “law and order.”

      However, beware of paranoia as well. Beware of irony and humor in particular. Most of all, beware of words. They can be very wordy, which is either very bad or very good or both.
      ;)

  6. teresapelka Says:

    I mean I worked with real humans through their exams. They made it.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Okay. I did not get the relevance of that (you assisting students with exams).

      For reference, I have taught math in high school and college entrance exams. In business communications earlier today, I made frequent reference to choice. I interact personally with business owners as a person myself. I use the language of personality. I do with you sometimes.

      However, i am clear that the language of personality is just a tool or instrument of neurology, of humanity, of nature, of God. “I” for many people is an image of self-conflict and “how I should be.”

      My fingers do not get in to conflict with each other. My fingers type or whatever else that “they do,”

      I am like that, too- like my fingers. However, I can argue with other people- I can experience personal identity and get upset and suffer and so on. However, when there is only one isolated neurological identifying in operation, but two physical bodies are present, then there can be no conflict.

      My girlfriend cannot argue with me unless I am there as a personality. If she is shouting and there is just open attention over here (no thoughts about what she should have said last week or what my boss might think if he finds out), then it is not possible for conflict to arise. There is just one physical organism discharging or venting or shouting or crying or whatever.

      Words may come out of my mouth. One thing that I am famous for saying to my girlfriend is “everything is all wrong!” I say it sarcastically.

      She may say “these dishes are dirty” or “my boss is such an asshole” or “when are you going to be more like I wish you were already?” I may say “everything is all wrong!”

      Buddha may appear back from the dead and say “there is an experience of life as suffering!” Jesus may appear and say “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” He has gotten quite fluent in English recently, I am told. I think that Buddha taught him.

      I do not have problems. I can create problems and the instant that i stop creating them, they cease to be.

      How is that possible? Because problems only exist in language. The moment that God declares the presence of a problem, there is a problem. The moment that God declares the presence of an opportunity or a test question or a math problem or a choice, then this is what is here.

      • teresapelka Says:

        Getting late, this last for some time (today, for sure)

        You say: “Let me note this: when a teacher is in the process of fulfilling the role of influencing the behavior of certain students, the teacher can be trained to train the students to experience “choice” and then train them in particular value systems for making choices and then provide information with expectations that the children will respond by “choosing the *right* choice.”

        This is an outrage. This is a provocation. I was a teacher. I never trained students to influence their choices. I always thought about my teaching as WORKING WITH the students. Possibly, this approach worked.

        You say, “However, i am clear that the language of personality is just a tool or instrument of neurology, of humanity, of nature, of God. “I” for many people is an image of self-conflict and “how I should be.”

        This is too much emphasis on neurology. Neurology can’t make it on its own – why overemphasize it?

        Finally, you got the god’s syndrome? (I don’t mean to be hostile, only curious)

        “I can create problems and the instant that i stop creating them, they cease to be. How is that possible? Because problems only exist in language. The moment that God declares the presence of a problem, there is a problem. The moment that God declares the presence of an opportunity or a test question or a math problem or a choice, then this is what is here.”

        Language is not so much of a problem. Problems are problems. You or god make problems?

        Late night here, 12:43 am. Nighty night.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      When a teacher trains a student to spell a word the “right” way or to pronounce a word the “right” way, that is what I mean by the “right” choice. Like if there was a multiple choice test, the teacher trains the students to identify (choose) the right choice or “correct answer.”

      “Below are 4 choices. Choose the right one….”

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      However, in another case of teaching, it would not be a multiple choice like that. In a “business ethics” class or a “contract law” class, the ritual of teaching trains students to identify behaviors that correspond with certain predictable results.

      Before the real estate crash began in the US, I tried to train people how to correctly interpret certain market trends. I found that many people found the subject hard while I found it so easy.

      By 2003, I told anyone “here is what I recommend: if you own real estate, sell it. If not, do not buy in to real estate now.” Some adhered to my advice and avoided huge losses. Most ignored my advice (some millionaires) and suffered huge losses and even went bankrupt.

      Many people would agree with 50% or even 90% of what I say about economics, but then argue over some point that I found quite obvious. Fear would grip them. They may say “that political program will save my investments, so rather than change my investing habits, I am going to invest in political activism.”

      I do not mind political activism. However, it is like having a leaking roof and rather than repairing it, campaigning for the government to pay for a program to repair all leaking roofs. Change what is easy to change. Then, campaign after you have the luxury of lots of time and lots of money.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      So, the political propaganda had already trained them so intensely that they were not ripe for learning from me. They “chose instead” to blame politicians and go to marches rather than easily change their results by easily changing their “choices.”

      I could have charged more or presented information differently (more indirectly) so that people would have to demonstrate basic financial literacy across several elementary levels before I would show them the 1990s in Japan and ask them to analyze it, then I would critique their analysis and train them to see the simplicity of each development. If they do not want to take the time and money to learn from someone who is fluent in the language of economics and finance, that is their loss, right?

      Nature rewards wisdom. Nature rewards prudence. Nature rewards curiosity. Of course, wisdom and prudence and curiosity are just forms of nature, right?

      Nature rewards awareness. Nature is awareness.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      I have no problem with words like neurology or God because I have no problem with language. Unless language is a problem, what can be a problem? Problem is just a label in language. Problem is just a normal, inevitable stage of experience… in language development or neurological development.

      Language is neurological. If that hierarchy of categorization does not appeal to you, that is no problem either (not for me).

      Language does not have problems. Language makes problem. I am language… at least at it relates to having problems or making them! ;)

      I am also neurology. I am the earth. I am not the trees, but the trees are the earth, so they are another branch of my life, at least in the more inclusive sense of the word my life.

      Everything that I label in any way is my life. My life is whatever I label.

      I am language. I am neurology. I am freedom. I am also the dream of an isolated personality who dreams of becoming free and earning a place in a distant eternal heaven that has not started yet.

  7. teresapelka Says:

    The experience of ‘me’ and ‘I’ you invoke.

    You say, ‘In the mid 1990s, I had an unusual experience in which the neurological “dream” of personality briefly ceased (very briefly). In other words, the physical life of the organism continued along with waking consciousness, but no filtering of perception through a self-consciousness or psychological identity of isolation or separation.

    The body was awake, but there was no one there except awareness. The neurology of “I” was bypassed or “crashed” (like computer software) or whatever.

    The experience without the personal identifying was “blissful.”’

    In my life, it happened about 1998. I was going back my place (wouldn’t name it home) from a class of American English I gave. I tried to catch the bus. I did not see the car coming.

    I opened my eyes. Then my eyes shut on their own. Then my body did like a check on itself. Some would say it’s ‘a funny feeling’. It was not anything amusing. I could feel my body looking for itself. The feeling was very biological. I was there, obviously only part aware, and my body was acting on its own. The experience was sensory, like vascular.

    I could hear some people trying to talk to me, they were the emergency. I gathered up well enough to stand up on my own. Only some inexperienced person (not to say an idiot) tried to put my shoe back on my foot. I kicked, I did not mean harm (someone please tell them not to do this).

    An acquired reflex quite saved my head. When I learned to ski, I took to learning to fall. I took a slope, put my skis straight, developed speed, and learned to fall protecting my head with my arm – left and right. You’d better do this before you try to embrace a tree, they say (my primary school).

    My right forearm was quite painful after the accident, it did not break, fortunately. I only have a surface skin scarring remaining on my forehead.

    When I opened my eyes, I saw the car tire about three or four my hand widths away from my head. I hit my forehead against the curb, but the hand took most of the impact.

    I was there all the time, I did not have any impression of separation from myself. Probably you are there all the time if you remember it.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      re ” I could feel my body looking for itself. ”

      That is a very interesting story. Was there immense peace? If there was an identity contrasting with an “outside” of “my body over there” and “those life forms over there,” that could be quite distinct from what I was referencing.

      • teresapelka Says:

        Nope, the sensation was bodily and belonged with the inside of my body. It was strange. I didn’t know that about my body and I wasn’t used to feeling my body’s ‘acting on its own’. This made the sensation strange. I had a walking difficulty as a child. Then I perceived my body, but my body never drove my perception. I don’t have a grudge. My body did the best of possible jobs. I could stand up. The body just had to find all the parts. :)

        Obviously, I could not have been fully aware of all circumstances; I just got knocked. I could not look round really – not right away. I really saw the car tire; I had to take a few minutes before I tried to lift my head. This is the remaining memory. No immense peace. No contrasting. Just finding.

        I’m referring to your blog in my blood-brain barrier post,

        http://teresapelka.com/2012/06/19/blood-brain-barrier/

        Post scriptum (as far as I remember) you’ve referred to NLP. I’ll try to write about it. How about my ‘In sooth, language would more field spirit’ http://teresapelka.com/2011/08/27/in-sooth-language-would-more-field-spirit/

      • jrfibonacci Says:

        NLP is just a label. All of communication and even all interpersonal interaction is designed to influence the neurological functioning of other life forms. To program or influence the neuro-chemical activity of another part of life through the use of language is the subject matter of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming).

        Before the label NLP, there was such influence or communication. Before the English words “influence” and “communication,” there was influential communication.

  8. livvy1234 Says:

    I have experienced zazen where I disappeared. Absolute peace. No I, no room, no cushion, no thought, disappeared. No language, no sensing.

    One time, I experienced tree limbs branching into a hole in the sky which kept opening.

    What of people who cannot hear language?

    I am thinking also about a traumatic experience I had around 3. Trauma I N G was happen I N G to me. I distinctly remember someone in the group crying out, for the police because I would be killed if the person did not stop.

    What created the trauma – language or the actual traumatizing happening simultaneously?

    This article is phenomenal. I am printing it out.

    Is trauma formed by the Source? God is coming through everything.

  9. jrfibonacci Says:

    God is the source of all formations and the substance of all formations. I would call trauma a neurological short-circuiting. Non-linguistic animals can experience what we would label trauma.

    As for people who cannot hear, I reference it sometimes, and it varies, like people going senile and becoming infantile again. People can experience amnesia or dream or have trauma seem to disappear, then be triggered.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 291 other followers

%d bloggers like this: