The wrong way to be right

The wrong way to be right

Using language, we can isolate two categorical groupings consisting of different formations in language. We can call one category “accurate” and the other category “inaccurate.” For instance, we could list a few statements and sort them for logical “accuracy:”

 

 

Representation of high precision and low accuracy. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“The letters of these words are black.”

 

“The letters of these words are green.”

 

“These words are in the specific pattern of language called the English language.” 

 

“These words are in the specific pattern of language called the Northwestern European language.”

So, we can check for consistently between the symbolic representations (the meanings) of a sequence of words and then familiar, expected definitions of the individual word labels. Does the meaning of the grouping of words fit logically with the meanings of the individual words? Is there total logical consistency, or is there some obvious contradiction of logic (or, is that not clear, such as if you are only literate in the Chinese language and then you try to read these strange shapes, then you would not be able to identify whether these words are logically accurate or not).

We can say “either accurate or inaccurate,” “either true or false,” and “either right or wrong.” Those are each “binary” pairs or two exclusive contrasting categorical labels. Logically, wrong simply means “not totally right.” Like on a test in school, an answer that is partially right may receive no credit. It is not right. Something is wrong- maybe 100% inaccurate and maybe only some tiny detail, but if it is not 100% right, then it is not right, not correct, not accurate.

Representation of high accuracy and low precision. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In some tests, we also recognize distinctions in precision. If I say that the temperature is 0 degrees fahrenheit, that is distinct from 0.214 or -0.08.

Further, we can categorize something as “too precise.” If I want a haircut, 3 minutes may not be enough time for a reasonably precise cutting of hairs, but 30 minutes of haircutting may be “more then enough precision.”

So, what does “wrong” really mean? It could simply mean unexpected or unrecognized. If I ask you what 2 plus 4 equals, and you say “half a dozen,” I may say “wrong!” Why? Because I expected the answer to be “6.” Maybe I do not know what a dozen is (or a half). If someone does not answer as I expect them to (or something I recognize as being accurate), then that is what I call “wrong.”

Now, if I think that I know the answer to a question but I actually do not, that can be even more intriguing. I may sincerely insist that what I expect is right and anything else is wrong.

English: “Space” in the Chinese language (as in definition 5 at Wiktionary. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, two people with slightly different perspectives can sit together and list out 100 issues, like 100 political controversies. They might find 97 issues in which they both agree that they are both “right.” They might also find 3 issues on which they both agree that “the other one is wrong, but I am right of course.”

What do they do about the 3 disagreements? They could ignore those 3 items and perhaps talk about the other 97. They could get in to an argument or a physical conflict about one or more of the 3 issues. They could discuss how they reached their different conclusions (and risk learning something new). Finally, they could notice the differences of opinion as mere differences of opinion and do nothing at all further.

A thumbnail produced for usage in some template about articles having grammatical errors and/or wrong words. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But what is the right way for people to handle a disagreement? That may depend on who you ask.

Is someone afraid of disagreements, afraid of arguing, afraid of the risk of learning something new? Is someone eager to learn new things, either to argue, eager to debate and start a yelling match or a war? Are people looking for excuses to cultivate a conflict or looking for excuses to start a conversation or discussion?

Is it wrong for people to ever cultivate a conflict? Is it right for people to always generously offer themselves to a conversation about anything at all with anyone at all?

Realistically, right and wrong are just two categories in language. They may be very useful, as well as categorical pairs like “either familiar or unfamiliar” or “either exactly as expected or not exactly as expected.”

The idea that “right and wrong” exist independently of language may be entirely imprecise, completely inaccurate, absolutely ridiculous… and yet quite familiar and even exactly what is expected. Is there a wrong way to be right? Is it wrong to use any discrepancy between the perspectives of two people or two groups to create a conflict and drama and tantrum? To be precise, that is just one alternative. It is not inherently wrong to cultivate conflict. The only thing that cultivating conflict is inherently is cultivating conflict.

How can anything be wrong without someone labeling it as wrong? Is there something inherently wrong with “2 +4 = 5?”

What about when two highways intersect: one with four lanes and one with two lanes, and then they merge in to five lanes? Didn’t think of that, did you!?!?

Montage of languages. Prototype header for the language portal. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

All of those shapes are symbolic codes. Symbolic codes are inherently codes that symbolize something else.

There is no inherently right way to spell the words color and colour (the British variation) because words do not inherently have any independent existence. Words only exist within the context of a language. Spelling only exists within the context of an alphabet.

Familiar spellings are just familiar. Familiar alphabets are just familiar. There is no font that is more inherently a font than any other font. There is no inherently right font and no inherently wrong font.

Fonts are all made up. Words are all made up. Languages are all made up.

Within language, we can create two isolated, contrasting categories such as right and wrong. Those categories, like all of the others in language are inherently just a bunch of made up categories in language. All categories are made up.

Other people may disagree with what I just stated. They may say “that is wrong.” They may find it unfamiliar. They may seek to argue with anyone who says such things. They may say “that is the wrong way to be right.” I might even say that I agree with them.

Stating agreement has a social function. Claiming disagreement (and focusing on that) also has a social function.

 

I may go out of my way to tell people when I disagree with them (but generally ignore it if they agree). Or, I may go out of my way to tell people when I agree with them.

 

 

Then again, if “my way” is to ignore disagreements and focus on agreements, then to behave that way is not “going out of my way.” That is claiming a particular way as mine and sticking with it.

 

If you want to have a lot of conversations with people, then claim a particular way as yours and tell everyone every chance you get. If you want to have fewer conversations, then do not claim a particular way as yours or at least do not make a point of telling people that your way is “not to claim any particular way as mine.” That is clearly the wrong way to be right!

 

When will people know to disagree or agree with you? When will people know to invest a lot of energy in creating a huge momentum of interaction with you? Don’t you owe it to people to clearly in advance let them know how you FEEL and what you think and so on? Exactly how much warning should you give to other people when are you about to eventually feel something new soon? Shouldn’t you always feel something and think something and need to tell everyone about all of that?

 

 

Well, look here and listen up… if that’s the best you can do as far as claiming to know the right way, then you might as well not even bother. Everyone should know the right way. Everyone should agree. 

 

That is what is inherently right. That is what I expect. Maybe it is not familiar, but it simply should be that everyone already has the same subjective opinion as to some exclusive, inherent set of things that are inherently right (in contrast to another very specific set of things that are inherently wrong). Specifically, people should always agree with me.

 

People basically should be more like I expect them to be. All other people should be much more like me- in fact exactly like me. All of these other people that are different from me in at least one way are ruining my life!

 

 

They are causing me tremendous frustration and confusion. Day after day, someone eventually does something that is not precisely what I presumptively expected. When are these people going to stop this? It’s so annoying!

 

I need to know what to expect. I need to know what I think. I need to know who I agree with passionately and who I disagree with completely (in regard to at least one detail). I need to know when to argue and have a tantrum or glorify any people who are inherently right because of their total agreement with my way, which not only should never change, but cannot. If I ever say anything inconsistent with something that I ever said in the past, that would be horrible. 

 

Learning is one of the very worst things that can happen to someone. Trust me because I say that from experience. You don’t want to have to learn that lesson for yourself like I did. It was truly horrible. Once I found out that learning new things was ruining my life, I simply stopped.

 

 

If you want to do what is inherently right and avoid learning new things, the key is to avoid interacting with other people, especially strangers. In particular, please do not have casual conversations with people who have not been carefully screened by a registered personality profiling agency as being so similar to you that your conversations will be refreshingly dull- kind of like the familiar conversations that you used to have, you know, back before you were ashamed of being so shy. 

 

Be proud that you are ashamed of being shy. Be ashamed that you are proud of being shy. Be shy about how you are ashamed of being proud. Be shy about how you are proud of being ashamed. 

 

But please, for God’s sake, do not over-do it. If there is one thing that throws me directly in to a jealous rage, it is those pests who are too undramatic and pretend that they do not know it. You know who I am talking about: dead people. They are ruining my life. 

 

 

Also, I cannot conclude without passionately condemning very small children who have not learned language yet and thus are unable to agree with me about how my point of view is inherently superior to all other points of view. They totally suck… nipples. They should be applauding me for my intelligence, which does not require talking- they could just clap, like while they are sucking out mother’s milk from the breasts of human mammary glands.

 

Why aren’t they clapping? Why aren’t they worshiping my inherently right way of being a narcissistic perfectionist? Why do they just keep laying there and totally suck at sucking? 

 

What the hell is wrong with young people nowadays? Back when I was a youngster, we had morals. We had values. We had sincerity. We had arrogance. We knew what was inherently right. We were superior to everyone else who did not do what we had learned to expect as what is familiar to us. 

 

 

And then something horrible happened. I kept learning so long that eventually I discovered that my way of being right was neither inherently right not inherently wrong. It was just one way of being right among many. 

 

Furthermore, “my way” was not even really mine. Dozens- perhaps even hundreds of young people in my midst had more or less the exact same set of familiar expectations as I did (in contrast to the unfamiliar expectations of people who did not expect what I expected them to expect). 

 

Who is going to fix this terribly terrifying terror? How can I make everyone else agree with me like I need them to? How can I prevent anyone from ever doing anything unexpected? How I can I figure out the right way to agonize so that once I have it mastered, then I can stop practicing the behavior of agonizing?

 

 

I’m about to give up here, folks. I am about to resign myself to always being resigned. I am about to accept that one way of relating to reality is to simply accept it as it is. 

 

But I just FEEL like I shouldn’t be so accepting (so resigned!). Shouldn’t I condemn anything that is inherently wrong- to prevent it from ever frightening me in the future? Shouldn’t I glorify everything that is inherently right because it is what I personally prefer and expect? 

 

Like I said, this is horrible. I am so depressed about me being totally okay with everything however it is. I really need something to reject (or else I simply will not able to live with myself). I need an excuse to reject myself, to condemn myself for being inherently not what I expected, or else… I might break down and openly accept how I already am. If I ever did that, then, well, then what would I struggle to become instead of what I am already?

 

Here I am, tormented by my complete freedom from ideals and idolatries. Who can rescue me from this humble, innocent dignity? What ritual can save me from heaven? What can I condemn? What can I reject? What can I protest as insulting to what is inherently decent? 

 

First of all, infants should not suck. We need to properly raise them so that they realize that breast milk is extremely dangerous. Once, I was walking down a street and I slipped in a puddle of breast milk and fell hopelessly in love, drowning in my own words, and then suddenly died. My life was totally ruined. 

I only wish that my life had not been ruined by what ruined my life. Please, if you learn nothing else for the rest of your life, I insist that you learn from my mistakes, well, unless you are being a jerk again like you used to always do. Stop doing things that are inherently wrong. Stop totally sucking. Only suck in moderation. 

 

Be more like I expect you to be, like for instance stop acting like I somehow owe it to you to inform you in advance of what I expect. The arrogance of some people never ceases to amaze me. Stop that. Stop that right now. Thank you. Do not make me come over there and repeat myself and come over there, you worthless sack of sucking sucks (not to be confused with sacking sacks, which by the way are NOT worthless).

 

 

Accuracy and precision example (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

• Making up a Language for Fun and Profit from Autotard ” RPGs (autotard.net)
• Why I Define Faith Philosophically As Inherently Irrational and Immoral (patheos.com)
• The Limits of Language: Does Language Shape The Way We See The World? (profesorbaker.com)
• Let’s Communicate (acceptanceandlove.wordpress.com)
• When Wrong is Right: Antisemitic (texthistory.wordpress.com)
• Study Sheds Light on How You Decode ‘Noisy’ Language in Daily Life (medindia.net)
• Languages & Thought (gmbcblog.wordpress.com)
• Logic does not have a metaphysical intention (musteryou.wordpress.com)
• Too Much, Too Wrong (caxton1485.wordpress.com)
• 7. Tower of Babel – Problem for Evolutionists (biblescienceguy.wordpress.com)

language directs the perception of reality

a correspondent wrote: Reality is always , without exception , defined by the observer !

JR replied:

What is “beyond” reality? We could say that in language we can categorize physical sensations/perceptions in contrast to labels (like there is the visual perception of the color in the photo above, but we can use several labels, like “pink, fuschia, bright, rosa” and so on- in English or other languages. Those labels are a distinct subset of reality from the other subset called “physical perceptions.” Multiple labels can all refer to the same physical perception.

Euler diagram showing A is a proper subset of B and conversely B is a proper superset of A (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Only “within language” can we REFER to anything as being “beyond reality” or “unreal.” Such linguistic labels are completely arbitrary. We can say that memories are unreal or that the dream I had last night was unreal. Or, it was a real dream and a real memory- even if the memory was inaccurate or imprecise or imaginative or involved a “creative” reconstruction of the past, rather just raw facts without any filtering and re-organizing through the neurological program of translating some “memory” in to the words of a human language.

Words are not physical perceptions. I cannot talk about a memory without talking. The talking is not the memory.

Whenever we speak of the future, that is an act of creativity. whenever we speak of the past, that is also an act of creativity. In fact, speaking is a creative act.

Marketing professionals and PR propaganda lobbyist teams specifically create perceptions and beliefs in others. Salespeople are trained to do that. Musicians and artists are creating results or stimulating people in specific ways using communications that includes some non-linguistic elements.

So, using language is creative, directing the attention of others, directing the perception of others, directing the experience and behavior of others. Be grateful that you are clear about this… and notice that many are blind (symbolically), though they have eyes that see- and they have ears to hear, but yet they are deaf to the simplest implications of the spiritual poetry of the last several thousand years.

the correspondent replied again:

Hey J.R. , enjoyed your Post !

I like your insight in reagards to ” …only in language can we refer to anything being ” beyond reality ” or ” unreal ” .

What I find most impressive is your correct use of the words ” Real & Unreal ” , the Neo–Advaitists are in the process of destroying these words just as they’ve destroyed the word ” Enlightenment ” . 
Real = means to exist !
Unreal = means not to exist !
Plain and simple !

The words Real & Unreal have nothing whatsoever to do with whether anything is permanent or if it will last forever !

All Blessings

JR replied:

Hi, anyone can use any sequence of letters (any word) as a symbolic code to represent anything they want. In the field of economics, we use the term “real” in contrast to “nominal.” Real means after adjusting for inflation (fluctuations in the purchasing power of a currency), while nominal means “not real.” In other words, “real” means “precise/recalibrated” and nominal means “simple/imprecise/convenient/uncalibrated.” In another country that uses the Spanish language, the “real” (pronounced close to the word ree-al and probably derived from “royal” or “regal”) is the name of the legal currency in that jurisdiction of the “Holy Roman Empire” of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits). (And you probably do not know what I mean precisely because of the beliefs that the Jesuits have instilled in you through their systems of mind control AKA public schools and mass media).

Also, I might reply to Matt Kahn, the author of the original quote, that (genetics, epigenetics, and an individual’s) past experience “trains” perception, then current presumptions (in language… AKA beliefs) also “filter perception,” and all language directs perception and organizes it. When we recognize perceptions and expectations (and labels) as just perceptions and expectations (and labels), that does resolve confusion and frustration and so on.

Reality (Photo credit: Beatnic)

Related articles

• Writer’s Perception (brianbbaker.com)
• Perception is Reality (stuffmybrainthinks.wordpress.com)
• Cryptonomics The Nature of Reality (incryptowetrust.com)
• Perception, Pope and Public Relations (pscha648.wordpress.com)
• The Power of Perception: I am Who I am (an orig. poem) (sarcasticny.wordpress.com)
• Eye and Mind (bodyoftheory.com)
• Perception is Reality (stuffmybrainthinks.com)
• Perception and the Language of Sports-Heidi Payghambari (mktg435.wordpress.com)
• Justice and Perception by José Raúl González Merlo (nosomosgenocidas.wordpress.com)
• The New World Order: Perception vs Reality (equalmoneyfordummies.wordpress.com)

The genesis of a new realm called “possibility”

 

 

Language revolutionizes life

 

Mandelbrot set: first 20 iterations of equation z = z²+c plotted for different complex constants c. Fractal first studied by Benoît Mandelbrot. Graphics generated with 13 lines of code in R language. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Imagine that there is a clear relationship between language and all of the rest of life. Language is one form of activity of life. Right now, the activity of language is operating, right? However, that is also the activity of life, too!

 

So, it is clear what language is as well as what is not language. When viewing shapes of letters on a screen, it is life that recognizes the shapes of the letters as the shapes of letters. It is life that decodes the symbolic shapes and constructs words out of letters and then constructs ideas out of sequences of words. 

 

An idea means a pattern of attention. Life uses language to form ideas (patterns of attention).

 

But if there are letters on a screen, while the letters may be decoded by life as instances of language, life also recognizes that the screen itself is not language. The letters on the screen might be black, but their blackness is not language. The  letters that are not black are just as linguistic as the black ones, right?

 

So, what are all of these things that are not language? They are life. Life can use language to label various forms of life (patterns of life). 

 

A viewing screen is a pattern of life. A series of black shapes (letters) on this screen is also a pattern of life. One pattern is called language and the other is called life, but all of language is also life. 

 

Language is just a subcategory of life. In fact, language is the subcategorizing of life.

 

Life (using language) can distinguish black shapes from the white background of a viewing screen. Language is a tool. Language is a creation of life. Life is the authority or creator of language and therefore of all that is formed through language.

Life is the generator of language. The genesis of language is one function of life. Life creates language to organize attention (perception, experience).

 

How is this important?

 

In the beginning, life separates the light from the dark using language. Life also uses language to isolate the night from the day and the heavens from the earth. Life uses language to subcategorize the intrinsic, unalterable unity of life.

 

If life uses language to subcategorize mammals and then primates and then humans, that is not a dividing of life in to 3 isolated categories. Linguistic categories can overlap. Language can categorize “for the last 12 days” and “since the last time we talked” as well as “all of last week.” Those subcategories overlap. They are not completely exclusive.

 

Language involves patterns of attention. Attention can concentrate by focusing or can relax by expanding or opening. For instance, primate is more specific than mammal. Human is even more precise than primate.

How wide open is life? Well, how wide open is language? Language FORMS patterns of attention. Language organizes attention.

So, a shift in the patterns of language produces a shift in the patterns of attention and perception and experience. In other words, language is extremely important in altering the experience of life.

What about “me?”

 

Me is a category in language. Life organizes language and, through the use of language, life organizes pattern of attention (experience, perception). “Me” is one type of experience.

 

During dreamless sleep, there is no operation of the language of me. Prior to a certain age of childhood, human infants are not using language to operate with the experience of me.

 

Me is an idea, a pattern of attention (a pattern of experience). In addition to “me,” “we” is also an equally valid linguistic pattern for the organizing of attention. “We” can refer to a small group of people or to all primates or to all mammals, etc…. 

 

Me and we are basic, common examples of linguistic identities (identifyings of language). Another example of an identity would be the use of a geographic reference, like “New York.”

If “New York bans assault weapons for police officers” or if ”New York legalizes gay marriage for minors,” do those sequences of words make sense? Are they logically (linguistically) coherent?

New York can grow or shrink (in human population). It can win or lose (like in a sporting event). It can heat up or cool down. It can get wet. It can be attacked. It can mourn. It can vote for a particular political candidate. It can reduce imports or exports, increase in income, decrease in rates of home ownership or experience a wave of a certain illness or a crime spree.

New York is a pattern of language. It is a type of language pattern called an identity, similar to me or we.

By the way, what exactly is the boundary of New York? Is it a city limit? Is it a coastline? What happens if sea levels change? What happens if New York City annexes a neighboring unit of language?

 

What about “life?”

 

Remember, New York does not really have any existence independent of language (and the rest of life). Without language, there is no boundary between New York and the rest of life (such as this screen or the letters of these words on this screen). If you want to know whether a particular viewing screen is IN New York or OUT of New York, that is going to involve some rather complex “social constructions” of language.

 

So, life is not hard to identify. Life knows that life is life. Life does not need to refer to a dictionary or a birth certificate to know whether life is living. Life does not need language to be alive.

Life is actually the master over it’s tool, language, and over all of the divisions or subcategories “created” by language, such as “me” and “we.” Me does not actually do anything independent from “life itself.” There is nothing outside of life.

 

Life is the Almighty, the Eternal, the Everpresent. Other linguistic symbols for that idea include “reality” and “nature” and “Allah” and “God.” In any language (Arabic, Hebrew, English, etc…), there is at least one word that symbolizes the beginningless, endless, undivided, inclusive source of all language.

 

By the way, life does not perform a ritual and THEN become eternal. Eternal life is always eternal and always will be. Eternity is not something that is going to start eventually right after we finish with more important things!

Inherently, all linguistic identifyings (identities) are just forms of life. All of creation is just patterns of attention organized through language (as in through what might be called “Logos” in the Greek language, which is a common term used in Christian cultures).

 

So, what is creating this sequence of words? What is viewing it and recognizing it?

 

Valid answers include “life,” “me,” “my eyes,” “the reflection of light sensed by this brain,” and so on. Language can also say “my hands made my fingers press the keys and type the letters” or “a primate created this” or “we did it!” 

 

All of those are coherent or valid. Maybe New York will like it. Maybe not.

 

 

Is this “good news?”

 

Well, to the extent that this may seem new, we could call it good news. It may actually be a rather ancient principle. Some extremely famous celebrity people like Moses and Mohammed and Abraham and Jesus and even Buddha may have gone on and on about this principle.

 

Life may keep repeating this message in hundreds of languages and thousands of proverbs. Life seems to really be intrigued by it’s relationship to language (to it’s “creative” tool or function). Life organizes it’s own attention through language- over and over and over.

There are lots of variations and revisions of this idea, such as “people really should give up their personal will to the divine will of the creator.” That is actually not the same as this distinction of life being Almighty and perfectly forming all personal experience as perfect expressions of life.

This is not about giving up personal will. This is about life recognizing clearly the functioning of it’s own creation: language. This is not about official membership in a religious club. This is about a spiritual recognition.

 

What about all of “my” problems?

Well, life could keep creating that pattern of attention (that experience), at least occasionally. Consider that historically  life keeps creating lots of worshipers of “my” problems (their own problems). For life, apparently that is not a problem, but just one activity among others.

So, linguistic identifying is not inherently a problem. In fact, without language, nothing could be labeled “a problem.”

However, a lack of clarity about what linguistic identifying is can lead to various opportunities for attention to begin to focus on what linguistic identifying is and how it might be important or interesting. Through the use of language, life can experience sin and shame and even arguing over literal interpretations.

It is entirely valid to argue over literal interpretations. However, if life looks very attentively at the two words “literal interpretations,” one might find those two words rather ironic when placed next to each other like that.

How could an interpretation ever be literal? All interpretations are interpretative. All languages are symbolic. In other words, language itself is not literal, but poetic.

So, forget “literal interpretations” and realize what language is. It is your tool. You are life and you always have been. You are not a linguistic identifying. Linguistic identifying is an activity of life, and life is what you ARE.

Linguistic identifying is one of your ways of organizing patterns of attention (ideas). Linguistic identifying is something that you can do. Linguistic identifying is your tool.

By you, I do not mean an exclusive personality. I could use the word we and we could use the word you.

Linguistic identifying is something that we can do. Linguistic identifying is our tool.

“Your personal will” or “my personal will” are also just linguistic identifyings. Life can identify like that. Life can also say “all of this is not the activity of a personal will, but the activity of the Almighty, Eternal life which does whatever it does through appearing as this ME, which is it’s creation, it’s tool, like a branch is just the subcategory of a vine. The vine of the tree of eternal life is within each of it’s branchings, within all of US, each of YOU. Even this viewing screen is life’s tool. These letters are just life’s tool. Language and all activities of linguistic identifying are also only tools of life, functions of life, organizings of life.”

If any of that happens to remind you of something that someone famous once said, then consider that life has been quite committed to at least occasionally reminding itself of this principle. Life has been organizing it’s attention to focus on the activity of language itself.

Realize what language is. It is your tool for creating patterns of attention (experience).

 

 

Related articles

• A word on words (windling.typepad.com)
• What is Language? (marsowords.wordpress.com)
• W is for Whorf’s Hypothesis (lillian888.wordpress.com)
• Genesis 10-12 (kdpetersonblog.wordpress.com)
• Knowing What the Bible ‘Really’ Means (christianitytoday.com)
• Increasing Discernment (gyselagervais.wordpress.com)
• My First Tangle With the Tower of Babel (codecraft.co)
• 5. Tower of Babel – Origin of Languages (biblescienceguy.wordpress.com)
• Genesis One: A New Perspective on Creation (abstractunderstanding.wordpress.com)
• Babel (Words) (madicattt.com)

the Zen / Advaita / Jnana Yoga of clarity about grief and grievances

• Today
• 

  5:22pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  Ok I see now why you keep saying I am going to blame you or anybody else as I sit here and pretend like it is another’s fault that I believed in lies when obviously it is no one’s fault…. it just happened that way….sensei is that where you are trying to take me?

  

  Mooji & Brahma (Photo credit: Loving Earth)
• 

  6:45pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Yes, something simply happened by itself. You learned to expect certain outcomes. You learned to resist simply accepting “what is” and reject it as “what should not be.” You learned to blame others for “what should not be” as a projection of shame, as a coping mechanism of terror. Then, you learned to internalize guilt for “what should be.”

• Oops- what should NOT be.

  See what you just made me do?

  You embarrassed me! I am a very detail-oriented typist, but then you came Along and caused me to do what I should NOT have done.
• 

  6:48pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  Haha yes yes I get it and I am sorry I have all the power over you
• 

  6:48pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  This is not how it should be and you need to make it up to me for me doing what I should not have done (since it was your fault).

  [As for your apology,] You are just saying that.  You do not really mean it.
• 

  6:49pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  Yes I will make it up by sending you some butt gin??? Whatever that is
• 

  6:49pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  You don’t even understand me at all, do you?
• 

  6:50pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  yes I do his dudeness sensei master
• 

  6:50pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  I try to be a good snobby sensei and show people the truth but you are just ugh such a dimwit. I am going to give up.
• 

  6:51pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  Haha oh come on mr miagi or however you spell it but danielson or the karate kid is fighting through his dimwit and he “believes” in you….wax on wack off or something like that

  If you have ever seen the karate kid….if not I absolutely believe that you have already proved you can show me ignorance….my own

  Actually I suppose it isn’t mine but a thought believed nonetheless
• 

  6:54pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  You have learned nothing useful. You do not even properly appreciate me and my sincerity. I am really frustrated trying to show you how you are not how you should be.

  For instance, you do not even know how to shame right!

  

  Osho („Rajneesh“ Chandra Mohan Jain) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
• 6:55pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  Haha yes sensei I bow to you and your sincerity

  Teach me how to shame oh great one
• 

  6:55pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  It is embarrassing to me. I cannot take any more of this.

  No, your ability to shame other people for not being how they should be is grossly inadequate.

  You are letting humility and compassion for others sneak in and it just does not work that way.
• 

  6:58pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  Yes well maybe I should work on that instead of being like I should be, you think? I know stupid fucking humility and compassion… just hateful qualities anyway….I quit
• 

  6:58pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Wait no don’t quit. You must not do that! Have hope, danielson!
• 

  6:59pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  Can I wax off now master
• 

  6:59pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Think of how great it will be when you are so good at gaming other that you qualify to get in to heaven. Santa will give you more toys too.

  Damn it!

  You made me type wrong again, you pest.

  Not gaming others- shaming others.
• 

  7:00pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  Can I get 40 virgins too. And haha you suck at all this typing stuff
• 

  7:01pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  But I am really trying to type correctly. No one ever appreciates that. For instance, I do not appreciate me ever and…

  Wait… Is that why you have been tricking me in to learning all along?

  Not why- WHAT… DAMIT! This typist sucks- or maybe it is the keyboard….

  Anyway, don’t give me that attitude about my typing errors. You knew what I meant (if you are as smart as you seem to think thra you re).
• 

  7:04pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  Come on sensai there Is nothing to learn. Once all is unlearned just being is all that is left. And of course I am “as smart” as you think I am. I am a total idiot but I know that
• 

  7:04pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Do you really believe that 40 virgins crap? You are such a schmuck. They are GAMING you. You should be ashamed!

  But that would be cool if it was true, wouldn’t it?

  

  Osho Rajneesh Drive-by in Rajneeshpuram (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
• 

  7:09pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  Yes I am being GAMED in my own SHAME…I believe it all and you are a douchebag that is belief number 1
• 

  7:09pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Anyway, who is the one that applies labels like “total idiot?” That is what you need to learn to unlearn. So, You should check out my main man “mooji.” He talks about all that stuff. It will be the solution to all of the problems that you make up about how the world should be problem-free.
• 

  7:11pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Mooji will fix your rude attitude too.
• 

  7:11pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  Yes I love mooji but maybe I need to continue to let the words resonate. Well why is it so rude though?

  Because belief is still there that I am a victim or that I have been had?

  Yes I agree but I see that now
• 

  7:13pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Anyway, No, don’t send me the butt gin. You clearly need it more than I do.
• 

  7:14pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  Ok my friend I agree, I need all of the butt gin I can get. Ass holes need such things I suppose

  Or just the impliers need the escape from the implying.
• 

  7:27pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  In conclusion…

  The energy required to resist grief / grieving can be enormous. Eventually, the grief can arise and relax and bring huge relief. Do not grieve for “what should not have been.” Be thankful for the suppressing function of grief. It is also called humility / humiliation.

  Projected grief is grievance (blame, resentment, rage, frustration). Inward projection of grievance is shame / depression. It functions like a braking mechanism (a very reclusive, anti-social activity). Cool, huh?

  The one who is grateful for fear and shame and grief is an emotional sensei.
• 

  7:41pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  Yes I am starting to see that although clearly often I do not see that and yes its cool once it is clearly seen, when the bullshit that is believed gets out of the way…
• 

  7:53pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  that suppressive “buillshit” has a very important function… temporarily.
• 

  7:56pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  Yes it is also the purpose for the medicine you mentioned yesterday. [Statements like] “All is an illusion” “there is no other” and all of that is used to train or discipline the mind until he(it) comes). Jesus said “occupy until I come” of course it isn’t a body that is coming…. he was speaking of clarity or JR Fibonacci Hunn

  

  8:01pm

  J R Fibonacci Hunn

  Blasphemer!

  

  8:02pm

  Daniel Fritschler

  

  Buddha (Photo credit: anantal)

  Sorry to shame you again by comparing you to a 2000 year old corpse but I am calling it as I see it…

  • 

    8:13pm

    Daniel Fritschler

    Oh oh have I offended your religious beliefs?
  • 

    8:22pm

    J R Fibonacci Hunn
  • 

    8:23pm

    Daniel Fritschler

    Some emotional guru…you are a pussy

    

    8:24pm

    J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Now that you mention that last word there, um, I have one quick question about the 40 virgins. Are these FEMALE vrigins?

Related articles

• Osho – Unless one feels guilty (teachingsofmasters.wordpress.com)
• Love this Imperfection (truespiritblog.wordpress.com)
• When I Think I Am One (theyearofprayer.wordpress.com)
• Jnana-view (ardhanarishwar.wordpress.com)
• Mind is simply a combination of all the thoughts,… – Osho (doninmass.com)
• So what am I now? An atheist? (sandragreg.wordpress.com)
• As It Should Be (ptsdandme2006.wordpress.com)
• The Advaita Vedanta text said to bring liberation (“moksha”): the Yoga Vasistha (newsunwesternskies.wordpress.com)
• Let God Do Everything (teachingsofmasters.wordpress.com)
• Original Innocence – Mooji (indrajitrathore.wordpress.com)

Maya: a competent translation of ancient Buddhist scriptures

Consider that when translating ancient sayings in to English, the competency of the translator (their comprehension of the subject matter) can be very relevant. In the sky there is no linguistic category of east and west, no linguistic barrier or distinction or boundary between the two. People create categorical distinctions out of their own language and then presume that the categorical distinctions in language are not just categorical distinctions in language.

For instance, what is an “injustice?” What is a “travesty?” These are linguistic categories derived from what Terence McKenna might call “cultural programming.” The words refer to an internal experience, a way of RELATING TO or LABELING external events, and yet we may mistake the internal reaction AS the external event (or as the result of the external event).

The basic point of Buddhism and lots of spiritual traditions is that human experience is INTERPRETATIVE. Our experiences are organized FROM external sensation, but not BY external sensation. We organize sensation and then call that perception (AKA “belief”). We are selective, presumptive, and biased.

All perception is a DISTORTING (re-organizing) of physical sensation (like we distort sounds of a human voice in to language. The language is not “in” the sounds, but in our decoding of coded symbols of sound.

That is the basic principle of [this Sanskrit word:] Maya. Many so-called Buddhists may have absolutely no comprehension of the word, even though they may use it “religiously.” That is also a normal developmental stage!

As a sidenote, we are trained in government-regulated schools (or government-operated schools) that OUR government keeps us safe and has our best interests in mind. We are also trained about some other governments that are violent and deceive the masses… unjustly. We may even be tested on multiple choice tests about whether we should go “liberate” places like Boston from government oppression by sending in government military forces. (By the way, the correct answer, if you want to go up to the next grade level in the government bureaucratic pyramid, is “C.”)

So, what does Maya mean? Does it mean illusion or delusion? Or does Maya simply refer to the fact that language is always interpretative (poetic)? Linguistic categories vary in precision. An apple is a fruit, and yet it may also be a Granny Smith apple even though it is also a fruit. Those are just variations in precision.

However, that is just part of the linguistic distinction Maya. It is not ultimately about language, but about perception itself. All human experience is relational (relative), interpretative, organized by neurological programs. The entire realm of language is “a neurological program,” but so is something “objective” like vision!

What we see is NOT what is actually out there. What we see is a representation or distortion or interpretation of what is out there. We can dream of a snake when there is no snake but only a rope. We can dream of a snake when there is no snake and no rope. We can dream of a snake when there is in fact a snake.

However, Maya (or “the dreams or distortions of conscious experience) is not about whether there is a snake or rope or neither. Maya is about the HUMILITY and MATURITY to recognize that what we experience or perceive (“dream”) is just one possible INTERPRETATION. This is why the ancient teaching of Maya is the same principle (but in a different language) as the Christian principle of humility as “the key to entering the kingdom of heaven.”

If you think you know what the “kingdom of heaven” means, but you do not even know the difference between arrogant sincerity and humility, then you might be at least slightly inaccurate. However, that can change rather suddenly.

Related articles

• Philosophy of linguistics: the phenomenological perspective (hiphilangsci.net)
• Thoughts on Linguistic Relativity (ndrakopoulos.wordpress.com)
• Linguistics and the Overall Theory of Language (aspenmadsen.wordpress.com)
• Terence Mckenna: Dreaming Awake at the End of Time (13/12/1998) (jameslovemindexpansion.wordpress.com)
• Linguistic Communication (aspenmadsen.wordpress.com)
• Saussure: language as social fact (popularnow.wordpress.com)
• Solitary linguistic confinement (economist.com)
• Sharing words (polyglossic.wordpress.com)
• New NPR blog: Code Switch (languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu)

the power of language: beyond blame to health and wealth

Are you clear about the power of how you use language? 

 

Many blame others for the results that they experience, while perhaps only a few claim personal responsibility for the results they have produced. Many who practice blame also argue over who to blame, exhausting themselves as they defend those they call “heroes” and condemn anyone who does not also blame their selected target of their blame. 

 

However, we have been trained to blame and to argue, right? Maybe so. Still, we could accept responsibility for all the activities of blaming and arguing that we have been practicing, as well as the resulting resentment, frustration, and exhaustion. Thus, we could recognize the power of how we use language as we refrain from reflexive blaming and arguing.

 

Are you motivated to explore new alternatives because of the deteriorating financial conditions of our society?

 

Rocketing numbers of people have extremely low reserves of savings, with cash reserves often totaling less than two months of typical expenses. Many of them have been spending wildly on low priority consumer goods, presuming steady future income and steady expenses.

 

Average net worth is plummeting. The average ratio of debt-to-income has rocketed (for households, businesses, and governments). The total amount of debt has also rocketed. Speculative gambling on high-risk real estate borrowing has led to waves of bankruptcy for the most aggressive households as well as the most aggressive lenders.

All of those patterns are widespread throughout the developed world, not just in one state or one country or one city. Huge numbers of people across the planet focus their language (their attention) on who to blame, leading to arguing and bickering and combativeness. Few claim personal responsibility for the recent results of their past patterns of behavior.

 

Public Health Dentistry (Photo credit: Trinity Care Foundation)

Are you motivated to explore new alternatives because of the diminishing health of our society?

One of the fastest-rising costs in our society is health care. While rapid advances in technology have resulted in plummeting costs of so many things (such as electronics and computer memory), costs of heath care have soared. Those rocketing costs have also been during the most rapid advance in scientific clarity about health. How interested are you in why the costs of mainstream medicine going up so fast while the average health is going down?

 

To take actions that promote your health, it is not essential to know why health care costs are rocketing while effectiveness is falling. However, note that when someone is clear on an issue, there is no interest in blaming or arguing over who is most to blame, but only in clarity and prudence in regard to the science and the specific behavior that are relevant for promoting health. (Much of modern “science” has been totally discredited as a superstitious confusion of causes with effects, yet even the most obviously inaccurate presumptions are still promoted as science by mainstream organizations like the FDA and ADA and AHA.)

For who are clear about the power of language, there is an interest in clearly assessing scientific credibility (like based on actual results produced reliably). In contrast, there is no interest in who to blame, because blame does not directly improve health. Only investing in healthy behavior promotes health.

It is generally healthy to refrain from blaming, with certain notable exceptions (like in filing a legal action), for blaming does not directly promote health or constitute a healthy behavior. Arguing is similarly unhealthy, fostering rising rates of physical altercations and even divorce due to escalating patterns of two or more people practicing argumentativeness (often hysterically, as in without any experience of self-control and intention, but just out of trauma or panic: blame, argue, blame, argue, etc…).

But even the most basic measures of physical health are plummeting. Rates of obesity, diabetes, depression, insomnia, dental cavities, infertility, and many other conditions have gone from nearly non-existent not much more than 100 years ago to rapidly accelerating in the last few decades. The number of people addicted to medical drugs has also rocketed, especially among the elderly, who often are addicted to several medications. In the absence of any one of those medications, many people would likely soon find themselves in emergency rooms. However, many emergency rooms are already experiencing issues with historically long wait times.

 

If there was at least one area in which you could dramatically improve the results of your investments, wouldn’t a dramatic improvement to your health be a priority?

Many people may think that they are more healthy than most people. However, as average health plummets,  the gap increases between average health and optimal health. Focusing on health can not only produce huge increases in athletic performance, but in all other types of performance: concentration, productivity, intelligence, creativity, problem-solving, and so on. (That also means increased earning potential.)

What if you could dramatically improve your health while dramatically decreasing your health care expenses? How many other people can you think of that would want to spend much less for much better results?

In the case of people who are addicted to medications or otherwise experiencing chronic health issues, the relief of major symptoms can produce a dramatic change in their life, especially when it also saves them significant amounts of money (and even helps them to dramatically increase their earning potential). People who have been hopeless and desperate have had full recoveries from conditions they considered incurable.

(In my own case, I had a full recovery at age 36 from paralysis – in the form of multiple sclerosis – resulting in an overnight recovery of the ability to walk. The total cost of my full recovery was under five dollars… plus a few more dollars for shipping and handling. Prior to that, I had spent “much more than that” on diagnostics and treatments that produced little or no benefit.)

Of course, there are other factors contributing to our deteriorating economic conditions in our society besides expensive health care that is decreasing in effectiveness. However, the single factor of a revolution in the effectiveness of health care could result in a redistribution of huge amounts of economic activity from expensive, ineffective remedial care (based on flawed conceptual models) toward productive and competitive economic activities.

What is the first step? I assert that it is a commitment to refrain from blaming and arguing. Those who are unwilling to admit their addiction to blaming and arguing are unlikely to invest in unfamiliar methods of promoting their health that may be extraordinarily effective and yet inexpensive.

 

Book 1: dramatic improvements to your health

 

Book 2: dramatic improvements to your finances

 

Book 3: dramatic improvements to your personal power, communication, relationships, & happiness

Related articles

• Culture, Language and Health Literacy (policyabcs.wordpress.com)
• Well Being Literacy and Its Significance for Emergency Room Sufferers (socyberty.com)
• Don’t Blame Mothers for Birth Defects (parenting.blogs.nytimes.com)
• How to Cope with Difficult People (Part 1) (theepochtimes.com)
• Fight unhealthy food, not fat people | Jill Filipovic (guardian.co.uk)
• Blaming Things (jacobinmag.com)
• The Effect of Culture on Health Outcomes in Australia (ncys82.wordpress.com)
• Social Determinants of Health Explained (kmbeing.com)
• How About Some Christian Deficit Reduction? (centerlefty.wordpress.com)
• Soul Detox: Toxic Behaviors (buddyhoward.me)

Cure discovered for imaginary hypochondria

Curing imaginary hypochondria

 

 

Babbling Comedy: The Perfordian Show – Fringe 2010 High Street 0527 (Photo credit: Richard Milnes)

Language organizes perception and behavior. You may not recognize how important that is yet, but here is an example.

Have you ever had a dream so frightening (even terrifying) that you actually made noise like a shout or grunt? Because of the dream, a trigger of fear is perceived and then the behavior of the shout is a result of the perceiving of the trigger of the fear. Is that clear? The shout is simply a reaction to a perception. 

 

Next, if three people are sleeping, and exactly one of them has a certain scary dream, that one may shout. The shout may startle and wake the others. I f they also shout, then they are just shouting in reaction to the first shout, not to the scary dream itself.

Now, there is one dream, but three shouts (but not all at once). There is the dreaming, then the first perceiving of fear, then the first shouting, then the second “wave” of two more shouts (two more people who were startled by the first shout, not directly by the dream itself).

 

 

Perceptions (Photo credit: Ezu)

So, that is about how perception is related to behavior, but now let’s begin to consider how language is involved. How could language organize both perception and behavior?

 

Imagine remembering this. Have you ever intentionally startled someone- like first by hiding and then loudly saying “boo” or maybe by placing a toy spider where it may scare them? Again, if the person is startled and responds with a gasp or shout, that is just a behavioral reaction to an actual perception, though the perception may be imprecise or even totally inaccurate.

 

But what if a few people are aware of the trick? What if there are a few people who know about the toy spider (the fake spider) and a few people who do not? In that case, no one who realizes that the spider is fake will be sincerely frightened by it because they already know it is fake. Some people who did not expect to see the spider (who did not know about the trick in advance) might be startled when they see it, while others may recognize the toy as fake without having much reaction at all, or maybe even a slight giggle. In contrast, some may even get angry at the trick.

 

So, there is exactly one toy spider (an imaginary one… only in your imagination), but there are several perceptions about that imaginary toy spider and several reactions to the different perceptions. Does anyone ever react to the toy spider itself, or only to their perception about it (as a real spider or as a toy)? In a way, the toy spider “causes” all of the different reactions- because those reactions would not happen without the perceiving of the spider. However, in some cases, there is basically no reaction to the spider. It is just perceived as a toy spider. It is not frightening or at all interesting. 

 

Or, it is just an imaginary spider in a real story about how imaginary language organizes both real imagination and the imaginary reactions to what is really imagined. Is that clear? Obviously, the reactions are just reactions to the thing that precedes each reaction, right?

 

SVG based on :Image:Multistability.jpg. The vase/face image is the result of running the potrace tracing program on the original. The cube is hand made. I relinquish any and all copyright claims I might have, releasing it into the public domain. The original image was already listed as being in the public domain. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, what does any of this have to do with language? Well, what you might not know already is that language itself is just a behavioral reaction. Labeling something “a spider” or “a toy spider” are two different behaviors in language. Note that belief means a perception plus some behavioral reaction in language to label the perception. In other words, belief means an interpretation in language.

 

So, in the near future, remember imagining that there is an accomplice in the toy spider gag. One spider has a dream of a toy human intentionally shouting as a way of startling two other humans, who then really shout in response to the first dream human pretending to shout, and so then that spider gets really scared, not because of the dream, but because of all of the shouting about the first person having a nightmare about shrieking “a spider!” Notice that it is the language of the first human (who shrieks “spider!”) which influences the perception of the other two humans, who then shout in reaction to the linguistic behavior (“spider!”) of the first dream human.

 

Is that clear? What we are talking about here is how language has no connection to perception or belief or imagination. Language is obviously not a type of behavior. Language is not the activity of the imagination. Language is real.

If I say “spider,” that is not just the real sound of the imaginary word “spider,” but an actual toy spider in an actual fake dream, right? If I imagine pretending to say “spider,” then that means that a spider actually crawls out of my mouth, right? If I remember imagining a future when a spider crawls right out of my mouth as I open it to speak, then that is a real mouth in my pretend memory, right?

 

Perception (Photo credit: Genna G)

 

You may have noticed that I have not directly mentioned anything yet about curing hypochondria. You may have also noticed that I have been playing around with language as a demonstration of how language organizes perception and behavioral reactions to perception. 

 

What reactions? Well, maybe you laughed at something that you just read above. Maybe you thought it was foolish or clever.

That thought is labeling. Maybe you labeled something as foolish or clever. When you labeled it, that was a thought or a linguistic behavior or a new perception or an interpretation or an imagining or a belief.

 

You interpreted it as “foolish” or “clever.” You believed it to be “foolish” or “clever.” You labeled it “foolish” or “clever.” In your imagination (your perception), there was a thought (a behavioral reaction in language) of “that was foolish” or “that was clever.”

 

 

Okay, because all of that is totally clear to you, now let’s talk directly about imaginary hypochondria. Hypochondria is when someone uses language to identify the presence of a diagnostic label when in fact there is no actual diagnostic label present (according to someone else).

 

For instance, let’s imagine that in the future we remember saying right now that a toy spider has diabetes. That means that the diabetes is an organism (a demon) that has possessed the toy spider. The diabetes causes the toy spider to have a set of other symptoms: fluctuations in blood sugar levels, fluctuations in insulin levels, fluctuations in budgetary expenditures for diagnosis and treatment, plus numbness, blindness, bankruptcy, foreclosure, divorce, and so on. That is the standard medical interpretation of disease: disease is a form of demonic possession, right?

Now, it is also possible that diabetes is in fact not a demonic curse or voodoo spell, but merely a diagnostic label for a set of symptoms. When someone has certain biochemical fluctuations, the label “diabetes” can be applied to the existing patterns of biochemistry. Diabetes is a linguistic behavior of labeling.

However, a toy spider could dream of asserting that diabetes is also just a behavior of eating lots of carbohydrates. People who get most of their energy from fat do not need much insulin to resolve toxic levels of blood sugar. They cannot experience problems with the digestion of large amount of carbohydrates unless they actually ingest large amounts of carbohydrates (assuming that they are not injecting it by needle or something else bizarre).

Chemical Reaction (Photo credit: lindes)

So, how do you cure imaginary hypochondria? You recognize that it is purely imaginary. It is purely linguistic. It is just one possible way of relating to something. It is just a belief, just an interpretation, just a thought.

 

But how can we fix the problem of how language organizes perception and behavior? We could stop labeling it as a problem!

 

Language organizes perception and behavior. Language organizes experience and belief. Belief systems are linguistic. 

 

You cannot believe in the diagnostic label “diabetes” without language, can you? You cannot perceive “diabetes” without labeling, right? 

 

Labeling and perceiving and believing and interpreting are completely unrelated. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other and are completely independent of language.

 

In other words, note that belief means a perception plus some behavioral reaction in language to label the perception. In other words, belief means an interpretation in language. In other words, a belief means “in other words.”

 

English: The Old Insurance Building Built in 1932. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Do you believe in diabetes? Do you believe it is a problem? Or, do you believe that it is a diagnostic label for a certain pattern of a sequence of biochemical reactions? The biochemistry may be problematic, but the label itself is not the cause of the initial biochemical reactions that are only later labeled in language, right?

 

What if medical specialists stopped interpreting diabetes as some embarrassing evidence of their lack of competence in the science of biochemistry? What if they just admitted that it was evidence of their lack of competence in the science of biochemistry and were not embarrassed about it? Well, then that might open them up to humility and learning, instead of arrogantly defending their naive hypochondria model of incurable demonic possessions.

 

I personally do not believe in incurable demonic possessions. I understand what physicians mean when they use language to refer to diagnostic labels as if the labels were incurable demonic possessions, but I consider such patterns in language foolish (or at best imprecise). It is just hysterical hypochondria due to their normal and predictable embarrassment at their lack of competence in the science of biochemistry. 

 

Just listen to some of those folks argue about which demonic possession is incurable! The hysterical way that they talk is enough to make you think that they look at the business of health care as a business. How can these people actually try to make money off of their livelihood? It is just ridiculous, isn’t it? They put several years of intense, specialized training in to advancing in their professional career and then these people actually expect to be well-compensated for their time. It is rude. It is arrogant. It is naive.

 

The Insurance Building at the Washington State Capition in Olympia, Washington. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Metropolitan Life Insurance building, Madison Square (Photo credit: Salim Virji)

 

Plus, there is that one government. You know the one I am talking about.

(I do not mean our government. Our government is not like all of the others. Ours is obviously the best government of all. Our government is more like a religion, except that all of our myths and beliefs are not presumptions constructed in language for the organizing of perception and behavior, but actual toy spiders that really appear in our imaginary mouths whenever we pretend to say the symbolic words “toy spider.”)

So, one thing that our government likes to drill in to our heads with constant propaganda indoctrination is that certain other governments in some cultures in some eras of human history have been not so awesome as ours. Some governments have systematically treated different groups of people differently, such as toy spiders possessed by incurable diabetes and toy spiders who have a real case of hysterical hypochondria. Some governments label different groups of toy spiders based on whatever factors that the government deems important and then the governments treat the different groups differently, yes, all simply based on the way that the governments organize their behavioral reactions through language (during sacred court rituals of organized coercion).

 

Obviously, this problem must be corrected. Governments cannot be allowed to use language to organize perception and behavior. It is morally wrong. I do not believe in it and neither should you. Anyone who is a good toy spider will agree with me, right? (Anyone who is not a good toy spider clearly does not have any intelligence or merit and therefore their opinions can be dismissed and discarded as hysterical foolishness, due to their imaginary demonic possession by incurable hypochondria.)

 

Chemical Reaction (Photo credit: Shazari)

 

Consider that if anything in this composition has in any way stimulated biochemical behavior in the form of changes in breathing, posture, blood rate, or the release of stress hormones like adrenalin and cortisol, further leading to fear or boredom or interest or shouting in raging argumentativeness, then that is only because biochemistry is morally wrong. Biochemistry obviously should not respond to patterns of imaginary language, and therefore it does not.

 

Language clearly does not organize perception. Language clearly does not organize behavioral reactions to imaginary perceptions. 

 

In other words, there really was no scary dream that caused the first toy spider to shout, startling the other two. I just made all of that up. I did not imagine making it up. I really just made it up. Which means that it did not even happen. 

 

Imagination – HNBD (Photo credit: HNBD)

You did not believe it either. I know that you got scared that one time when you really thought that there was a real spider, but it was in fact just demonic possession by incurable embarrassment at a hysterical lack of imaginary competence in the science of biochemistry.

 

That really was hysterical, wasn’t it? I mean I really had you going for a minute, right? You really believed that diabetes was just a diagnostic label for a toy spider, didn’t you? I know that you like to pretend that you did not really believe it, but I saw the way that you shrieked in terror when the toy spider delivered to you the results of your ritual of diagnostic cursing:  ”I have some horrible news for you. You have contracted incurable hypochondria, which runs in your family, and we have no other choice but to surgically remove the language from your health care plan, which by the way is not influenced by corporate financial interests because it should not be.”

 

In summary, all good toy spiders agree that language should not exist. It is a huge problem. We need to seriously talk about how to fix the problem of the existence of language, don’t you agree?

 

Smooch (Photo credit: Monkey Mash Button)

Related articles

• Is the world just a dream? (ancientbumblebee.com)
• Are we that which we Perceive? (madscribedotme.wordpress.com)
• Rejuvenating Abolitionism of Psychiatric Labels – Even Some Establishment Psychiatrists Embarrassed by New DSM-5 (madinamerica.com)
• DSM-V – Mental Illness vs Normal Behavior (theness.com)
• This Week in Mentalists – Does Language even Matter? Edition (theworldofmentalists.com)
• The Black Mark Against Mental Illness (infinitesadnessorhope.wordpress.com)
• The Relationship Between Schizophrenia & Mysticism: A Bibliographic Essay by Sandra Stahlman | (runningfather.wordpress.com)
• What is in a name? (life-in-focus.org)
• What’s in a label? How helpful are psychological labels for anyone? (diakrinomusings.wordpress.com)
• Can Autism Be Outgrown? (blogher.com)

on “trying to change the world”

“….I have come, not to judge the world, but to give life to the world.” http://bible.cc/john/12-47.htm

 

“Trying to change the world” is a formula that exhausts rebels who reject how the world is. Give up rejecting how the world is. You do not need to become a hero, so you do not need to create the existence of victims that you can heroically save from villains. Just create the world as already exactly how it is. How? First, by doing nothing at all. “Be still and Know that I am God.”

Then, from this openness to the possibility that the world is already perfect (and that God is actually not an idiot for failing to consult you when creating the world so as to conform with your most sacred idolatries), now you can create new formations, not by rejecting and resisting, but simply by accepting and exploring. Those who reject the world relate to the world as if they are the victim of the world, rather than as if they are creators and stewards and authors, the labelers and categorizers and also expressions of the world. 

 

You are not just an ally of the world. You are a facet of it, a form of it, and an instrument of it. 

 

So, beware of rejecting the world, for it may include you. Imagine the irony of saying “I reject everyone who is my age” or “I reject everyone who speaks this language that I am speaking.” Only the one who rejects one’s self has an inferiority complex of needing to compensate for self-contempt by eventually becoming a hero or savior of the world. 

Italiano: Istanze psichiche umane: Ego, Es, Super-Ego da Psicopatologia: sinopsi (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Jesus christ(coptic) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What about my mind, body, and soul?

Now, my body is “all that is inside of me.” My soul is  ”all that is outside of me.” My mind is a linguistic construct which labels a “me” and categorizes an “inside” and “outside.”

“My” mind is entirely a social construct. It is an operation of the entire universe, unbound by time or space or identity.

Language invents each “me” and each “my mind” and so on: “my identity” and “the personality that I had when I was 5 years old” and “who I will be in 10 years.” Outside of language, those constructs have absolutely no meaning. However, language is the art of meaning, so within the social realm called language, those constructs are filled with meaning and value and functionality.

One social function of language is to install programs of self-rejection or self-repression. So, we are not to blame for experiencing guilt and blame and shame.

If the practice blaming and shaming continues, then that practice perpetuates the experience of guilt and self-rejection. This is why so many instructions have been given in regard to the instrumental power of forgiving those whom you have had the arrogance to condemn. Be humble before God and renounce all your past condemning and rejecting of any of God’s creation. See all of that condemning as a perpetuating of self-rejecting, a form of resisting reality and rejecting the possibility that reality is actually already perfect and does not need you to save one part of it from some other part of it.

The Church of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Savior on the Blood Church in St. Petersburg, Russia (Photo credit: radzfoto)

So, beware of rejecting the world. Beware of rejecting anyone. If you reject someone or something as a reflex, rather than as a creative choice, that is sin. That is a disturbance. That is the world disturbing you.

There is no shame in being disturbed by the world and then reflexively rejecting the world for disturbing you. It is like having a nightmare or delusion in which you believe sincerely there is some danger, but then you wake up and recognize that who you thought you were was merely a perception. There is relief in this good news, not shame.

Finally, beware of rejecting any of God’s creation, for that is not only the logical extreme of arrogance, but it is also isolates one’s own being from God, which is “the fall,” the rejecting of your reality as hell. You do not need to relate to God as if you are the victim of God who has been unjustly persecuted by exposure to a disturbing world that should not be how it is. The world should disturb the ego. God should disturb the ego.

When a snake sheds it’s skin, the skin must be exposed to friction. Likewise, the ego should be terrified of accepting the world as it is. However, there is a courage that is deeper than the ego that God has perfectly created.

By the way, you are already changing the world. Just because of you being here in the world, the world will never be the same.

The symbol of Coptic Christianity, an Ethiopian branch of Christianity that separated from the Roman tradition in 451 AD. Note that the Romans do not use the circular Ankh symbol that was common in the Middle Eastern regions where Christianity originated.

English: visual representation of the Freud’s id, ego and super-ego and the level of consciousness (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

• your ego wants to be bankrolled (kissilent.wordpress.com)
• A child is born with no social software! (eagleman6788.wordpress.com)
• And now for some biblical introspection… (yliapu.typepad.com)
• Sermon: Luke 12:54-56 – Discernment (firstbaptistscottcity.wordpress.com)
• Clear the Ego and see the World (cherrypositive.com)
• He who expects to change the world (teachingsofmasters.wordpress.com)
• Your Shameful God Beliefs (freeatheism.org)
• Assurance of Salvation (joequatronejr.wordpress.com)
• Thoughts on “A better atonement: the last scapegoat” (themysteryofchrist.wordpress.com)
• Forgiveness & Love That Leads To Action… (laweeks.com)

Part 1: Noticing the Activity of Language

Tic Tac Toe (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

1 noticing the activity of language

2 noticing that language is not perception

3 the linguistic ritual of creating a victim (and a savior)

4 creating a path from hell to heaven

 

Noticing the Activity of Language

In the beginning, right now, this is the activity of language. Noticing the activity of language here, there is an obvious distinction between the operating of language, which can be labeled “active,” and the noticing itself, which can be labeled “inactive” or “receptive.”

Notice that the operating of language can begin and then end, yet then begin again. There can be a just a quick breath between words or even a long pause in conversation, right?

Science Saturday Celebrates International Year of Chemistry (Photo credit: Old Shoe Woman)

So, we can call the activities of language temporary or fluctuating. One pattern of language begins, then may be replaced by another. We can talk about taking a long, deep breathe in, then stop talking about that and create a new conversation about drawing a picture or swimming in a lake or singing a song or drinking some water.

Each topic of conversation begins and then ends. Every pattern of linguistic activity is temporary, not continuous. In fact, the activity of language can simply stop.

Noticing is fundamental and continuous while language is just one kind of activity that can be noticed. Is that clear? We can label noticing as “constant” or “eternal” and label language as “temporary” or “intermittent.”

Does that make sense?

Introspection. (Photo credit: e³°°°)

Science Saturday Celebrates International Year of Chemistry (Photo credit: Old Shoe Woman)

Further, there are many different things that can be noticed about various patterns of linguistic activity. Notice the following letters not as a word, but just as a sequence of shapes visually perceived: O X Y G E N T L E M E N.

You may have found it automatic to recognize the sequence of shapes in terms of being letters that form could words. So, here is another sequence: N E M E L T N E G Y X O. Those are the same letters in the reverse sequence, but notice that this second sequence of letters may not trigger any automatic “word associations.”

a DRAWING of The musk ox (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Again, you may barely even notice the actual shapes of the letters. Rather than see the O as just a circle and the X as just an an intersection of lines, you may not even notice the shapes at all. You just automatically make the shapes in to letters and automatically make the letters in to words- or try.

However, this was not always automatic. An infant can notice the shape of a circle and draw a copy of that shape. An infant can then notice two crossing lines and copy that distinct shape. Those are just shapes to the infant, not letters, and certainly not the word “ox.”

a PHOTOGRAPH of an “Ox in Saharsa” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is no activity of language for the infant in copying shapes. There are no letters and no words. There is the noticing of sounds and sights (like the sight of various shapes), but there is no labeling of the different shapes. They are just distinct shapes. The shapes can be noticed without labeling them.

SOUND CARD (Photo credit: Cyberslayer)

There is noticing, but no noticing of the activity of language, right? So, the noticing itself is fundamental, while the noticing of language in particular is just one possible temporary form of the continuous, fundamental noticing.

Next, the shapes can be noticed and then interpreted as symbolic codes, with the O shape representing a different sound than the X shape. Together, the two shapes of O and X can be interpreted as the new symbolic unit: “ox.”

However, notice that “xo” is not the same as “ox.” The sequence of the symbolic shapes is important in the activity of language.

a tic tac toe game (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In fact, language is about the sequencing of symbolic codes. That is the activity of language: the sequencing of symbolic codes. Notice this now?

So, the sound of the letter O is not inherently symbolic. However, if I say “now do you notice that there is a difference between the sound of the letter O and the symbolic use of that sound,” then what if you make make the sound of “Oh!” (as in “oh yes, now I do notice it!”)?

That sound is symbolic because of how we use the sound. A ringing bell or vibrating tube can produce a very similar sound (like the letter “O” or similar to the word “Oh”). We do not even notice that a bell or tube sounds like the letter O because “it is just a sound” to us when we know that it is only a ringing bell or a vibrating tube.

It is not even perceived as “the sound of an O.” It is just the sound of a bell or a tube. We notice both sounds. We label one sound as the activity of language and the other sound as something other than the activity of language.

Next, in language, “ox” and “oxygen” are clearly very different uses of the O and the X. The specific sequence matters as well as the grouping of sequenced letters, like “ox y gen” is not the same as “oxygen.”

Introspection, Day 164 of 365 (Photo credit: DieselDemon)

Juliana Playing Tic-Tac-Toe (Photo credit: camknows)

So, what is important about all of this? The individual examples are not important. They are just demonstrations to promote the noticing of certain specific patterns in language. The examples are just examples of different types of patterns of language.

Noticing is continuous. In contrast to language, noticing lasts. Noticing the various activities in language as well as the absence of linguistic activity, we can label noticing to be “lasting” or “continuous” or “constant” or “eternal.” Is that still clear?

So, this is another way of contrasting language itself from the noticing of language. Whenever there is the noticing of language, there is always noticing already. In other words, the continuous noticing is fundamental to the noticing of the various temporary patterns of language. Does this still make sense?

Tic Tac Toes.. (Photo credit: BenSpark)

In other words, the actual sequences of language can be called “the created” and the noticing can be labeled “the author.” Patterns of language are not the author of language, right? Noticing is fundamental, right? The various patterns noticed are secondary, right? There is no noticing of language unless there is both the capacity to notice (which is fundamental and continuous) and the various objects of perception (which are all secondary and transitory).

Now, language is a modern word. The same idea can be labeled with an ancient term “Logos” or translated from an ancient form of language in to a modern form, such as “communication” or “The Word.” The next section (part 2) will get deeper in to that distinction.

The famous Greek word logos — “word, speech, argument, ratio, etc.” — as SVG image. I don’t know if someone still needs such graphics in the times of Unicode, but if you like to use it here it is … (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

• Ancient Mysteries – An Unexpected Word (disclose.tv)
• Learning to Write Montessori Style: Part 1 ~ Basically We Love Sound Catching Games! (fiftytwocreate.wordpress.com)
• Can You Learn to Control Your Mind? (zen-haven.com)
• Waking Life Part I – Language (fecklessphilosophy.wordpress.com)
• Empathetic introspective narcissist ? (psychforums.com)
• How Long Should My Sentences Be? (scepticalprophet.wordpress.com)
• Introspection Versus Rumination (psychologytoday.com)
• The Other Side of Noam Chomsky’s Brilliant Mind (alternet.org)
• Existimo Ergo Scribo (thundergodblog.wordpress.com)
• “Too Afraid” – an introspective on people by Author G Grace (author2be.wordpress.com)

Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Cox for Congress (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

part 2: noticing that language is not perception

1 noticing the activity of language

2 noticing that language is not perception

3 the linguistic ritual of creating a victim (and a savior)

4 creating a path from hell to heaven

 

Noticing the activity of language as distinct from the process of noticing itself

The visual perception – Photography Course – Lesson 17 (Photo credit: Marco Crupi Visual Artist)

Words have a power all their own (Photo credit: Lynne Hand)

In the beginning, there was the activity of communication as well as the noticing of the activity of communication. The noticing was already eternal before any temporary communication was noticed. The noticing was already with the communicating and the noticing of communicating was just a new instance of the ongoing noticing.

Is that still clear? Does that still make sense?

In the old church of Ragunda (Sweden) is the name of God YHWH in Hebrew characters onn the wall behind the pulpit Nederlands: Op de muur achter de preekstoel wordt Gods naam JHWH met Hebreeuwse medeklinkers aangetroffen in de oude kerk van Ragunda Svenska: På väggen bakom predikstolen finns gudsnamnet JHWH med hebreiska bokstäver i Ragunda gamla kyrka (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If so, then what if someone translated the above communications in to a foreign language as this: “N E M E L T N E G Y X O?” Would you have any issue with that translation (in to a language foreign to you)? It would just be a sequence of letters of no great importance or interest to you, right?

English: YHWH symbol in Syriac script. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What if someone translated “N E M E L T N E G Y X O” in to a foreign alphabet and then a few thousand years passed and then someone translated that foreign translation back in to a familiar alphabet and presented this sequence of symbolic codes: ““E N E M Y     M E L T       E N E R G Y    O X?” Again, that would just be a sequence of letters, right? They would have no great importance or interest, right?

Finally, what if someone presented this next sequence of shapes, which represent sound codes of symbolic language? Would they be of any great importance or interest? Would they be a trigger of confusion or terror or arrogance or animosity or… simply a noticing of a sequence of symbolic codes?

English: It symbolizes the union of heaven and earth, the entrance to the dimension of God through music, and the name of YHWH written in Hebrew shows who the one true God who created everything that exists. Español: Simboliza la unión del cielo y la tierra, la entrada a la dimensión de Dios a través de la música,y el nombre de YHWH escrito en Hebreo demuestra quien es el único y verdadero Dios creador de todo lo que existe. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

Could God be a word for “the eternal creativity that notices and names all distinct patterns?” How is there a dividing of the heaven from the earth, of the light from the sound, of the day from the night, and of even the inch from the centimeter? Language is obviously the method used for such linguistic categorizations. However, before language, was there already some fundamental “activity” which “created” the “activity” of language?

Is this still clear? Does this still make sense?

English: Yehud coins: coins minted in provice of Judea during the Persian period. עברית: מטבעות מפחוות יהודה בתקופה הפרסית (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Language can label specific contrasting qualities, like tall and wide or slow and fast or encouraged or forbidden (rewarded or punished as in good or evil). Labels do not change the shape of a tall tree, right? However, labels can influence the attention and perception of humans, right? If I say that “Santa Claus chopped down a tall tree,” then you probably do not question if the tree was really tall like I said, right? I label it tall and you either accept that as reality or worship it as an idol or ignore it or, maybe, you question the existence of the tall tree? Is it really a tall tree? Is it even really a tree? Maybe I was just talking about a tree to make a point, to tell a story, to tell a joke, to present a metaphor or parable.

(Go on now to part 3 of 4, as we explore the linguistic rituals that we use to organize attention and perception.)

The word “shlama” (peace) in Aramaic round (Syriac) and square (Hebrew) script (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

• How do I know that your god is The One, True God: Q18? (kirkomrik.wordpress.com)
• Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, Mind, & Language by Bennett, Dennett, Hacker, and Searle (brainofzedzed.wordpress.com)
• Words And Language: Gurdjieff’s Esoteric Perspectives (linguaphileapprentice.wordpress.com)
• Revising the Three Structure Model: Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 8 (theamazingworldofpsychiatry.wordpress.com)
• Misconceptions and misrepresentations – Bacon and Locke (rhetoricandculture.wordpress.com)
• The Lacunae in the Naïve and Scientific Worldview (anokhinatetiana.wordpress.com)
• We always return to your heart. – channeled by Ron Head (oraclesandhealers.wordpress.com)
• Channeling and Strengthening Connections (aquariusparadigm.com)
• Language and Culture (tutoringtoexcellence.blogspot.com)