respect for the religious politics of contempt

Respect implies attention and awareness. Respect is not the same as worship.

Respect is also quite distinct from contempt, which is rooted in fear and distress. Respect does not preclude complaint or even protest, but respectful complaining is distinct from contemptuous protesting.

We can say things like “respect tradition” or “respect the law” or “respect authority.” Let’s take a moment to respect our ancestry and the origin of the physical organism of a human (before we get in to “religious politics”).

English: Deciduous mandibular central incisors...

English: Deciduous mandibular central incisors in a baby (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A primitive human in a remote setting may be raised from newborn to adult and in that entire time may only meet several dozen people. Like with any other mammal, the mother of a newborn human will typically be the one to nurse the newborn and otherwise interact most with the baby.

With some mammals, the mother typically goes in to seclusion to give birth and then takes actions to provide for the safety and nourishment of the newborns with no outside assistance. However, with humans, pregnancy can leave a woman extremely vulnerable, so it is common during and after pregnancy for a human woman to be assisted and supported by other people, such as her husband, her parents, her extended biological family, and even her community of “familiar” associates.

In modern civilizations, there may be a much larger network of individuals who contribute to any mother’s ability to nourish their offspring. There may be small groups or huge industries with specialized expertise at housing, warming, feeding, clothing, and organizing many people, including the mothers of newborns and those newborns.

Using an amazing development called human language, even primitive adults may organize in to small groups that accompany each other in gathering food, perhaps sharing in the bounty. For instance, they may organize together to hunt animals that would be dangerous or impractical for an individual to hunt. One participant with special experience and intelligence may successfully instruct the other participants to perform a variety of tasks, with each task contributing to the effectiveness of the entire process.

So, individuals are born in to an existing society. The society may have already developed a culture of typical behavior patterns including certain complex patterns of interpersonal behavior called spoken language. Through language, humans may organize to cooperate in furthering the well-being of themselves and their associates. Further, two or more groups of humans cooperating through the use of language may encounter each other and may even merge together or compete with each other.

Of course, competition is not limited to groups of humans. With many mammals, it is not unusual for one pregnancy to produce several offspring at once. If the mother does not have enough milk (or enough teats) for all of the offspring to thrive, then there may quickly be a sorting of the offspring from the healthiest and most physically strong (typically the firstborn) to the least competitive: the runts of the litter.

For modern humans, such competition is not typical from birth. Human infants are generally incapable of much physical competition. Further, most human pregnancies result in only one offspring.

However, the ability of a newborn human to cry is taken as an important sign of health. The reason is simple enough. Realistically, one of the first ways that a human infant will compete with other humans for the attention of their mother is by crying. The crying may not be to compete against any twins or triplets born at the same time, but to compete with other human demands and requests for the attention of the mother.

So, to the extent that a growing infant depends on the mother, the infant may compete for her attention and nurturing (nursing). The nurturing supplied by the mother may be quite adequate such that there is no demand for competitiveness to develop in the infant. Or, the nurturing supplied by the mother may not satisfy the physiological demand by the infant, producing a relatively high frequency of crying and other adaptions. More intense crying goes with more severe nutritional issues.

Nutrition 103

Nutrition 103 (Photo credit: Andrew Simpson)

While many modern women may not be aware of this because of the rarity within modern civilization, it has been reported that in many primitive cultures, it is not typical for a well-nourished newborn to wake up several times per night to nurse. Why? One factor is that a well-nourished mother produces milk that is nourishing enough for a newborn to sleep soundly throughout an entire night. The major difference between a calm, happy, alert baby and a sleepless, distressed, hungry baby may be the quality of nourishment from the breast milk of a well-nourished mother. That makes sense, right? Well, it is almost true, but not quite.

In researching this topic, I found that for a healthy sleep, the quality of the breathing is several times more important than nourishment. Note that people who do not sleep on their backs with heads raised tend to breath through their mouths and snore. They also tend to experience nightmares and wake suddenly at night to find their mouth dry. Why is their mouth dry? Because they have been breathing through their mouth all night. This “starves” the brain of oxygen. Nightmares (and the vibration of intense snoring) are nature’s signal to shut the mouth (to properly elevate the head before falling asleep).

So, consider the typical facial expression associated with idiocy/drowsiness/dopiness/dope abuse: a mouth hanging open, slack jaw, eyebrows slightly raised. Do not sleep like that! Let your sleep be restful (restorative), not “restless” (further depleting you in to a metabolic condition of “chronic fatigue”).

Human brain

Human brain (Photo credit: EUSKALANATO)

So, let’s return to the subject of culture. Obviously, there are cultures which are so prosperous that huge populations can be supported, even if the health of those populations is far below that of the typical primitive. The large populations have the advantage of advanced language development leading to intricate divisions of labor and an “economy of scale.”

Within the life of any modern individual human, there is typically a huge network of other humans involved in the everyday life of each one: such as networks that gather and distribute food, water, and even electricity. Even with a remote rural ranch on the outskirts of civilization, there may be many materials created by other humans (housing, vehicles, tires, batteries, solar panels, wells, shovels, tubing, glass windows, propane appliances, propane tanks, etc…).

There may develop a culture of contempt: not just a lack of respect for the vast network of biology and humanity supports each individual organism, but an ironic rage toward the human portion of the network. The rage tends to be ironic (as it was in my own case) because of the intense “pro-ecology” subculture. What is ironic about that? Systems of human economy are not outside of ecological systems. Systems of human economy are the most recent innovation within the ecological system on this planet. To condemn human economies as unecological is like condemning the letter z for being unalphabetical.

So, shall we then have contempt for cultures of contempt? That would only be another irony. We can respect the emphasis of each culture of linguistic behavior (“thinking”): the culture of infantile ignorance (which is the essential stage of reflexive development prior to any others), then the culture of adolescent rebellion, experimentation, arrogance, and contempt (like withdrawing from society through travel abroad or “dropping out” so as to develop an appreciation of rudimentary principles of ecological interdependence), and finally (?) a culture of respect and dignity, recognizing all systems of human economy as systems of ecological interdependence.

Do human groups compete against each other? Yes, and they compete with intricate cooperation through armies and political parties and court systems and other businesses.
Note that from an ecological perspective, all governing operations are fundamentally commercial- rooted in currency systems of involuntary tax extortion rackets. This is not a condemnation, but a recognition.

Further, all religious institutions and rituals are also fundamentally economic. In fact, there is no human activity that is outside of the realms of ecology and economy. Every linguistic pattern is a development in neuro-chemistry. Neuro-chemistry is fundamentally ecological.

Each religious practice develops in the context of specific conditions for which it is adaptive. All of them involve language. In cultures which do not have any religious practices originating directly from native speakers of that language, there may be other institutions fulfilling the functions typical of “religion.”

In the extended British Empire which has spread the English language so widely across this planet, governments serve the primary functions typical of primitive religion. Government officers, not tribal elders, give official power or authorization to marriages, to birth, to death, and so on. Government officers perform rituals of human sacrifices (executions), with any unauthorized practices of ritual human sacrifice being regulated and, in some cases, punished by government bureaucrats.

Religion was the first advance in human ecology to create bureaucracy. Language was more fundamental than religion. Modern civilized bureaucracies have advanced technologically so far that some of them are prosperous enough to ignore the cultural variations of language groups and religious denominations.

Consider how unusual it is within human history that there is so little concern for the activities of an individual. Individuals within huge civilizations are not valued as they would be in a small tribe or village facing intense issues of scarcity and inter-group competition. Individuals who are unable to contribute might either be abandoned or sacrificed (killed). Consider that throughout all forms of life- not just humans- while a father might sometimes sacrifice his own life for his only child, a mother might not sacrifice all of her healthiest children in order to save the one least reproductively viable offspring.

While some religious hierarchies might teach the lower class to sacrifice themselves like that, that is against the instinctive rules of evolution. Note that those religions tend to train celibate males as the vehicles or agents of their systems of indoctrination, inquisition, torture and crusade (“holy” wars by “holy” empires). Note also that the economic supporters of those institutions may not practice behavior that complies with the training given at mass (the ritual gatherings), through mass media indoctrination, or public education of mass propaganda rituals.

However, in many developed civilizations, there is currently incredible prosperity and tremendous practical respect for the individual, with extensive accommodations for individuals who are not fluent in the dominant language, as well as extensive accommodations for individuals unable to support themselves economically, such as children, retirees, and the severely disabled and mentally “handicapped” (“developmentally unable”). Modern civilization prides itself on it’s prosperity and generosity. Perhaps that is a psychological compensation or distraction for the patterns of behavior promoted by the global elite (the 1% of humanity earning $34,000 per year or more) in their organizing of the economic activities of the other 99%, who produces so much of the exclusive luxury of the elite (food, clothing, electronics, etc).

We may be most concerned about what we see in our midst: the treatment of the local minority populations. Why? They are physically close to us and their loyalty is much more economically relevant than that of distant peasants thousands of miles away.

In developed cultures, the elite direct the attention of the middle classes toward being charitable toward the lower classes. The most able of the dependent lower classes are then recruited for the activities of military imperialism in developing nations (mostly) that allow for the developed culture to prosper through the economic “development” of those foreign regions (industrial resources, agriculture, textile manufacturing, etc). The media can be instructed to stir up controversy and conflict about outsourcing of “our” manufacturing jobs.

The ecologist and economist can agree completely on the above patterns of actual behavior. Of course, publicizing such obvious and clear distinctions is not economically advantageous to the sustainability of the system of inequity. These “inflammatory” patterns of language must be either openly censored or at least loudly ridiculed and quietly silenced.

Mythology and propaganda about how the systems fights economic inequality (or at least should) must be instilled in the middle classes. The elaborate systems of involuntary wealth redistribution prosper through organized coercion. The more effective the propaganda, the less value there would be for costly expenditures of direct coercion against the domestic populations for criminalized behaviors such as the consumption of alcohol or marijuana, or the performance of homosexual acts, or whatever other behaviors can be vilified through the various instruments of public influence.

Typically, the elite may be the most frequent practitioners of the criminalized behaviors, but because of their personal connections, as long as they are valuable, loyal participants in the systems of secret influence, they would either not be prosecuted or would be given official pardons after conviction. In other cases, fringe members of the elite who are not sufficiently loyal can be scandalized through mass media accusations that may or may not have any connection to actual historical events.

The modern mass media is the primary instrument of organizing the behavior of the masses. Due to technological advances in printing, radio, TV, and recently the internet, the value of in-person indoctrination through religious ritual has diminished considerably.

Celibate male missionaries and priests are still popular in expanding the empire of the militant Holy Roman bureaucracies in to the third world. However, within the developed world, the primary agents of ritual indoctrination for over 100 years have been public school teachers. Note that while the popular mythology is of course in favor of public schooling, it is still compulsory in most if not all of the developed world (with non-compliance punishable by criminal prosecution, fines, and incarceration).

The success of the system speaks for itself. Large population increases have manifested within the developed world as well as immense population expansions within the more distant parts of the Holy Roman empire, especially the Asian branch of British influence (Indo-China). However, the sustainability of the system may be in question.

Was there a time in the last few centuries when there were no conspiracy theories about an elite plot to reduce some or all human populations? Are those conspiracies only theoretical or quite obvious? For several hundred years, certain groups with notable concentrations of economic influence may have contrived conflicts of various size for the specific purposes of advancing their economic interests and simultaneously reducing the population of able-bodied lower class males who might grow in to revolutionaries and criminals and so on.

Did Machiavelli invent politics? Thousands of years before him, did Sun Tzu invent deceptive methods of governing human behavior (“politics”)? Well, many religious traditions are much older than that. You can consider for yourself whether commentaries about being good for Santa Claus and eternal torment in hell for the disobedient are deceptive mythologies or sacred principles to argue over and to be defended to the death through suicide bombing of unresponsive foreign infidels who arrogantly resist liberation by the mercenaries of the Holy Empire of ritual militant bureaucracy.

Respect the holy mercenaries of organized coercion. When their propagandists publicize inflammatory controversies to incite protest and rebellion, thus justifying the next advance of tyranny, respect that as well.

If you are reading this, you are probably the beneficiary recipient of an immense technological prosperity of economically developed civilization. You probably only have the luxury of reading this and having the intelligence to comprehend it if you are among the top 1% of the global elite who receive at least $34,000 per year in revenues.

You have been trained to practice contempt. Do you dare to rebel against rebellion by respecting the interests and methods of the enormous concentrations of economic affluence that lead the advance of civilization?

Respect the power of contempt. They do.

Cultivating contempt may be the single most important method of the modern propagandist. To be able to arouse contempt and then direct it toward certain accused enemies or accused traitors is the essence of “religious politics.”

“Here is who you must fear: ________ (AKA the Devil). Here is who you must allow to protect you from the one you must fear: ________ (AKA the Savior, The Hero, the Holy Candidate, the Super-friends League of Justice etc). Here is how we are going to protect you from the one you must fear: _________.”

Contempt is not rooted in anger so much as fear, from which frustration, blame, anger, and contempt arise as more and more dense concentrations of fear. Contempt is a very extreme form of fear, including self-contempt.
When a global empire is preparing to supplant an existing system of militant bureaucracy, demoralizing the masses is an essential step of the process. The faith of the masses must be converted to shame. The existing system must be demonized, vilified, and even criminalized by “a higher law” (such as international laws, courts, treaties, and conventions, all declaring the language of “basic human rights,” as defined by the leading propagandists of the Holy empire of organized governing, such as the League of Nations or United Nations or Council for Global Peace or whatever names the propagandists may use).

I’m certain that one of the most basic human rights promoted by any decent propagandist must be the right of all humans to be completely liberated from the dangers of fraudulent deceptions involving the use of language. Fortunately, the upright, authorized agents of the Holy empire of the global police state will be happy to assist you in promoting all of your fundamental human rights, and indeed they require a small contribution under penalty of law, the precise amount of which you will be promptly informed and then of course compelled to provide.

Of course, a certain amount of rebellion must be cultivated, directed, and then publicized with all of the fake contempt that is relevant, if any. The masses must be trained in the proper targets for their contempt.

Within the lower classes, a snitch is a primary target of contempt. Within the middle class, a white-collar criminal (like for tax evasion or fraud) is a primary target of contempt. Within the upper bureaucracies of the Holy Empire, disloyalty is a primary target of contempt.

New Agers must be trained to have contempt for competition. Pregnant mothers (except of the ruling class) must be trained to have contempt for primitive cultures, especially their respect for developmental physiology.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

48 Responses to “respect for the religious politics of contempt”

  1. Gideon Jagged Says:

    “Respect is also quite distinct from contempt, which is rooted in fear and distress.”

    It is my opinion that only someone who feels that contempt is undeserved would attribute a negative as its motive.

    I feel contempt for willful murderers, rapists, censors, liars, and all distorters of truth. While disgust (not distress) forms a principle accompaniment to my contempt, neither distress nor fear (even of the murderers) is any part of it.

    Contempt is spectral opposite of respect; indifference being the center ground.

    From wikipedia: “Contempt … is a mix of the primary emotions disgust and anger” This defines it quite well, from my experience. It has its origins in the idea of scorn.

    There is no necessary connection with fear at all, in my experience.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      You are referencing your personal conscious experience. You also use the term “undeserved” loosely as if there is some intrinsic objective boundary between undeserved and deserved contempt.

      Consider some pattern of contempt that is neutral to you. Pick something that is not one of your own favorite contempts nor one involving you as a target.

      Could there be fear as part of anger and contempt (such as “undeserved” contempt)? I am certain that you did not understand the entire article, which traces fear through frustration, blame, and anger. I did not mention in this article the subject of confusion, but confusion must exist between the initial fear and the frustration. i have detailed that recently elsewhere.

      AS an example, I may be afraid that my computer is not working how I would like it. Then I may be confused as to why it is not working with some presumptions about how it SHOULD work and how I DESERVE for it to work, then based on those confusions I can be frustrated, then blame someone (such as myself or whoever else). That blame can build toward contempt.

      Note that the computer working or not is independent of frustration. You can tell that some people are already inflamed, dis-eased, distressed, and ripe for frustration, while others are unusually calm. The same experiences can produce different results for different people based on the spirit or well-being of each individual.

      Ignorance of why the computer is not working is not enough for frustration. I could just be ignorantly curious. There must be a mistaken presumption for someone to be confused and then frustrated. Mere ignorance otherwise would typically lead to curiosity and never get in to frustration and blame and grudges and contempt.

      When you say “deserved,” you mean that a particular target of blame is socially approved. We could say that some villain deserved what he got. Later, we might find that the basis of our condemnation of them was false information or at least a false presumption. Later, the villain might be vindicated- but may have already been executed or had his arm cut off as punishment (“deserved punishment”) and so on.

      Different people will call the same instance “justice” and “injustice” or “deserved” and “undeserved.” That is their way of relating to it, labeling it.

      All conversations about “deserved” or not is in the realm of fear. If you fear to admit the operation of fear, that is just denial. It is very popular.

      Outside of conversations about whether results are deserved and what other results might be deserved, there is the fact of language. It is through language that court systems are formed and through language that people assert claims about what is deserved, and through language that people organize to create court orders and police teams of armed thugs who then go and enforce the orders of the courts or tribunals or elders.

      Why did the virgin deserve to die? Because she was the rightfully chosen sacrifice to the gods of capital punishment. We have lots of court documents to prove that she deserved it.

      Justice and justification are partners. Different models of justification (“what is deserved”) correspond to different models of “justice” (organized coercion and systems of the “partisan” redistribution of wealth).

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        My statements do not imply an objective boundary between deserved and undeserved contempt. That would only be the case if I were speaking abstractly, which I was not and did not intend to.

        When you state that fear must precede contempt, you are making an objective assertion: You mean that fear is a necessary prerequisite for contempt to happen.

        By referencing my own experience I have satisfied myself that there is no necessary connection between fear and contempt. This single counter-example disproves, to my satisfaction, your assertion that fear must precede contempt. To be proved, your assertion must allow for NO exceptions.

        As for my reasoning behind the lack of connection between fear and contempt, see my first comment.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      I understand your assertion, which is to dismiss or reject your understanding of what I wrote, which may be a misunderstanding. You do not associate anger and disgust with fear. They are not DIRECTLY connected in your own speaking. However, many things are not directly connected with conscious attention but are still connected, like a diet high in omega 6 fatty acids and the experiences of inflammation and irritability and hysteria and panic.

      Let’s back up to where you and I agree and proceed from there again. You assert a connection (which I did not deny) between contempt and disgust as well as anger. I could of course “reject your assertion based on my own subjective insistence,” but again I happen to already agree and even provide much more detail as to the roots of disgust and anger. They do not arise “in a vacuum,” right?

      Consider the physical gestures that go with disgust. Can you imagine the movement of physically backing away from something in disgust, even pushing it away? That is repulsion. That is fear.

      Pushing away is anger, an active repulsion. Withdrawing in disgust is a more passive repulsion. Both are repulsion, Repulsion is fear.

      Contempt involves another level of suppression, resolving in a “slow-burning rage” that is still vulnerable to explosions of animosity. Suppression involves the fear of expression. When one has the fearing disgust and the fearing rage, but is ashamed of these and fears them or suppresses them, that is contempt.

      Grievance is the root of all forms of anger. Grievance arises from a certain way of relating to grief. Grief also involves fear.

      When I lose something of value to me AND fear how I will adapt, grief arises. Note that in many cases, grief arrives explosively in outbursts hours or weeks after the triggering incident. Why the delay? Suppression. What is suppression? Fear of expression.

      You may be afraid of exploring the topic of suppression fully. That is fine. You may associate fear with personal contempt and personal shame and so on. However, I am not shaming anyone as I focus respect on the powerful emotion of contempt. I am offering a release of all of the “branches” of fear, giving access to courage.

      For the one experiencing the paranoia of the fear of fear itself- the hysteria and anxiety of it- there is no experience of courage. Courage is one of the “most adaptive” responses to fear (along with caution and humility). However, suppressing or denying fear also arises as an adaption. Without some interruption to suppression or denial or shame, they tend to remain in operation, locking the energy and expression of those organisms which society has programmed to experience contempt and shame and paranoia and so on.

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        I think I see where you’e not understanding me, Contempt is defined (not by me, though I agree with it) by psychologists as a secondary emotion combining the primary emotions anger and disgust. In other words, contempt IS anger + disgust.

        You’re speaking of a reflexive reaction to something. I’m speaking of an emotion that is the result of long considered thought about something.

        For example: I feel contempt for religion. That is, I feel anger and disgust at the lies propagated by it; the coercion fostered by it, the torture and death of minds as well as bodies in the name of an imaginary being.

        I feel contempt, that is disgust and anger, at a political system that panders to it for votes, rather than condemning it as poisonous to the human spirit; and to a culture that hears the phrase “I am a person of faith” and responds with respect rather than the pity reserved for the demented, which genuine people of faith are..

        My disgust is not a visceral reaction to something sudden. It is a reasoned response to an intolerable evil that needs to be stamped out.

        The only manifestation of it I fear is that which would kill me for opposing it. But the fear is for my life from the violent, not for religion itself–of it I have no fear and never have. It has no connection to the contempt; it merely lives along side it.

        Hope that clarifies my position.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Now, I am presenting all of this analysis from a conspiratorial perspective. I simultaneously have great respect for the activity of conspiring, though of course all systems of conspiracy must promote contempt (fear/terror/horror) in relation to conspiracy.

      Religion informs (or at least “reflects”) social norms regarding proper targets of contempt (repulsion, fear). Religion is economic. Politics is a form of religion (presenting and enforcing social norms of the “appropriate” targets for punishments and rewards, whether through direct coercion or through the hypnotic programming of mythological stories to terrify obedience, such as the movie Star Wars and other “pop culture” icons).

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        You are bending and twisting the proper definitions of words to suit your argument. By no easily graspable analogy can politics be considered a type of religion. That notion is almost as laughable as the “religion of secular humanism” or “the religion of science”. These notions are put forth by people who have never been taught to think critically and who do not know what secularism, humanism, science or, for that matter, politics really are.

        To them, everything is magical and anything can happen for any reason or no reason. They have no real grasp of how to think at all and the workings of scientists, not to mention technologists who give them their 3D TVs and their iPhone are witchcraft.

        Yet, despite the fact that that their lives are supported, indeed saturated, with the tangible effects of the triumph of reason over superstition (another, more accurate, word for ‘faith’) they decry science as fantasy and praise the contents of an Iron Age text (written by people who thought the universe was a few hundred square miles of rock floating is a dish covered by a crystal dome with holes in it to let in starlight and rain) as the one, true word of the creator of the actual universe(s). This god didn’t see fit to correct them, either–funny, that!

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Arguing is not learning. Arguing is the frightened resistance against learning (based on frightened beliefs). Contempt involves, generally speaking, the willingness to argue and the unwillingness to learn.

      • DrJim Says:

        I would argue that what we idolize or worship, be it a god, gods, God, athlete, politician, president-king-emperor, movie stars, faith, reason, Nature-Universe, is our religion. Notice caps. There lies my personal ‘religion-reason-faith-nature’.

      • jrfibonacci Says:

        Even a word like “idolize” can mean many things. Many people also have a very emotional devotion to certain conceptual presumptions, including what they may refer to as “science.” However, is science best defined as a dictated set of unexamined presumptions (as many use the word science) or as a method for rigorously testing and re-testing presumptions?

      • DrJim Says:

        Words are not nearly all we have – praise be. And with words, trying to lock all meaning into one setforalltime definition suits the tyrant not the mystic, the picayune not the gracious, the martian not the venusian.

      • jrfibonacci Says:

        Tyranny itself may be one of the things that some people consider “sacred.” They may claim that tyranny is wrong, then claim that their favorite systems of tyranny are not tyrannical, then devote themselves to distracting themselves from the most common forms of tyranny in their midst. They may also “conveniently redefine” tyranny so as to fit their agenda of defending or justifying a particular system of tyranny, as well as vilifying one or more others.

        To me, when a group of people invent debts that other people owe to them, that is a very common thing. That can be tax debts or mandatory fees (like for something like mandatory health care insurance or mandatory vaccinations). Or, that can be a much smaller-scale enterprise, which the larger enterprises will label as extortion or a protection racket.

        With the big scale versions, the rulers can also dictate what forms of payment will be accepted, like ounces of silver or Euros or Pesos or bitcoin. Those forms of payment may receive a kind of social devotion in which people may hysterically condemn certain forms of payment (such as saying “all fiat currencies are fake money”) while hysterically condoning other forms of payment (such as a saying “the US must return to a bimetallic currency standard because having only a gold standard is far too unstable and if thousands of tons of gold are discovered in deep-sea mines, that will crash the whole system”).

        The reality is that there is a spectrum of tyranny as well as idolatry. Anyone who cannot admit to having some personal experience with “committing idolatry” would seem to me to have no “real” authority on the subject.

  2. Gideon Jagged Says:

    I should add that I am not critiquing the essay as a whole, just the statement I quoted. Unless you qualified that statement later in the essay (apologies if you did and I missed it), you must have meant it to stand as written.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Thank you for your respectful disagreement. Please note my respectful assertion that you may have only disagreed with a misunderstanding of what I stated. There may have never been any disagreement, but just a partial agreement- you agreed with part of what I said and did not fully understand other parts of what I said.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      So, we are dealing with words here. Words are used to reference other words.

      As fields like psychology and linguistics shift, there may be elementary levels of understanding within those fields, then advances over time, like children might say “the sun just rose” which is useful if not precisely accurate. A heliocentric astrophysicist might say, “no, actually, Galileo and Archimedes were right. The sun did not just rise. The earth simply rotated have this portion of the surface of the earth facing the sun. The sun appears to rise, but that is relative to our presumption and perception that we are not moving, when in fact we are now traveling at the following speed: ______”

      I understand the common model of defining anger and disgust as primary emotions. I am not arguing against that model so much as presenting an entirely distinct model which may be much more precise and much more useful. I am calling both anger and disgust secondary to fear. I have no argument with the use of the word contempt as a further variation of relatively primary neuro-chemical patterns in language and perception. I have no issue with someone saying that the sun rises. I understand their reference. I am asserting a far more precise model which may also resolve many “mysteries” of less-developed models, similar to the fit between the heliocentric model and the observed data regarding retrograde “motion.”

      Even the term retrograde “motion” is a bit inaccurate. The motion of the planets is consistent. Retrograde is merely a perception.

      From the perspective of a comprehensive understanding of the mechanics of fear (and resulting phenomenon like denial and argumentativeness), I am asserting a distinct linguistic “revolution” of which academic psychologists may lack comprehension, due to their lack of introspection and direct “spiritual” awakening. If someone insists on a particular premise and displays antagonism (contempt) toward an alternative model or premise or presupposition, what does that say about their credibility?

      The argumentativeness of the geocentric astronomers did nothing to resolve the failures of their model. Their argumentativeness evidenced their ignorance AND fear, their jealousy, their resistance to humbly recognizing their own confusion and misinterpretation. Again, the recognition ignorance does not inherently lead to antagonism or argumentativeness or contempt. Ignorance alone could lead to curiosity. It is the fear of admitting ignorance (shame) that leads to such things as a jealous contempt for someone else. Notice that jealousy and contempt are extremely similar.

      So, “thought” is a neuro-chemical reaction involving language and personal identity. Emotion arises in reaction to the neurology of thought. All of these are reflexive reactions. What else is there?

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        Words are all we have, sir. If you’re saying we cannot trust them because their meaning may shift, you’ve invalidated your argument as well as mine and the arguments of all those who have ever reasoned. Much better to say that words are the tools with which we gain understanding and that we need to be careful that we use the same definitions for those words so that communication is as error free as possible. The history of science seems to indicate that this latter approach has merit.

        I begin to suspect that you’re trying to change the model by changing the definitions of the words used, an entirely futile endeavor, I feel.

        You say that fear is primary and anger and disgust follow from it. I got that in your essay. You still have not established it. You need to show that there are no exceptions to that. I have furnished you with several. Therefore, your assertion is not proved.

        To forestall your next objection, I am making no assertions myself. I merely stand by the psychological model as accepted by the majority of psychologists. it makes sense to me and it jibes with not only my own experience, but that of my associates.

        On a personal note, the idea that nothing can be condemned unless it is feared, is distasteful to me, for it makes all of us who see fit to condemn something cowards.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      GJ wrote:

      For example: I feel contempt for religion. That is, I feel anger and disgust at the lies propagated by it; the coercion fostered by it, the torture and death of minds as well as bodies in the name of an imaginary being.

      Consider that coercion predates language, including among competing organisms of the human species. Language allowed for huge advances in organizing the coercion of humans, including the hunting of large animals by an organized “hunting party.”

      So, religion involves patterns of language that organize coercion efficiently, sometimes justifying coercion (inciting people to dismiss personal risk in pursuit of the interests of the society and its leaders, with references to the fundamentally guilty earning their way to paradise full of 77 virgins or at least earning good christmas presents and retirement benefits or whatever).

      Religion accelerates coercion, more efficiently organizing it through the use of language. Religious mythology indoctrinates people about what is “deserved” and what is not deserved, and then justifies vengeance, preventive imperialist “liberations” and so on. In this sense, politics is entirely religious, as referenced in the title of this blog.

      So, you may have misunderstand the word religion based on the propaganda of certain religious ideologies called “political philosophies.” Religion did not foster coercion. Religion is coercion. You have been fed propaganda to cultivate a contempt for religion, and that contempt “blinds you” to the simplicity of the hierarchy/chronology.

      Coercion was first. Language came next. Religion came next. Politics is a new development within the realm of the language of religion. Psychologists might argue about that, but any honest anthropologists, to the extent that there are any, would immediately agree that coercion predates humanity, as well as everything else in the chronology or hierarchy I present.

      I feel contempt, that is disgust and anger, at a political system that panders to it for votes, rather than condemning it as poisonous to the human spirit; and to a culture that hears the phrase โ€œI am a person of faithโ€ and responds with respect rather than the pity reserved for the demented, which genuine people of faith are..

      Again, if you understand the political system of the western world as a branch of the Holy Roman Empire, there is less of an issue. Latin phrases are popular in so many courts because courts are religious rituals with roots prior to the rise of Rome.

      As for “people of faith,” they are confused. You are also confused, just less confused than they are. I could be called a person of faith not because of unconscious programming relating to some belief, but because of direct personal experience. People of belief may call themselves people of faith, but any spirit of contempt and animosity establishes that their hopeful beliefs are rooted in fear, not courage or clarity or faith.

      They mis-use the word faith. You may criticize them for it. I say that your criticism of them is similar to having contempt for an excited 3 year-old who says “look: the sun is rising!”

      People of “belief” are like kids who innocently believe in Santa Claus- quite sincerely. Are you afraid of them? If so, then contempt may also arise. However, if you respect fear rather than have contempt for it, then you will not have contempt for their fear and if you fear their contemptuous fear, your own fear will lead to a cautious respect, rather than hysterical disgust and contempt and so on.

      Also, if you find the deceit of religious traditions (like Santa Claus) to be disgusting and terrifying, then I would advise you to find other subjects than politics. Politics is the most deceitful form of religion.

      My disgust is not a visceral reaction to something sudden. It is a reasoned response to an intolerable evil that needs to be stamped out.

      Those are the words of a fundamentalist as in religious fanatic. Your “reasoned response” was programmed, probably by years of public school religious indoctrination (AKA “political science” programming).

      Deception is not unique to humans or to language. In sports, competing athletes attempt to deceive opponents with fakes and quick changes of direction. You have not been programmed to think of the dishonesty of sports as an “intolerable evil.” It is “part of the game.”

      When two opposing groups each define the other as “intolerably evil,” that can be a very good business for weapons manufacturers (and morticians). The distress and hysteria of the masses is not a mistake. It is an essential to the religion of “democracy.” In democracies, opposing groups are incited to conflict with controversial issues of no great functional importance, such as gay marriage. huge amounts of media attention are put on the official controversies while the vast majority of the redistributive activities of government proceed without any public attention. The masses must be distracted and easily triggered. They must be set at odds against each other to distract them and also to exhaust them, as per the ancient principle of “divide and conquer.”

      It is like a game show. One team is against the other and the prize goes to the winner of the election. If the election results are slightly manipulated, then a program of indoctrination can be launched to condemn certain forms of the manipulation of elections.

      Of course, elections are just manipulations. They give the population a sense of involvement and power. If the media is adequately “loyal,” then any desired result can be announced and the people will reflexively accept the declarations of their masters in the media (usually). Of course, because politics is inherently competitive, a democratic covering on top of the Holy Roman system of organized piracy could be suddenly stripped away at any time, but then again the system is just so darn effective, right?

      People do not want to be free from governments. People depend on governments. People must be taught to have contempt for governments so as to discourage people from actively participating (or effectively participating) in economic competition. Propaganda must discourage “unfair” competition so as to preserve the monopoly, at least a bit! ๐Ÿ˜‰

      The only manifestation of it I fear is that which would kill me for opposing it. But the fear is for my life from the violent, not for religion itselfโ€“of it I have no fear and never have. It has no connection to the contempt; it merely lives along side it.

      Hope that clarifies my position.

      Religion also indoctrinates people not to fear their own death. That is a very important economic manipulation, especially of the soldier populations. “Death is heroic. Heroism is salvation.”

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        If you rely on something other than your reason and observation of the world, you are part of the problem that exists under the umbrella of “religion.”

        Your experiences notwithstanding, it’s what you deduce from them that makes it an issue, not the experiences themselves. If the contents of some holy book hold the key to your understanding of your experiences, you are no different than any of the other deluded “people of faith”

        Faith is the enemy of reason. Faith tells you that the rationalist, the atheist and the humanist are liars, trying to tempt you away from the truth. I know how powerful this irrationality is. If losing one’s faith were a simple matter of exposure to the truth, we wouldn’t have this problem, but religionists are cultists, by definition. They don’t need a rational argument or to be shown the truth, they need rescuing from the cult and deprogramming.

        One of the chief reason for my contempt of religion is the zeal with which its clerics (themselves victims) work to seduce people away from their natural selves and to indoctrinate them into a system that teaches them that their natural instincts are evil and to be tightly controlled or denied altogether (I’m NOT talking about sex, here!)

        If you count yourself a person of faith; if you value faith over reason; if you “feel” you know the truth, rather that “think” you do, we have nothing more to say to one another, because we’re not speaking the same language.

        The faithful do not come by their beliefs rationally and so rational argument cannot be used constructively when dealing with them. It’s a waste of effort on both sides.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Your experience has been programmed by the language of a particular psychological model. That is inevitable, though different models exist.

      I am not asserting that your interpretations and experiences do not fit the model you are using. Of course they do.

      I am asserting that there is another model which does not produce the experience of contempt and replaces it with unconditional respect. However, it is natural that you would object to any threat to your model of contempt.

      Within your model, your contempt is justified, automatic, essential, and inevitable. One might even say that I do not have a model at all and that without a model of “how it should be,” there is no arising of fear about what should not be, how to prevent it, who to blame for reality, what to be most frustrated about, what patterns to have contempt for, and so on.

      In your religious model of psychology, emotions are real and reflexive. In my model of language as the foundation of all religions of psychology, emotions are just instances of language, labels, perceptions, experiences, models of influence.

      Language does not “need” to follow any particular rules of science. Language is the origin of “the rules of science.” “Science” follows the rules of language for scientific models (of language) to be even intelligible.

      Contempt is only a reflex until calm attention (respect) is brought to it. Then, contempt is just one predictable reaction, but among others. Other predictable actions arising “reflexively” in the presence of certain other conditions.

      When their is no religious or political suppression of fear, contempt ceases to arise. Fear without traumatic overwhelm will lead instead to caution, respect, humility, courage, and so on.

      So, it is important to indoctrinate (program or train the neuro-chemistry of) the vast majority of working class populations before they reach “the age of reason.” That can be done through public schooling, religious ritual, or even the mass media of “children’s programming.”

      Contempt is like a parking brake. It is a curse, an emotional disability, a mental disabling.

      Try telling an adult who is economically stable and intelligent that they should fear hell and wish to go to heaven by earning the merit through enlisting in the military to violently defend Iraq from the Iraqis who are trying to steal the American oil that happens to be under Iraq. Will the adult experience disgust and contempt for the alleged injustices perpetrated by the Iraqis? Probably not.

      Now, take the same story and tell it to a terrified child. Next tell it three thousand more times by the time is 7. Then, ask the child if they feel contempt toward Iraqis and whether that contempt is rooted in fear.

      Racism is only a mystery to people incompetent in psychology. Nationalism is only a mystery to people incompetent in psychology. Reverse psychology is only a mystery to people incompetent in the use of language.

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        My experiences began before I could walk, much less talk or read. Speak sense! You are not using very many words in a sense that I understand at all and I make a decent living from my pen!

        The problem you’re having is the same as that of most people who were never taught to think. You don’t know the difference between a fact and an opinion.

        I can think the moon is made of green cheese, if I wish, but argument with someone about it solves nothing. What’s needed is evidence for the moon’s composition. Failing a trip to space, we must consult those who have studied the moon remotely and those who have been there. That, and only that, can settle the issue.

        You have no evidence for your position, only opinion based on your experiences and, I’m guessing, a generous helping of opinion disguised as “truth” from some spiritual authority or other. You are groping for words to express this “feeling” you have, but you have presented no evidence in support of it.

        The facts in this case rest with the results of observation and experimentation on human subjects and their brains by experts (there are NO authorities where the truth is concerned–claims to the contrary are another reason for my contempt for religion).

        These experts are psychologists, people who have made it their life’s work to understand the human mind. Not being an expert in the human mind, I take their views over a layman’s such you.

        I do not consider your position proved.

        Unless you have something other than criticisms of my views to offer, my position is unlikely to change.

        I’m not asking you to accept anything I say, either. Your views are yours and I respect your right to have them and to speak them as you wish. But know that I do not respect this view of yours at all.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Your contempt for belief is what you are referencing as a rejection of faith, when in fact you are not clear about what I mean by faith, which is relevant to you to the extent that you are communicating with me. Your contempt for belief may be because you deny the influence of belief within your own perception.

      Are you free from the influence of social conditioning? Does your neuro-chemistry recognize the English language? Isn’t that nurtured through social conditioning rather than a genetic inheritance?

      Were you always contemptuous toward belief (what you call “faith”)? You believe that belief is faith, right?

      Faith is not just a word that idiots toss around. You do not have to copy the usage of that word by believers that you know for yourself are idiots.

      If you look to your own direct experience, you can experience absolute certainty that this is a bunch of letters on a screen, right? How do you know? Can you prove it?

      Faith is declared. Faith does not require proof. Believers argue and war and practice contempt. You are just a believer. I am faithful.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      It is unfortunate and entirely forgivable that you have confused faith with belief. It is also extremely popular. it is important in indoctrination that people be taught to confuse faith and belief. Irrational believers like yourself must be taught to reactively object with contempt rather than reason.

      Fortunately for you, you respect the importance of both reason and irrational belief. You just mistake it for faith. Your error is small and easily corrected.

      If a person has faith in something, like the geocentric model, but then you show that person a rational explanation that is a better fit with reality, their faith does not produce contempt. Their faith means they are open to reasoning and new information. they can shift their faith to a new, more precise model.

      It is beliefs like yours which prevent people from rational thought. You must go through the passage of contempt and fear before you can get to faith. You must forgive all of the other idiots who are also confusing belief with faith, just like you have been. They all have been trained just the same as you.

      When a children has an innocent faith that Santa will come, there could be disappointment if Santa does not come, right? However, the idea that there is no Santa is a bit more confronting, right?

      Now, I have used words like faith and belief in ways that are similar to presumption and confidence. You may notice that, if you are not opposed to using your own reasoning, you can easily relate your own experience to the models of language I have been presenting.

      It is not required that you argue with me. However, if you fear me, it would make more sense that you would argue, right?

      After all, I might not agree with you. I might not support your beliefs. I might reveal that your beliefs are false. I might reveal that you lack faith.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      From the faith arising from direct experience, I do not particularly argue (or only playfully). I do not present evidence. I present invitations for you to introspect. I present models for you to explore. I present examples and parables, but no threats and no contempt and no antagonism and no emotional justifications or passionate rationalizations, just elaborations, just conversation.

      It is like someone coming to learn a foreign language. “But why do you spell RIGHT like that? Why is that the right way to spell write but not the rite way to spell right?”

      I do not argue. I may present citations, but no “scientific experiment” to justify language. I just use the language. Either you use it with a fluency and direct comprehension of what language is, or else you lack faith and keep avoiding reason with fearful repetitions of your beliefs that justify contempt and animosity. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Thank you for acknowledging your disrespect of my views and your blind faith (unreasoned belief) in certain popular models presented by the authorities of institutional psychology. If you are totally satisfy with those models and your experience of life in accord with those models in language, congratulations!

      I was not satisfied. When I first came in to close contact with several PhDs in my early 20s as a grad student, I noticed a distinct absence of maturity, intelligence, and happiness among them.

      I had lots of contempt at the time, and so did they (in my experience), and I was interested in the experience of respect. So, I went a different route. Now, I have respect for them and their confused idiocy, for you and your confused idiocy, and for myself and my own history of confused idiocy.

      Imprecise models such as the geocentric model of astronomy are certain to be confusing. There is no shame in learning, nor in confusion, nor in idiocy. There is only shame in contempt.

      All of those ashamed PhDs might argue against that ferociously. How much credibility do you associate with people who ferociously argue in justification of their frightened contempt for alternative models that may be far more precise than their own favorite models?

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Your contempt for various idiots is very distinct from just recognizing idiocy as idiocy (AKA hysterical confusion as hysterical confusion). The irony of course is that many who have contempt for idiocy may fear a recognition of their own idiocy, their own confusion, their own irrationality.

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        I haven’t used the word ‘idiot’ or ‘idiocy’. I have compassion for the adherents to religion, not contempt. I would have thought my remarks would have made that clear. (They need rescuing–remember?)

        My contempt is reserved for religion itself; the idea that one can turn off one’s analytic faculties, wish real hard and have the truth be what one wishes it to be.

        the demand for respect and praise for this behavior is the realt tragedy here.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Because of your contempt for idiocy, you cannot see the simplicity of it. You insist that you are not an idiot like all those other contemptuous idiots whose hysterical confusions of idiocy are, you allege, are entirely distinct from your own contempt.

      However, they have contempt for you and you have contempt for them. That does create a bit of a mirror image, doesn’t it?

      They condemn your hysterical reactionary confused idiocy and you condemn theirs. Each participant insists that the other deserves to be condemned. The two partners are locked in their mutual contempt (until someone stops being such an idiot, if any of them ever do).

    • jrfibonacci Says:


      That notion is almost as laughable as the “religion of secular humanism” or “the religion of science”. These notions are put forth by people who have never been taught to think critically and who do not know what secularism, humanism, science or, for that matter, politics really are.

      Again, I assert that you do not know what language really is. Therefore, it is natural for you to not know what religion and how
      it can be related in language in particular ways for which you have contempt.

      I understand the elementary language of the believers. i used to speak it.

      I also understand the slightly more advanced adolescent “know-it-all” language of people like yourself. I used to speak it too.

      I do not mind your contempt. I even respect it.

      If you are interested in thinking critically, let me know. Until then, you can continue to wallow in your arrogant contempt. If contempt is all that you can offer to “fanatic believers,” it is no wonder that they do not show more interest in your “critical thinking,” eh?

      Of course I am withdrawing my statement that you are also a fanatical, irrational “true believer.” No, you are a rationalizing, contemptuous, arrogant, “cynic.”

      You are not a skeptic. Skeptics are not so afraid of perceived threats to their contempt. You are an antagonistic cynic. If you like your contempt so much, keep it! If not, explore it.

      Darkness cannot remain when a light is shined. Indeed, there is no such substance as darkness. It is just a useful word for the contrasting human experience of the relative absence of the perception of light.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      It is funny that you would be so fierce in regard to your sacred principles. It reminds me of a kid arguing about the sun rising.

      I am not saying that your interpretation of “the sun rising” is not valid. I am offering you an actual model to explain how it would appear that the sun rises.

      However, I am referring to the arising of the entire network of disgust, anger, and contempt. You keep repeatedly your mantra of “contempt arises from disgust and anger.”

      Yes it does, but does knowing that much offer you any benefit whatsoever? If you can introspect beyond disgust to fear, then contempt may end for you. Even disgust may end for you. However, if contempt is the cornerstone of your religion, well, then may God have mercy on you. ๐Ÿ˜‰

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        there’s nothing “sacred” about my respect for observation, skeptical inquiry and reason. “Holy” things are your department and your welcome to them.

        So far your responses have all been Ad Hominem attacks. I see no rational thought here at all.

  3. Gideon Jagged Says:

    I do not have a contempt for belief. Belief is one component of -knowledge. One cannot be said to know something unless one first believes it.

    The problem that religionists seem to have this that they think the process stops there and that strong enough belief somehow becomes knowledge. Belief must be justified by evidence.

    If you saw me standing in a downpour commenting on the nice sunny day we were having, you’d think me mad and you’d be right.

    I have contempt for belief that flies in the face of solid contradictory evidence. When I hear someone say that the world came into being on Jan 1, 4004 B.C,. at noon and that dinosaur fossils were put there by god to temp the faithful, derisive laughter is the only response that makes any sense to me.

    As for the difference between “faith” and “belief” you’re certainly entitled to it, but don’t expect me to accept the changes in the definitions of the words that you have obviously made.

    Where faith exists, people stop questioning. Faith in this imaginary god is not questioned for that means you have no faith. God so loves the faithful that he refuses to do ANYTHING that unambiguously proves he exists and keeps throwing up all this evidence that makes his existence AT BEST superfluous so they can prove how faithful they are by continuing to believe in his existence!

    And for what? The off chance you can go to this heaven place you also need to have faith in (because there’s no evidence for this, either) and do what? Praise him! Praise him! praise him!

    Meanwhile, all the people who spent their lives drinking, partying, fucking and generally having fun aren’t going to be there. They’re all going to be together suffering in hell (another place whose existence you need to have faith in) just to show that god is loving, or something–I kind of lose track of the logic of the scenario at this point.

    Either we have our instincts for fun (sex, laughter, celebrations of all sorts, what-have-you) and it’s perfectly natural that we follow them and enjoy ourselves, or they were given to us by a god whose existence we have to take on faith so that we may suppress them (because this book that we have to have faith that he wrote by proxy says so) and if we don’t we’ll be tortured for all eternity for the edification of those who did suppress them. (St,. Augustine says that one of the chief pleasures of heaven will be to witness the tortures of the damned in hell). This is the god I’m supposed to believe exists?! He’s a fucking psychopath! Your holy book has him commanding the slaughter of infants and the rape of virgins! He admits to committing evil and to regret and to jealousy!

    Call me provincial, but I think this whole idea is seriously fucked up.

    The less people who fall for this, the better.

    • jrfibonacci Says:


      “derisive laughter.”

      Right, you have contempt for them. You are afraid of them and you should be. You do not know how to interact with them in a more mature way, so derisive laughter is the reaction that is natural based on your social conditioning.

      Once there was a 3 year-old who talked about Santa. A 7 year-old had no choice but to howl in derisive laughter and contempt for that confused idiot. However, one day the 7 year-old turned in to an 8 year-old miraculously and suddenly, and the 8 year-old apologized to the 3 year-old. Suddenly, a new response “made sense.” The irrational contempt of the 7 year-old disappeared.

      So, nothing makes sense to me but to derisively laugh at you for derisively laughing at religious fanatics, while you fiercely deny your own fanaticism, calling it something else. One day, you may understand language and all your contempt will disappear.

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        I have contempt for your misuse of language. You’re disrespect for truth is shown by how easily you twist it.

        Your only response is to attack my person, when all I have ever attacked is the rampant Illogic in your ideas. You do not respect that which you do not understand.

        Another bit of psychology you do not understand is projection. We see in others that in ourselves which we do not accept. It is you who fear, not I.

        I will torment you no longer. I hope one day you break free from the fearful delusions that torture you so. You, too, are a victim of religion.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Very ironic. You say “they need to be rescued, saved, liberated.” What does that remind me of?

      You can deny your contempt for them. Trust me, you have it. You condescend to them. You do not call them idiots, but do you have contempt for what is sacred to them? You do not respect them at all. You are afraid that your contempt may be recognized, but why so much attention and interest on “how they are wrong?”

      You want to save them and they want to save you. They say they want to rescue you and you say the same thing. You have your method and they have theirs.

      I understand. You are both very confused. It is very frustrating, isn’t it? Why do all of those people not agree with you?

      They KNOW that they are right and yet you are resistant to their sincerity. You KNOW that you are right and yet they are resistant to your sincerity.

      It is all so confusing isn’t it? Well, perhaps only if you are basing the entire perceptual process on a false premise, a delusion, a mistake, a confusion, a “psychological” disorder, a “sin.”


    • jrfibonacci Says:

      By the way, in regard to any ad hominem attacks that I may have been making, I apologize. They were entirely for the purpose of dramatic theatre.

      I have no contempt whatsoever for your contempt or for you. I think you are on the brink of a profound realization.

      However, the realization may result in you having a much more mature sense of humor. That may be quite a challenge for you. You may not be ready for that yet.

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        Enlightenment, or revelation, is not a pleasant experience. It is a shedding of illusion, where that illusion is the ground beneath one’s feet.

        It is terrifying, painful and often prolonged. Imagine finding out, after 20 years of faith, that there is no god, if you can. That comes close to the pain of revelation–in my case the pain was much worse than that.

        I had illumination, over the course of three years almost 30 years ago.

        Your assumption that my contempt means I’m less mature in my understanding than you shows me you have not, nor are you likely to undergo any enlightenment soon–you’re too afraid to be wrong.

        Me, I’m wrong all the time, and I like it that way. But I don’t expect you understand that at all.

        You see, I love uncertainly! Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to admit that I do not know something! The more I learn, the more I realize that what I knew was wrong and the greater my ignorance becomes. It comforts me. You probably don’t get that either…

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      You are a victim of contempt. Except it is entirely an innocent mistake that you have been making about language.

      I am very clear about projection. You demonstrate the subject quite clearly. Cheers!

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        More personal attacks. Your misuse of language is beginning to anger me, now so I will go. All you have left is bluster, anyway

        I will not respond further.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Where religious fanaticism exists, there is confusion. You used different words, but I know you will agree with that.

      I am just saying that your contempt for religious fanaticism is a form of religious fanaticism. I know that you do not already understand that. if you did, you would not suffer from the confusions that lead to your contempt. You would have respect for confusion and for contempt and for religious fanaticism. You would also have self-respect.

      Projection is an interesting subject that you raise. One who has contempt for one’s self is likely to relate to others with contempt, right? Further, one who has respect for one’s self is likely to relate to others with respect right?

      One who has a sense of humor is likely to play jokes on others, right? I have been playing a trick on you. I have been testing for your response. You have been responding. In the most basic sense, you have passed the test, however if the test itself is part of the joke, then passing the test may be a bit of a trick in itself.

      If you did not know that you were afraid before, perhaps you have experienced some anxiety during our exchange and perhaps it is really not all that bad- just a little adrenalin and so on. Whether you proceed all the way to humility or not right away, that remains to be seen. Curiosity and courage are not so close to you yet, but perhaps not all that far either.

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        okay, one more time. my contempt is for the religious urge in all its forms, not just the fanatics.

        As for your first statement, religion is all about certainty. Nowhere will you find a more certain group of people than in a religious community.

    • jrfibonacci Says:


      “more personal attacks”

      Either I have a sense of humor or I have compassion. I have no anger toward you, but I totally respect your anger and you do need to withdraw once the kitchen gets too hot for you, too frightening.

      How terrifying are these words on this screen? To some, very terrifying. To others, they are just little shapes of letters.

      Your rage is welcome. Your contempt is welcome. Your fear is welcome. None of them are you. They will all pass.

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        you insist that I must be frightened. I’m not, but I am angry with you. You are a small-minded religious bigot.

        Fuck off and leave me alone!

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      You call close-mindedness (as in lack of intellectual maturity) “certainty.” Religions provide false hopes for how to adapt to uncertainty. False hopes are not certainty.

      The religious fanatic will suffer from tremendous disappointment and frustration eventually. That is not “wrong” or unpredictable or unjust. That is a natural stage of neuro-linguistic development.

      You are further along in development than they are. You just have a ways left to go. You hang on to your contempt for them as a coping mechanism (a projection) to avoid facing the intensity of what is in your future. You instead complain about your past and the horrible religious fanatics who are so deserving of your attention that you study the psychological process of their confusion and their contempt and their stubborn close-mindedness until you recognize it for what it is: a terrified 3 year-old panicking hysterically at other models besides “Santa Claus is real” and “Contempt arises from disgust + anger, which are entirely unrelated to fear because if they were then those fucking psychologists should have fucking told me that they were fucking confused.”

      Why didn’t those psychologists admit their own confusion? Well, when someone is confused about what language is, they may not know that they are confused. They just know that they are frustrated, and they haven’t connected frustration to confusion yet.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Relax. Consider that you might be frustrated with small-minded bigots and even frightened of those same small-minded religious bigots. You might think that I am one and then be frightened of me- oops, no frustrated not frightened. I forgot- there is a massive fear of experiencing fear behind all projections of anger.

      you insist that I must be frightened. Iโ€™m not, but I am angry with you. You are a small-minded religious bigot.

      No, I am so open-minded that I am willing to pretend to be an asshole if that is what it takes for you to see what is in the mirror, Mr. Psychological projection. Again, if the kitchen is too hot, you can always check back later or never return at all.

      You have “no sense of humor” (about these subjects) because of the pain you experienced which you are afraid of repeating, and perhaps even of recognizing. You reflexively respond with anger as if these little shapes of letters on your screen were actually some threat to you.

      You want to withdraw from them. You want to push them away and ridicule their source.

      You want to test to see if I am a small-minded religious bigot or just someone who does not share your contempt for them. I did not say I do not fear their confused idiocy. I might. However, I also respect their confused idiocy.

      I respect their sincerity. I respect their beliefs. I respect their frustration. I respect their anger. I respect their contempt.

      Same for you. To me, they are just earlier stages of you and you are just a later stage of them. More importantly, all of y’all are just earlier stages of me. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Is the ground beneath my feet really an illusion? No, disillusionment is the ending of illusions, but also the beginning of a new opportunity for clarity.

      There is a god. God is just not accessible through belief. Believing in God is a mistake- a popular an innocent one, but totally ineffective.

      That mistake may also be absolutely required. God is real. God is a real word in the English language.

      Of course, if you do not believe in the English language, so be it. God refers to an experience that some people long for, some people dismiss as fantasy, and some people have.

      Heaven is not just a tool for manipulating soldiers in to crusades. It certainly is a word that has been used for that purpose. However, using a kitchen knife as a weapon does not mean that it is not also useful for cutting onions.

      The original meanings of God and Heaven are not obscured by the “misuse” of those terms by 3 year-olds. In terms of spiritual maturity, there are a lot of very immature folks in our midst. They do not know anything about God or Heaven. I do.

      You may not be interested in that. Maybe you are here based on some other interest. Maybe you just want to vent your frustration and anger at someone who has more respect for you than the 3 year-old religious fanatics for whom you have such contempt.

      If a 3 year-old cannot concisely explain electricity, then it must not exist, right? Your religion is cynicism. It sucks, but again, I am familiar with it and it is temporary.

      If you read the prior blog (“nothing to say”), there is a joke in there about “incurable grief.” I think you maybe ready for it now.

  4. singingbones Says:

    Hello JR Fibonacci, Well I had to do it, I nominated you for the Very Inspiring Blogger award today… just to let you know. here is my post about you:
    thanks for your fascinating blog…. SB

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: