Sunlight Feed (Photo credit: kennytyy)
In reply to The Pegasean (https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/social-animals-and-cultural-evolution-of-herds/#comment-9543):
Thank you very much for you comments. I agree with you without any exception whatsoever, except perhaps for the following long list of exceptions:
I question the proposition that there is a “whatever [which] formed our universe” that is distinct from the universe itself. The idea of a created reality is logically quite flimsy. If reality is an effect, then what created the alleged cause of the alleged effect labeled as reality? Further, what caused the alleged cause?
Consider that it is as Jesus and so many others have said: “God is not exclusive. Look under a rock, and see God there. Look at some humans in the distance, and see God there. Look within, and see God there.”
To pose such a question (as in “what formed the universe?”) merely evidences the ridiculousness of the verbal constructions. With language, contrasting “partners” can be isolated linguistically and then labeled as the cause and the effect.
However, to say that the sunlight causes the daytime to be warm is ultimately just poetry. The sunlight is itself just the effect of some earlier cause. The sunlight has no authority of it’s own, no will of it’s own.
The Earth seen from Apollo 17. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The sunlight is just an instrument of the universe, of God, of Life. Each form isolated within language is a facet of the Holy, which includes all of language, yet is also beyond language. Each component is an element of the system. One cannot remove a single particle from the universe. Or, if one did so, consider that then it would be an entirely different universe!
So, why is the universe how it is? “Why” is a question that the human portion of the universe can ask in words and then answer in a bunch of other words. Why do humans ask such questions and answer them how they do? Because the sun shines and the universe warms up the surfaces of planets during the daytime and some humans like to experiment with other humans in regard to socializing.
This is just a bunch of socializing. Churches and governments and universities and so on are just the universe socializing with itself as a bunch of earthlings. So is the entire internet and every library and every unit of language, written or oral.
Furthermore, the ideas (or labels) of perfection and imperfection are COMPLETELY social. They are absolutely arbitrary. A perfect butterfly is completely destroyed caterpillar. A perfect wood shingle roof is a totally ruined tree. A perfect steaming cup of coffee is a horrible liquid for watering the plants.
As for any “pro-diversity bias,” that is just another conceptual bias. Perhaps you have forgotten that the universe has allegedly killed 99% of the species of earthlings (animals and plants if not also fungi and so on) that it has so far formed in to as itself.
As for the so-called new religion of “science,” it’s “belief systems” are also presumptive and preposterous (just like those of the so-called “old” religions). However, science is ultimately just another art form, just like “religion.” They are both really just for socializing.
Dance of the Lord of Death, Paro (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
By socializing, I include things like the detonation of hydrogen bombs as well as mining of oil and uranium and salt. Socializing is not just something that humans do with each other. Socializing is what the entire universe is doing, including by forming humans.
The entirety of creation is creative creativity. It never began. It will never end. Those are just superstitious ideas formed of words (and sometimes worshiped idolatrously).
First ever “Earthrise” photograph, taken from lunar orbit during Apollo 8 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
God is the subatomic and the astronomic and the cellular and even the landline. Of course, all of this is purely speculative. I got it directly from God, and we all know what an imprecise translator God can be, right? We might as well dismiss all of these words as just a bunch of socializing!
As for being outside of evolution, I agree with that completely and wholeheartedly. I do realize that you did not assert anything like that, but you really should have and I see no reason to avoid agreeing with you on that point just because you never made it.
Therefore, I must also disagree with you by insisting that humor is the source of all of humanity’s worst problems, except for the horrific problem of sunlight causing the earth to warm up during the daytime, which is of course caused by the earth’s rotating around and around the axis of the earth, which we should form a campaign to remove. Without the axis of the earth, there would be no imaginary point of reference in language around which for the earth to allegedly rotate, which is the cause of all of the most severe problems in existence, as in whatever reveals the imprecision of my favorite linguistic models of how the universe is the way it is instead of some other way.
My words are the only right words. My words are the only perfect words. If my words apparently conflict with the obvious patterns of the rest of the universe, that is because the rest of the universe is just plain arrogant and disobedient. That is why we obviously must punish the earth by removing the axis. Hurry, everyone, before it is too late!
UNIQUE PICTURE: Earth as seen from the outer Solar System (Photo credit: Icarus Kuwait)
Related articles
- skeptical about the mainstream 5 (non-historical ‘fringe’ linguistics 5) (skepticalhumanities.com)
- In Essence: Linguists at War (wilsonquarterly.com)
- Why do humans talk? (oup.com)
- The Rise Of The Asshole (npr.org)
- What Does It Mean to Be Human? (frted.wordpress.com)
- Worlding – A Brief Integral Account of Human Evolution (iamadam.org)
- Renaissance Universal (sadviprasamaj.wordpress.com)
- Kryon: The Big Picture – You are Not Alone (aquariuschannelings.com)
- Social Transformation Through Individual Transformation (marinalovemovement.wordpress.com)
- Is Creationism the Same as the Luddite Movement? (brucegerencser.net)
Tags: humor, language, perfect, problem, socializing
power of language blog: partnering with reality by JR Fibonacci 
September 7, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
I quite struggled, and failed, to understand what you are trying to say. I do remember here the famous ‘Bertrand Russell’s dilemma, Let G be the set of ALL sets, then what set is G a member of?”
If God is part of the Universe, then what is God+ Universe? and WHO made that? By reading your articles I tend to believe I am an idiot or you are a fool, or both.
September 7, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
Hi Shakilakhtar,
I highly recommend that you watch the videos. Most of it is easy, though I speak very fast at times for added humor and excitement.
I expect you will find my comment about “the back of the hand moving the front of the hand” to be a great analogy for the cause and effect language of The Creation vs. The Creator (God). You already understand the foundation of the humor of the post, but you just do not get how funny and silly it is yet. You will. I think the video will work for you. If my speaking is too fast, then get what you can from it and then read the blog again or we can set up a skype chat sometime. It is actually very simple, but like so many jokes, until the irony is clear, we may not even know that there is a joke being told- especially when we have been the ones telling it and insisting that the words we are using are NOT joking (“dreaming” / “maya” / samsara).
September 8, 2012 at 7:08 am |
thanks for your understanding as I was a little rude(out of frustraion perhaps). Yes I admit I skipped the videos and I will come back later. also I have to read your great comments.
September 7, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
I do not know how to pi up, but I would like you to please visit my site at
for a similar discussion.
September 7, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
Here is what I posted on your site:
Let’s note that we are interacting here using the tool of language. Or, we could say that language is active now and two patterns of activity are distinct from each other.
One pattern can be called “J.R.” The other pattern can be called Shakilakhtar. Both are patterns of activity. Both involve patterns of linguistic activity in particular.
One pattern is active in a form that could be labeled English (“mine”) and the other is fluent and active in that language and a few other languages as well. However, naming 5 different languages or 832 different languages is just varying degrees of precision in subcategorizing.There is no specific correct number of languages on the planet. However, clearly, there is such a thing as language, whether we call it Lingua or Logos or by some other label.
So, can we prove the existence of language? Before you try to prove the existence of a tree in a forest that fell without anyone around and before you propose to assert the existence of Allah, can you prove the existence of language?
If you witness language as language, then you may be labeled “Allah.” If you witness that you are not language, but the author of language, then you are the one who divides “here” from “there,” heaven from earth, day from night and so on. You divide these things with language (labels).
I cannot prove the existence of the word Halla, but I can use it and I give it existence. How can I just created a word like Halla and begin to use it? Because language is my creation. I am the author of language.
What is Halla? It is a five letter sequence based on a reversal of this five letter sequence: Allah.
What does Halla mean? I get to make that up. I can say that Halla means all activity, including the activity of dividing one pattern from another and then labeling them in language.
Of all activity, linguistic activity is one type. Of all linguistic activity, the words Halla and Allah are two instances of linguistic activity.
Activity is omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, and omniscient. I am activity. I am the Tao. I am the Supreme Brahman Being that has been called many words: 101 names, 1001 names, and so on. Allah is one name of Halla. Halla is one name of Allah.
Name one thing that is not activity, if you can. Even naming already implies activity in language. We cannot escape from activity because we are activity. I can no more escape from Allah than a body can escape from it’s own skeleton.
Allah is reality. Reality is omnipresent, eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent. When reality changes, then everything else changes too because there is nothing that is not the Holy One.
Jesus was asked two identify the most important spiritual teaching. He quoted an old Hebrew saying (that may be a translation of a much older Vedic saying) which says “The Divine Authority is One: undivided, boundless, inclusive.”
Some approximations of that idea are reflected in the words of those who claim not to be Prophets of God, who claim to have a lesser degree of understanding. They translate like this: “The LORD thy God is One.” That is close enough.
However, God does not claim to be outside of those who claim to be outside of God. When God operates as a pattern of linguistic activity that results in the speaking of the words “I am not God and I do not even believe God exists,” that is basically no different to God than any of the other activities of God or acts of God.
Name one development that is not the Will of God. Name one development that is not evidence of God. When God manifests as a human watching a tree fall in a forest, there may be a manifesting of the awareness of all of that activity as the activity of God. Or, there may not be such an awareness (as in such a labeling).
I see a computer screen with shapes on it. Who invented these shapes? Who recognizes them as words in English? Who recognizes the difference between clarity and confusion, witnessing them both? Who uses a word like God or Allah or Halla?
If I define myself as a body that was created, then I can assert that I am a temporary body and, further, that God is not just this temporary body, so I must not be God. Or, I can assert that God abides in this body and that this body abides in God.
Or, God can assert that God abides in this body and that this body abides in God. When God speaks as God, there is a faith or certainty that is distinct from when God speaks as a temporary body.
When an actress puts two puppets on each hand, then the hand puppets start talking to each other like there are two isolated hand puppets, could the two hand puppets, which do not really exist except in language, have an argument about whether or not it is possible for hands to invisibly exist inside of the puppets?
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaEUIslLBz8