A popular idolatry

Once upon a time, I noticed a huge bulge in the belly of Mary. I eventually realized that soon she was going to deliver a baby.

I was very excited. I decided to give her the royal treatment and put some extra blankets and fresh hay in her little shelter in the back yard.

Early the next morning, I heard Mary making quite a bit of noise and so I presumed that the child was finally being born. When I had some free time, I prepared to go out to the barn to conduct a ritual inspection of the offspring. I put on a fresh clean set of priestly robes and adorned myself with the sacred objects required for the ritual: a magic pen and a very special piece of paper from the local Ministry of Bureaucracy.

When I finally saw the creature, that is when I was really shocked. The baby had almost no hair, could not even walk, and seemed completely unable to read.

That’s when I realized that the child was not only illiterate, but had a severe case of incurable genetic baldness as well as congenital immobility. To top it all off, the newborn seemed extremely self-centered and narcissistic, like seriously constantly drawing attention to itself, right, so I wrote down in my little holy book of life this one final diagnostic label for the poor little bald thing: stage 4 of type B egoitis (an inflammation of self-esteem).

I tried to give the bad news to the mother, but Mary is very stubborn, like most other hairy little asses. So, of course she did not understand my words. Instead, I quietly filled out the prescription forms to order the medications to treat the various diseases of the little runt: chemotherapy to try to kill the baldness, then, to remove the congenital immobility, a minor surgery and a series of physical therapy sessions, and of course a 13-year sentence to public education programs to attempt to cure the illiteracy.

29 years later, I am pleased to report that we were successful in treating the incurable baldness and now Mary’s child is full grown with quite a bit of hair. So I consider it a great triumph of modern science that the creature no longer has baldness, though it still suffers from the following conditions: category 6 illiteracy, a much more moderate form of egoitis, still the full-blown inherited immobility, plus the inability to fly due to type 3 winglessness, as well as recurring paranoid pathogenetic hypochondria.

There is one last thing. The child was also briefly exposed to a herd suffering from contagious scurvy and nearly died after catching that disease. Fortunately, after several exorcism rituals with a licensed psychotherapist, the demonic possession by scurvy went in to remission.”

Now, I should note at this point that not all of the above story is entirely true. However, in the following 219 pages, I will attempt to clarify any slight inaccuracies and all mispresumptions.

I will begin with this question. What do you call a system for the directing of attention, perception, and behavior?

A) school

B) government

C) religion

D) culture

E) language

Whichever one you selected, you are absolutely right. Schools are systems for the directing of attention, perception and behavior. Governments are also systems for the directing of attention, perception, and behavior.

So are all of the rest, including the biological development called “language.” The word “language” is a linguistic label for any neurological program for interpreting sequences of symbolic sound codes.

However, language is not required for the directing of attention, perception, and behavior. Even without human language, all social animals communicate in some way with at least the other members of their species.

When a dog wags it’s tail, that can be a communication for directing attention, perception, and behavior. Same for when an infant smiles or when a bull stomps on the ground before charging.

So, even gestures are directive. However, mere symbolic gestures are not as complicated (or useful) as language can be.


A popular idolatry?

Consider that there are various systems for the directing of attention, perception, and behavior. One of them is modern medicine and it’s system of diagnosis. The conceptual foundation of modern diagnostics tends to be this: “Which disease do you have- which one is possessing that organism?”

That diagnostic model uses language in a certain, specific way (which is rooted in the ancient idea of demonic possession- “which pathogenic catalyst is possessing you?”). It is a valid model. It is very useful and is a huge advance over prior systems of communication (such as by gesture). However, the current patterns of using language that we find in mainstream medicine are also quite limited.

For instance, causes can easily be confused with effects. A mere diagnostic label (such as “scurvy”) can easily be mistaken for a pathogenic demon with the power to cause symptoms.

Consider that first there is a set of symptoms, then there is a linguistic label invented to identify that set of symptoms as distinct from some other set of symptoms, and then someone comes along and says “you have ___ [some diagnostic label], which is causing your symptoms.” That is intrinsically illogical.

Why should the label (which is only invented “after the fact” to name a particular set of pre-existing symptoms) be considered a cause of those symptoms (which preceded the invention of the linguistic label)? That is like saying that the word scurvy is the cause of the natural consequences of a diet deficient in vitamin C or that the word pregnancy can cause fertilization of an egg.

More precisely, that is the pattern of  saying that scurvy is a demon possessing you and causing you to have scurvy. See the logical problem there? That model of diagnostic language is naive and foolish and simply inaccurate, even if very popular and stately quite sincerely. 

So, in the following chapters, I will present a series of explanations as to why I consider mainstream medicine to be the most popular religion in the world today. I will also explain why I have converted from it’s many superstitions (it’s “blindspots” of sincere inaccuracy) to an extraordinary way of using language that is more logically sound, more rigorous, more scientific, and, last but not least, far more effective.

A new culture (or subculture) is also in the process of arising. This cultural development presents a new evolutionary stage in the directing of attention, perception, and behavior, especially as it relates to health and well-being. This is the formation of a new organizing of consciousness.

Representation of consciousness from the seven...

Representation of consciousness from the seventeenth century. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As always, the creative source of this new organization of consciousness is the eternal, inclusive, almighty presence of consciousness itself. However, beware of confusing “consciousness itself” (which is what you are) with any label or name for consciousness, such as some sounds or some shapes.

Those who worship only the icon or the symbol or the label or the sound or the shape are idolaters, but that is a totally understandable error and, for those who are humble, is easily corrected. (That’s just like confusing the label “scurvy” for the physiological cause of a physiological condition labeled scurvy.) The mistake of worshiping a symbol (idol) is easily corrected by a direct comprehension of the simplicity of the fact that consciousness itself is the foundation of language, the foundation of all contrasting labels in language (heaven and earth, day and night, light and dark, good and evil, hate and love, probiotic and antibiotic, etc), and the foundation of all other formations of consciousness, including shapes and sounds and icons and temples and religions and cultures and languages.

On the fictitious battle between “everything” and “everything else”

Consider these words: yes, si, oui, ja. Those are 4 distinct series of letters in 4 distinct languages (English, Spanish, French, and German). However, all of those words are symbols for the same concept, right? Yes or no?

So, what if Allah and Adonai and Jehovah and God are not 4 words for 4 things, but 4 words in different languages for precisely the same concept? Now, would it be a sign of intelligence or foolishness if the English and the French fight over which word is better, more accurate, and more sacred: yes or oui? Non or si? Ja oder nein?

Similarly, the idea that there is more than one form of monotheism is logically contradictory from the beginning.  One who actually recognizes (not from the naive, sincere repetition of inherited presumptions, but from direct experience) the eternal presence of a single inclusive divinity would never condemn someone else for using a foreign language to reference the single, complete, whole, holy, prefect, inclusive divinity.

That would be as silly as asking “Which language is more linguistic: English or Hebrew? Which number is more numeric: 666 or 144,000 or 1.618 x .618? Who will win the battle between everything and everything else, between the light of one candle and the power of a thousand darknesses, between the Almighty and the omnipotent adversary of whom the Almighty is so desperately frightened?” 😉


English: Locke's idea of perception

English: Locke’s idea of perception (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Perception according to the naive realism

English: Perception according to the naive realism (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Plato's idea of perception

English: Plato’s idea of perception (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Kant's idea of perception

English: Kant’s idea of perception (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Aristotle's idea of perception

English: Aristotle’s idea of perception (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Descartes idea of perception

English: Descartes idea of perception (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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: