Recognizing language and the linguistic activity of agonizing

This piece may challenge your most sacred presumptions about sincerity and how it is valuable (or worthless) in different contexts. I will also include some references to the distinction between sincerity, accuracy, and precision.

 

Sincerity

Sincerity (Photo credit: mctrent)

When red is present, you simply recognize it. You do not “understand it” or defend positions and argue about what is idolatry and where does your understanding of red come from and how does one get to understand red.

That is the foolishness of sincerity. Nothing is wrong with that, but it has no power or authority. Do you recognize directly what language is without having any reactions about your cherished ideals and “do I agree or do I disagree” and “is that really red or is that really in fact not red but MAROON?”

This is language. Recognize it as language. Later, when language arises again, if it ever does, then will you ever have any issue with recognizing language as language?

Do you know the difference between the subcategory of experience called “language” and all other subcategories of experience? Do you recognize that only within language can subcategories arise?

Do you recognize that the kingdom of language is supreme over all other kingdoms of subcategory, which only arise inside of the context of the kingdom of language? Language is a context. Distinguish it. By the way, God and Allah and Adonai and Brahman are just units within that context which is beyond any particular symbolic verbal unit of code.

 

English: Sincerity by Marino Gropelli,1717 at ...

English: Sincerity by Marino Gropelli,1717 at Summer Garden. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, I can be sincere and say that I am confident that housing process will rise in 2013. My confidence really just refers to my sincerity. It is not that I really have any particular logic or reasoning behind my sincere presumption. I am confident based on an unconsidered presumption. That is also called naivete.

Now, if I knew that a 20% increase in mortgage applications was just reported and a 23% increase in building permits was also just recorded and a new technology called air conditioning was just being marketed to people who live in hot places like Arizona- and there was already production underway for 200,000 of these new air conditioning units- then that would be a set of measures that would be distinct from mere sincerity.

The measures are 20%, 23% and 200,000. That is not sincerity. That is on to the realm of accuracy.

Inside of the realm of accuracy is the realm of precision, which just means EXACTLY HOW ACCURATE. Note that these realms are not about sincerity in particular. Sincerity again is just an acceptance of a possibility without any awareness of any particular evidence to the contrary.

So, I say that there was an increase of 20%. That is specific. That is not just sincere, but measurable.

What if someone challenges my precision and says, “actually, it was a 19.6% increase?” That is simply more precise. That is not an attack on my sincerity. That is just a different level of precision.

I could get even more precise:  19.58293%. At some point, further precision may be deemed irrelevant. Precision is actually all about relevance.

A sudden loss of consciousness

A sudden loss of consciousness (Photo credit: Pulpolux !!!)

 

Now, here is something that TE recently wrote to me:

And the aware person may be able to figure out how to recognize the places that they are suffering needlessly because of their own misunderstanding of their train of thought. But we have all been given something that will bypass all of that thinking, worrying, and figuring to a place that we have peace and direction in such a way that we can become like God – a perfected being! Do you have a reasoning of what that is?

JR wrote:

Forget the “places” where you do the activity of suffering and agonizing. Turn away from them. Notice the distinction of agonizing. That is enough.

The one who recognizes that agonizing is a behavioral choice (an OPTIONAL behavioral choice involving language and neuro-linguistic programs) does not lose “inner peace” in the midst of someone else agonizing- we can “forgive” their sin of agonizing rather than condemn them.

See JOhn: Yeshua said to them again, “Peace be with you. Just as my Father has sent me, I also am sending you.” 22When he had said these things, he breathed upon them and he said to them, “Receive The Spirit of Holiness.” 23“If you will forgive a man’s sins, they will be forgiven him, and if you hold a man’s, they will be held.”

http://aramaic-plain-english.scripturetext.com/john/20.htm verses 21-23

Also, by reducing biochemical stress (such as by changing diet), one can stabilize neurochemistry. However, it is important first that we release or discontinue any contempt. Until we repent of contempt and condemnation, we would never think to speak about diet and our spirit would be of contempt and contentioousnes, not a spirit of contentment.

TE:  its gonna be a lot longer conversation if you are gonna read from anything other than the King James. Because then we have to go over the translation issues. Maybe this conversation should be done in person or at least in conversation.

The first page of the Book of Genesis from the...

The first page of the Book of Genesis from the original 1611 printing of the King James Bible. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

JR: King James is translated via an intermediary language. In 2010, old original parchments in Aramaic were translated directly in to modern-day English and published. For the most part, the differences are not radical, though.

I think in KJV, the wording includes the word “retain:” “if you *retain* a judgment against another, then the judgment against them continues. However, if you forgive them of what you have made them wrong about, then their neural inertia can dissolve.” By the way, the latter portion in quotes is not a quotation of any particular ancient verse to the best of my knowledge.

If you know these distinctions in your heart as within in your spirit, then they you can put them in to any language with any parables or metaphors for any audience. There will be no “special” concern with scriptural references or second-hand authority. God does not require second-hand validation.

TE: I understand how the original was translated into the KING James version. If you want we can discuss in person or on phone. The NIV or any other gets further from the truth not closer. 

The original translations into King James were problematic enough – dont need any new translations

[ironic thing to say, huh?]

King James Bible

King James Bible (Photo credit: freefotouk)

JR:  I am not interested in your “truth.” You sound like you are not a student of truth, but of your most familiar translations.

TE: Red is red no matter what language or translation you try to put it in. The eye translates it as the same unless you have issues with your translators in your eyes. I am just tired. We should have some real conversations in person or on the phone.

JR: Yes, red out there is still red, but the labels are simply labels: red, maroon, brick red, fuschia, and so on. I am still talking about the issue of precision.

Agonizing is an activity in language and is MEASURABLE in neuro-linguistics and neuro-chemistry. Suffering is actually a broader term that includes things like physical pain, but the essence of Buddhism and Christianity and Judaism and so on are not about the “suffering” of a functioning nerve reflex when I touch something surprisingly hot. The ancient word “dukkha” is about agonizing, and many early translators did not have the distinction of agonizing as a behavior and thus used a word like suffering which is so imprecise as to be confusing garble.

Agonizing is about a particular form of panic in regard to the language used to relate to some trigger of the perceiving of a threat.

 

TE: it does not matter what shade you paint it – the eye translates the truth unless the translators are broke

JR: Yes, but you are repeating words from a translated book and I am “looking at the real thing.” I can recognize that you are in the process of distinguishing what precision means and what language is. Maybe we will talk further about these spiritual recognitions.

But to have loyalty to a bunch of translations of another bunch of translations is what I call idolatry- though completely understandable until one is confronted with the possibility of direct recognition.

 

TE: Direct recognition comes from God not discussion or understanding of language, but through his Spirit. We are always limited in our language, because every human experience is different. Good night

 

JR: Again, you are repeating second-hand phrases and presumptions. Some of what you said is accurate (though perhaps somewhat imprecise), however, you do not know which part is which. You are merely sincere.

That is extremely valuable, but not the fullness of what is available. In other words, mere sincerity is not direct recognition and when direct recognition is present, there is absolutely no concern for labeling “where it comes from” or referencing “where it does not come from.”

You simply do not have direct recognition. If you can distinguish the sincerity as sincerity and then rest in the humility of not having direct recognition, then you can relax and learn and, perhaps, directly recognize.

All that you would ever get from an understanding of language is an understanding of language. If you “gave up” any issue of whether you understand language- like of course you can understand English but probably not Aramaic- then a direct recognizing of language could be present.

It is not a point of knowledge, like “aha, now I KNOW that thing and I add it to one of the things that I know that I know.” It is like recognizing red. When red is present, you simply recognize it. You do not “understand it” or defend positions and argue about what is idolatry and where does your understanding of red come from and how does one get to understand red.

That is the foolishness of sincerity. Nothing is wrong with that, but it has no power or authority. Do you recognize directly what language is without having any reactions about your cherished ideals and “do I agree or do I disagree” and “is that really red or is that really in fact not red but MAROON?”

This is language. Recognize it as language. Later when language arises again, if it ever does, then will you ever have any issue with recognizing language as language?

Do you know the difference between the subcategory of experience called “language” and all other subcategories of experience? Do you recognize that only within language can subcategories arise? Do you recognize that the kingdom of language is supreme over all other kingdoms of subcategory, which only arise inside of the context of the kingdom of language?

Language is a context. Distinguish it. God and Allah and Adonai and Brahman are just units within that context which is beyond any particular symbolic verbal unit of code.

Note- when you say that you are not a perfected being, consider that God finds that to be a bit of an insult, but a cute one, so not at all offensive. 

 

The above dialogue arose from me sharing this content on the website Facebook earlier tonight:

 

 

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: