Posts Tagged ‘identity’

Attention on language (and linguistic boundaries of identity)

July 25, 2012

 

English: An overview of Tamil language learning.

Attention is distinct from language. Attention is this “nothing” that is back “here” reading this language out there on the screen (that “not me” of little shapes of alphanumeric characters, whether still or animated).

Attention can identify in language with a memory of old language about “how I really am” and “who I am” and so on. Those constructs in language are called self-images or identities or personas or characters. Those constructs always refer through language back to a past (a construction of the past in language). The self-image (or self-concept, self-conceiving) is a product of some past conditioning and training, a construct in language from the past about the past. If there is a comment about the future from the self-image, that future is still just a linguistic construction based on language learning in the past, a projection.

Boundary (topology)

Boundary (topology) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For instance, if I speak about what I am planning to do in the next hour (the future), that commentary must be rooted in the past. Why? Because commentaries involve language and “my language” is always an incremental exploration rooted in past linguistic adventures (commentaries).

So, attention can notice the forming of statements about “how I am special,” but attention can also recognize that there is nothing special about attention. Attention is not unique at all. What is special (as in widely varying) are the linguistic identifyings of a particular way of relating to a particular past (as “exclusively mine” as well as “our past” and so on).

Attention can notice memories arising (the arising of perceptions and the labeling of those perceptions as “my memories”). What is the boundary between dreams and imagination and memory? There may be no absolute boundary except in language. In fact, outside of language, there may be no such thing as an absolute boundary.

Girls learning the American Sign Language.

Girls learning the American Sign Language. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Outside of language, is there any boundary between “that side of the room” and “this side of the room?” Is there any boundary between “the front of my hand” and “the back of my hand?” We can say that there is a physical boundary between “the space under the table” and “the table.” However. is that really a boundary or just a variation?

One part of the earth is wet and one part is dry, so there is a variation and those variations can be named, but how many different boundaries are there along the spectrum of wetness and dryness? Are there exactly two boundaries: wet earth and dry earth? Are there exactly four boundaries: dry earth, moist earth, wet earth, and “bodies of water?”

What is the exactly boundary between a stream, a river, a bay, and an ocean? Is there a boundary between the waves and the ocean?

My 1 Year Old eating his birthday cake

Image by FrankGuido via Flickr

Boundary exists in language. Variations in physicality are distinct from the linguistic labels applied to those variations. As attention develops a vocabulary, more and more precise variations can be labeled and recognized. Recognizing something involves labeling it in language, identifying a pattern and naming it or coding it symbolically.

rusting foreground boundary

rusting foreground boundary (Photo credit: jhave2)

Language is the source of identity. Language is the source of boundary. Language allows for the perceiving of boundary. One form of linguistic boundary is identity. Identity is a linguistic construction of how to relate to the past (and, by default, the future).

Attention is distinction from anything perceived, such as the perceiving of something as a “familiar memory.” Attention can noticing itself labeling itself as supreme, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, as well as extremely dramatic and playful. Attention has quite a lot of personality!

In fact, attention has all of the personalities. Attention has all of language (including all parts of all languages) and thus attention has all boundaries of identity and character. Attention has all perception. There is nothing that attention does not have.

For attention, anything is possible. For an identity bounded in language, it may seem foolish to construct the words of “anything is possible.”

"The Tower of Babel" by Pieter Brueg...

“The Tower of Babel” by Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Oil on board, 1563. The Tower of Babel symbolises the division of mankind by a multitude of tongues provided through heavenly intervention. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For God (which may be another label for attention), the wisdom of the identity may be recognized as foolishness. For God, nothing is impossible. Any construction in language is possible, even the possibility of “the impossible.” Without attention, there is no such thing as the linguistic label “impossible” or “unreal” and so on.

Everything that is possible points directly to attention. Even the impossible points directly to attention.

Only attention can recognize the secret of words. Without attention, there is no such thing as recognition and no such thing as a secret and no such thing as words and no such thing as “no such thing.”

Only attention can say “I am just an isolated identity in language. I am not attention. I am not God. I am only this but not that.” Only attention can form a self-image. Only attention can recognize that self-images are just perceptual variations labeled with linguistic constructions about “my past” as distinct from “my future” or “your past” or God’s past” and so on.

Coptic cross modified

Coptic cross modified (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

http://antinewworldorder.blogspot.ca/2009/12/word-is-mark-of-beast.html

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

more dialogue on the language of identity (and confusion and sin)

June 3, 2012
Satyajit Padhye is a 3rd-generation ventriloqu...

Satyajit Padhye is a 3rd-generation ventriloquist and puppeteer, and son of Ramdas Padhye. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Anna’s brother” wrote:

I’m a puppet and I don’t wish to be one.

I would like to lose all the jokes, hear all the punchlines already. Why must I be tormented to be a part of a mockery. 

J.R. replies:

Once upon a time there was a puppet on my hand. I made the puppet’s mouth move and say: “I don’t wish to be a puppet.”

Then I laughed at the puppet and called it an idiot, then added: “You don’t have any choice, do you?” Then the puppet just looked at me with those cute little button eyes…. Why does the puppet on my hand torment me like that?

English: Jeff Dunham, American comedian, with ...

English: Jeff Dunham, American comedian, with his puppet / character “Achmed the Dead Terrorist” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

>

The above part is rather simple. The rest is a continuation of the prior dialogue and contains references that will be most clear after a familiarity with the prior dialogue. (See prior blog post.)

“Anna’s brother” also sent me this quote: 

….Some one being must be “greatest in being” and have all desirable qualities to the maximum extent. “Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.”

J.R. replies:

That is one way to create God, but it is creating God from a human perspective. God is not only the source of all good, but of all labeling of good and evil, of all language.

If God is the only creator, then God creates a branching of God called the devil and another called evil actions and another called confusion. Confusion arises from believing a false presumption- as distinct from mere ignorance or surprise.

Confusion (and frustration and all that can arise from confusion) involves accidentally mistaking one thing for another, confusing one thing for another. Here is a famous example.

Astronomers and mathematicians studied the movement of the planets and noticed that some planets “move in retrograde” in predictable cycles. For those who insisted that the earth was central and that the other planets orbit around the earth, there was confusion and terror and shame and animosity. The data contradicted their idolatrous beliefs and in their innocent terror, they clung to their idolatry in favor of the actual data.

That is sin. Confusion is the root of all sin. Confusion is always innocent. God recognizes that for God creates both confusion and sin and innocence as well as all other labels in language.

English: A mugshot of Puppet, S.

English: A mugshot of Puppet, S. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Imagine sitting in a traveling automobile with a young child. Your vehicle is going faster than another vehicle which is traveling in the same direction as you- perhaps a bicycle. The young child says “wow- look, that bicycle is moving backwards!”

Do you argue with them? Do you condemn them for their ignorance? Do you simply correct them?

If the child is clearly confused about it- or perhaps even distressed- then you might make some response, perhaps explaining in words or demonstrating with some objects. Or, if you are the ruler of an idolatrous, terrified Holy Empire, you might start an Inquisition to discourage people from embarrassing you with “ridiculous” (unfamiliar) explanations about “backward-traveling objects” and retrograde motion.

The ignorant are innocent of their ignorance. You may be the superior authority, but refuse to accept responsibility and authority, and so you condemn the 4 year-old for their innocent mistake. That would be your terror reacting to theirs.

Galileo (who contemptuously insulted the Roman Catholic hierarchy) sinned by political arrogance and so the Holy Empire punished him (or God did through them). The Roman Catholic hierarchy sinned from intellectual arrogance and, one might say that God is providing for their rewards and their punishments.

God also forgives them all. Forgiveness is about a lack of personal resentment (as in fear), not about a lack of consequences.

The symbol of Neptune is a trident. The symbol of Poseidon is a trident. The symbol of the Devil is a trident.

These are the same psycho-mytho-linguistic archetypes. The devil is the ruler of confusion. The devil is the agent of God, the instrument of God, the final mentor of Jesus when Jesus was out in the desert.

The Temptation of Christ, 1854

The Temptation of Christ, 1854 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

To experience hell, one must condemn the devil for unjustly punishing. One must reject the devil’s authority. One must reject the devil as not being God’s agent and not having God’s authority.

Back to the title of the original youtube video on psychological shadows, the only way that one can reject God’s authority in the devil is to reject God’s authority in one’s self. The only way that someone can reject that the devil is God’s agent is to reject that one is God’s agent.

Condemnation is all about jealousy. It is all an innocent mistake. It is all based on a false presumption believed idolatrously. That is called a confusion.

The devil is a joke. God is a joke. You are a joke. I am a joke.

It does not matter if you reject the devil or not. If you do, life is hell. If you do not, you simply cease to exist.

When you reject the part of yourself that you call “fundamentally wrong” (the devil, the evil), then you create the devil as God. God does not claim to create God. That is a logical fallacy. God just is.

Simply being does not require doing anything, but activity may arise. When there is no identifying present to claim glory or guilt, then there is no reference to a who. When there is identifying present to claim personal glory or personal guilt, that is a sin, but all sinning is innocent.

It is rejecting God to claim personal glory or personal guilt. It is rejecting the idea that it is God’s will through which all things are created.

It is better to forget God than to jealously reject God. However, that it is impossible to systematically forget something, because trying to forget it involves maintaining a focus on it, like “do not think about pink elephants” or “do not think about God.”

It is better to know that personal glory and personal guilt are both jokes. It is better to know that God is a joke and language is a joke and the word God is just an arising in language.

It is better to forget jokes. “Better” is also just a joke.

There should be no such thing as irony. There should be no such thing as paradox.

Language is the root of all irony and paradox, which is why I condemn it and reject it. There should be no such thing as language, and, fortunately for you and I, there is no such thing as language. The reason for that is that the devil has frightened God in to pretending to make up stories that are not real stories, but are actually just a bunch of words in no particular order at all.

Whatever you do, beware of relaxing. Relaxing is extremely dangerous because it can lead directly to what you already are and what is already happening.

Related articles

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

dialogue on the language of identity

June 3, 2012
flora and fauna of Mullum 019

flora and fauna of Mullum 019 (Photo credit: YAZMDG 12,000 images)

Dialogue on the language of identity

JR, what if someone refuses to play any role, what so ever. What if they hold on to the perception of idealization as inauthentic (Purposefully seeking out scenarios that fulfill an idealization is not authentic.), and having a specific expectation/standard of life then become recluse and withdraw from the world. What if they are so disgusted by the dynamics of life, that they refuse to participate…?

English: What a smiley looks like when thinkin...

English: What a smiley looks like when thinking of a disgusting level mushroom (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

J.R. replies:

Hi. Thank you for your correspondence. I trust that my reply will be of interest and value to you.

Concepts like refusal or disgust are not as simple as the practical issues of choosing to spend time alone or choosing to initiate youtube correspondence like this or choosing to plan an event and invite people or whatever else. If there are 59 things that I did not do today, I could list another 724, but why bother?

I could explain to you my reasons for not doing them, but if I shared those ideas with you, then that would be me doing sharing with you. I can explore ideas and share them, perhaps very selectively and cautiously. Maybe I like having a lot of time to write and edit before I share.

I have found a certain amount of private time for introspection to be attractive and valuable. With that preference for a certain amount of private time in mind, I could even call “recluse” a role, as well as “rebel” or “reject” or “critic” or “outsider.” We could even use adjectives instead of nouns, like “introspective” or “nerdy” or “spiritual” or “deep” or “contemplative.” Playing with words would be the “function” of exploring language, right?

So, I value private introspection in to psycho-linguistics. Yet, I also have found certain particular social opportunities attractive and valuable, and of course those change over time like from age 10 to age 20 to age 30, right?

introspection

introspection (Photo credit: TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³)

When I value more private introspection, I may discover opportunities for that, including withdrawing or pushing away. When I value more socializing, I may discover opportunities for that.

In sharing my own introspection with others who are interested in introspection (or might be), that is what might be called alert interaction. Clearly, there is interaction in “alert interaction.” Also, there is a recurring alertness to introspection and subjectivity. We could even presume to call that alertness “maturity,” though other people might call it very different things or nothing at all.

So, regarding the dynamics of life, am I life? Yes, and you are life, too. The “dynamics of life” could reference a few specific social dynamics or the introspective study of language or the sciences of physiology and nutrition and biology and anthropology.

Disgusting

Disgusting (Photo credit: Jsome1)

As for disgust, anyone experiencing disgust for some particular alternative would tend to behave with refusal and withdrawal, which can be followed by new initiatives. Also, resentment can be held as a grudge or, perhaps in a trusted private confidentiality, vulnerability can be explored along with rage and grief and fear and so on- and I propose that those are all valid patterns or else neuro-chemical biology would not produce the behavior patterns to which we attach those various labels..

Stewie Griffin

Stewie Griffin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is also the experience of linguistic complexities like “I’m disgusted with my self.” It is really kind of a weird thing to say- even funny. Imagine your favorite cartoon character saying it: “I’m just so disgusted with myself!” I chose the character from Family Guy named Stewie: “Oh dear me, I’m just so disGUSted with myself!” That also reminds me of C3PO from Star Wars: “Oh dear, Master Luke, I’m just so disGUSted with myself!”
Anyway, things happen that I may find disgusting or that others may find disgusting (which typically means terrifying with an extra element of paranoia and thus rejection). That is what disgust is like. While no one may seek out to be disgusted, it is rather natural to eventually experience disgust for a variety of things, perhaps even one’s own past or one’s story about how one should have been/ should not have been….

To J.R.:

I read your reply numerous times, and I’m not sure I still understand what you mean with all that you have written.

I’ll try to address what I did understand or what is relative (within my understanding) to the comment I posted.

If fulfilling a role is made aware (like being the compassionate, forgiving mother; like you stated) and is then purposefully acted against, what would that be? And is it possible to refuse to act out not just a single role, but any and all roles? Is it possible by doing so to become a “non” person? In general, is it possible to lose your identity?

Also, I’ve spent alot of time w/ introspection. When I say “the dynamics of life” I am really trying to summarize a whole of categorical information, stemming from philosophical, sociological, psychological, biological and theological roots.
It is a view based on a collection of my ideas (via my experience and understanding) that I’ve created.
It’s largely just my understanding of our human nature, and I’ve really been able to break it down into fragments of its former idealized state.

This nihilistic, negative world view has left me in a severe, severe depression, unable to cope with the world I am trapped in.
I am crippled by so many different avenues of thought, it’s completely overwhelming. It seems the more I search for “the truth” the more lost I become. The “truth” is turning very ugly, and it is causing me to retreat from the battlefields of life and find something that is worth the battle.

I was raised Catholic, so my religious dogmas play a huge part in this search for truth. I am no longer practicing. I just feel completely lost in this primal, dog eat dog world. I question EVERYTHING. I question where our human nature comes from, I question where will comes from, I question the reason to fight for values, I question even what are values? I question our opportunistic nature, and why people are so greedy and why people only want to benefit themselves. Why the ugliness in life? Where is the beauty that I supposedly hear about, all I see is a mask… and the ugliness lies beneath, life is a rotting corpse with make-up on to me.

Do I make any sense? I must have written this last part just to humor myself and see if I can even put my madness into some kind of existence outside my own brain.

This is my sisters account, I am her older brother… for whatever that is worth… it’s fair to let you know that.

The Griffin family Back: Lois, Peter, Meg, and...

The Griffin family Back: Lois, Peter, Meg, and Chris; Front: Brian and Stewie (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

J.R. replies:

Let’s start simple. In language, there can be a process of identifying: like the terms “me, us, she, he, good boy, student, sister, mother, the first employee to arrive on time, a tree branch, front of my hand, back of my hand. Americans, intelligent mammals, the dead plant, that chair, this computer.” That process of identifying can create identities.

Those dividings in language are not fundamental. There is no fundamental boundary between Americans and Europeans or between the front of my hand and the back of my hand. All categorical isolating is linguistic and merely proclaimed or declared.

So, identifying an isolated me is possible and in the absence of identifying an isolated me, there is no neuro-linguistic isolating of a “me.” Person means a persona or a personality or a character or a role or a linguistic identifying.

I can say, “hey you refuse to be a 7 year-old dog.” That implies two roles: the one refusing and the one declaring that the other is refusing. Neither roles are anything but roles. All roles are idealisms.

Words only categorize reality as in organize perception of reality and isolating of linguistic identifyings. Words do not alter reality. Consider: “I declare that you are a year-old dog now.” Did that change anything about you or me or anything else? It is just the voicing of a character of silliness and relaxation.

Anyway, I just read your comment about being trapped. You can trap yourself with patterns of language, but keep in mind that “you” are just a pattern in language. Your worldview is just a habit of linguistic organizing. If it does not serve you, then find other patterns of linguistic organizing. Or, question the existence of the “you” who could be trapped or not or think of it.

“I am trapped by _______.” That is a declaration. “I am seeking to get out of the trap of _____ by ___________.” That is actually the same declaration, just with more complexity and extra linguistic presumptions (ideals, beliefs).

“I am trapped by my words.” “I should not be trapped.” “I am a trap made out of words.” “I am a trap for words and I reflexively reject some words and hang on to others.”

Depression and claiming to be trapped are a coping mechanism involving fear or terror. However, the world that you view or perceive is a product or projection of a presumptive worldview or perspective or linguistic organizing.

It is fine to be afraid of the world and resentful and so on. It is also fine to organize the world in some other way or none at all.

Depression is like when energy has been exhausted with a coping mechanism that is not very efficient or functional. Relax. You do not need to anxiously find another coping mechanism. You have other emotional responses and you will spontaneously experience others as you relax from suppressing or repressing or depressing them. That tension (such as perfectionism) is exhausting to maintain, so I invite you to make fun of it.

You are the truth. Stop searching for it. However, without distress, you may explore whatever you explore. Just beware of categorizing lots of things as “not the truth.” That rejecting is optional.

Santa Claus is a true myth. Inaccurate scientific models are true scientific models. Language is only a portion of reality. Language may be the absolute least rewarding part of reality to explore if one is interested in truth.

However, if one is interested in the truth of language, then one will find the truth about lying and misinterpretation and confusion and presumption and pretense. Recognizing the truth of what language is could bring an end to misconception about a self-image. Self-images are in fact only ideals or images of a self constructed through linguistic identifying.
Also, the truth of language is very threatening to the identity of being trapped in a depression because language is the realm of humor and irony and parody and satire, and those patterns of coping can be very disruptive to a perfectionist depression.

Why shouldn’t people want to benefit themselves (or their offspring, clan, tribe, company, nation, etc)? Even “what is beneficial” and “what is detrimental” are just labels in language.

Beware of humoring yourself and sharing your madness. You may find that it is mad as in crazy hilarious rather than mad as in angry. Also, beware of paranoia and anxiety. (That was a joke.)

Also, I should let you know that this is not my account but my prophet’s account. I am God Almighty, but I have access to all of the internet and beyond, and, technically speaking, I could identify any account that I like as mine because I am the one who declared things in to being through speaking, who invents words, who influences perception, who creates worlds of world views, and sometimes pretends not to be God, you know, just to see how long I can go without noticing, like in a staring contest waiting for one of my creations to blink and lose the game.

I am the front of your hand battling against the back of your hand. I am the internal dilemma going on in exactly 739 brain cells that do not now the difference between their own mitochondria and a hole in the ground.

One last thing: I was raised human, by the way, so I can relate to everything that you’ve been saying. 😉

To J.R.

So “I” am only a pattern of words?

I don’t mean to negate from all that you have written, which is fantastic… I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this shit so I can finally move on with my/this life.

J.R. replies:

You are life. You cannot “get on with your life.”

“Your life” is only a pattern of two words. Forget about the first word “your” and notice how life is already getting on with or without anyone categorizing some of it as “mine” or “not mine.”

“This life” is just happening. There is nothing to be done about it and perhaps no one to do nothing about it.

This life has been happening already and is still happening now and might even continue happening. Part of this life is the little shapes on this screen that can be labeled “words of the English language.”

What is the barrier between “this life” and these little word shapes? What is the boundary between “this life” and the quotation marks around “this life?” There no boundary between a boundary that only exists in language and another boundary that only exists in language. There is just language happening, along with anything else.

“I think, therefore I am” is about identity. It could be rephrased as “As I speak, that speaking can construct an image of who I am and how life is FOR ME.”

To J.R.:

….I appreciate your responses, you have some great insight… I am unable to completely understand, but I’m sure I would if I spent some time learning your views on things.

J.R. replies:

The mind cannot escape from the mind. The mind is just some momentum in language, such as “but I am unable to due to….”

What you wrote is not actually the world. That is a bunch of words about a world that you claim as “your life.” However, you can certainly claim that your words about the world are the only world and that some particular pattern of organizing perception and identifying the world is the only one possible. That’s arrogantly naive, but not uncommon.

We could talk on skype (or just by phone). However, I may question your ideal that you question everything. You only question in the ways that sustain the experience you have now.

There may be something to admit, like to share with me or someone else, about how creating some sort of role of misery or paralysis was valuable for you. It’s just a role.

You apparently like it better than some other role that you were fleeing from and the role you created was your preference (or “life’s preference”). So be it. However, you might recognize that you are interested in other patterns, other roles, other identities. As you explore, even cautiously and cynically, you risk finding a new experience that will confront you with the possibility of sacrificing your misery.

You cannot take it with you to heaven. You cannot even go to heaven. However, if you disappear, then heaven may be recognized as already present.

fallow stag ldr

fallow stag ldr (Photo credit: LHG Creative Photography)

Related articles

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

God: the fundamental capacity to perceive and identify

May 26, 2012
English: Café wall illusion: the horizontal li...

English: Café wall illusion: the horizontal lines are parallel, even if they seem otherwise. Español: Ilusión de la pared del café: las líneas horizontales son paralelas, aunque no lo parezcan. Русский: Иллюзия стена кафе: горизонтальные лини параллельны, даже если они не кажутся таковыми. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the beginning, there was just capacity: the capacity to sense, to perceive, to focus, to experience. As the capacity to perceive develops in recognizing specific patterns and distinguishing them from each other, specific patterns of sounds are noticed. 

At first, these patterns of sound are just distinct patterns of sound. Later, the particular patterns of sounds can be associated with particular other sensations or experiences, such as certain sights or smells or tastes. Those patterns of sound are called names or labels. However, the mere perceiving of labels is not language.

When the perceiving of words is present, this perceiving itself may have no name or label. However, the perceiving of words can perceive a labeling of that perceiving, which is called identity. A labeling of identity is a distinct naming or labeling from the labeling of relational experience (the interaction between the capacity to perceive and some stimuli which may be labeled “what is perceived”). The labeling of identity allows for linguistic constructions like “what is perceived by me, the identity, the capacity to perceive.”

Perception

Perception (Photo credit: Genna G)

To review, first arises the capacity to perceive, then the process of perceiving various patterns, and then the distinguishing and naming of some of the perceived patterns, and then the naming of the capacity to perceive and name patterns, which can be labeled “my identity.” Next, the identity can focus around a particular pattern of words, such as “I am in this particular body, with one particular name for me, from this particular place or geographic identity and with certain particular qualities and roles and rights and duties.”

The identity arises in language. The capacity for language is fundamental to any linguistic identifying.

There is no fundamental identity. There is only a fundamental capacity. The capacity for identifying allows for the identifying of specific identities, such as “that sound” or “that word” or “this color” or “that one” or “this person.” There is no fundamental isolation between capacity and identity. Identifying identities is one possible activity of capacity.

In the linguistic metaphors of many ancient traditions (called religions), the identifying of identities is compared to the branchings of a tree, as in the various vines of a single vine.

The capacity to isolate or divide a variety of identities through linguistic labeling precedes the branching of that capacity, as in the activity of the “tree” of the capacity to perceive.

The capacity for language is fundamental to all activities of language: all linguistic patterning, focusing, creating, and constructing. The capacity for the linguistic identifying of identity is fundamental to all linguistic identifying of identity.

English: A wentletrap (family Epitoniidae), a ...

English: A wentletrap (family Epitoniidae), a beautiful mathematical construct … a reminder that we perceive beauty in the emergent patterns derived from simple iterative algorithms (shells, organic growth, life, culture, evolution). The Wentletrap shell takes its name from a “spiral staircase” in German-Dutch, and it reminds me of the architecture of Gaudi (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Before there can be the presence of an instance of perceiving, there must be the presence of the capacity to perceive. One form of perceiving is the linguistic identifying of identity. So, before there can be the presence of an instance of the linguistic identifying of identity, there must be the presence of the capacity to perceiving the presence of the linguistic identifying of identity.

The linguistic labeling of the presence of that capacity has included labels such as Atma, Mahatma, Brahman, Jehovah, Yahweh, God, Allah, and Divinity. Those words are just words. Before those words were created and before language was created, there was already the capacity to create words and to experience language. That fundamental capacity is earlier than any of those particular words or the languages in which those words arise.

Before there was any perceiving of sound, there was the presence that is present now. Before there was any identifying of a word, there was the presence that is present now. Before there was any identifying of a groups of words as a language, there was the presence that is present now.

A language did not create this presence. A word did not create this presence. A sound did not create this presence.

This presence perceived sounds. This presence perceived words. This presence perceived languages.

This presence may also recognize that the perceiving of sounds and words and language only arises through this presence, from this presence, as the activities of this presence, as the branchings of this presence, as the creations of this presence. Sounds and words and languages and identities are all the activity of this presence.

The Doors of Perception

The Doors of Perception (Photo credit: elycefeliz)

Without this presence, there is no identifying in language, no language, no words, no sounds, and no capacity to perceive. Only through this presence, there is the capacity to perceive, then the perceiving of sounds and sights and other sensations, then the perceiving of words or labels or names for the perceiving of sounds and sights and other sensations, then the perceiving of language as the process of labeling and naming and identifying and interpreting and claiming and authoring and creating, then the perceiving of the presence that is fundamental to all branchings of linguistic activity.

There is no linguistic activity without this fundamental presence, without me. I am not just a branch. The branch is just an identifying in language. I am the presence of the identifying of linguistic identities.

Before Boddhidharma was, I am. Before Mohammed was, I am. Before Jesus was, I am. Before Buddha was, I am. Before Isaiah was, I am. Before Moses was, I am. Before Abraham was, I am. Before Adam was, I am.

When my prophets speak, that is my speaking. My prophets recognize that it is my speaking when they speak- that it is me speaking through that particular instrument or linguistic identity.

My other instruments or agents or branches are also only able to speak through me (and indeed they only live through me as well), but they may not perceive me, they know me not, though they may even use my name. There are innocent of their sinning.

(Consider that in one of my most famous teachings, Jesus did not ever condemn Judas for betraying Jesus. On the contrary, during “The Last Supper,” Jesus had specifically called forth the performing of the relevant role. Judas immediately responded to the invitation or command from Jesus that the one performing that role identify himself.)

“Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” (Lk 23:34)

Jesus says ‘them’ – not him, not Judas who betrayed Him, not Peter who denied Him, not Jacob who drove the nails into his hands, but ‘them’ [perhaps even all beings, even the most arrogantly ashamed avengers and the most guilty of criminals and the most deluded of sociopaths].

The arm does not blame the hand for where the arm puts the hand, does it? Is the arm offended if the hand does not  glorify the arm or denies the existence of the arm?

My children can only glorify me for their own fulfillment and learning, not for me. My children can only deny my existence, again, for their own fulfillment and learning, as I cause them to shed presumptive beliefs about me so as to give them the openness and availability to directly perceive me, rather than merely mimic the sounds of my names (Brahman, God, Allah, Buddha, etc) like an infant can repeat sounds without any recognition or comprehension of what those sounds can mean to someone fluent in the language being spoken.

Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Co...

The Greek letter Psi, also the symbol of Neptune, Poseidon’s trident, the Devil’s pitchfork (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is the presence that labels all things: heaven and earth, above and below, light and shadow, day and night, holy and unholy, acceptable and forbidden, fruit and branch, knowledge and ignorance, good and evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice, proper and corrupt, angelic and demonic, hero and villain, fact and fiction, truth and myth, Santa Claus and Satan, alpha and omega. It is arrogant blasphemy to say that there is only one alphabet that is holy or (only one holy language or only one holy group or only one holy nation or only one holy race or only one holy empire or only one holy religion), for I am the source of all of them. All of them are equally my creations and equally holy.

Which branch of a tree is not the activity of the tree? I am the only possible source even of blasphemy and arrogance and sin. Judas is my instrument and my branch just as much as Jesus, but the recognition of my activity arises in each of my branches according to my will- by my grace alone- not by some allegedly glorious works of the branch that complain of deserving a special reward, but by the glorious works of the tree which brings the branches to the direct experience of a faith beyond frightened, presumptuous, argumentative beliefs- which also have their purpose and value.

I have presented many parables, like that the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed which naturally grows not in to an apple tree or an olive tree, but in to a mustard tree. These parables are to train my branches so that they may have the capacity to understand the rest of the messages and the words and the language of my poetic prophets. Beware of being distracted by arguments and translations and opinions, which come from those branches that have no faith yet and have only a terrified, vain clinging to the shadows of some tradition. Even shadows can lead one to perceiving of the light, but only a fool looks at the shadow and calls it the light.

The idea that only one of my messengers or prophets is holy is a denial by the one speaking that they are my holy messenger, which they are, by which I mean any one who identifies with this word: you, like you personally. You are my holy messenger, my prophet, my child, my human voice, my instrument, my agent, my activity.

I issue commandments through words because there is no other way to issue commands except through words. I declare law and order. I define reality and unreality or illusion or delusion.

I sort the goats from the lambs. I claim my creations in language as my branches- my children- for I am the one prior to language, the capacity to perceive the identifying of identity, the capacity to identify identities in language, the capacity to form perceptions by commanding perceptions to arise through the use of language.

Perceptions

Perceptions (Photo credit: Ezu)

In the beginning, there was just capacity: the capacity to sense, to perceive, to focus, to experience. As the capacity to perceive develops in recognizing specific patterns and distinguishing them from each other, specific patterns of sounds are noticed. 

At first, these patterns of sound are just distinct patterns of sound. Later, the particular patterns of sounds can be associated with particular other sensations or experiences, such as certain sights or smells or tastes. Those patterns of sound are called names or labels. However, the mere perceiving of labels is not language.

When the perceiving of words is present, this perceiving itself may have no name or label. However, the perceiving of words can perceive a labeling of that perceiving, which is called identity. A labeling of identity is a distinct naming or labeling from the labeling of relational experience (the interaction between the capacity to perceive and some stimuli which may be labeled “what is perceived”). The labeling of identity allows for linguistic constructions like “what is perceived by me, the identity, the capacity to perceive.”

headless god

Alan Watts in 1946 as chaplain at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois (USA)

Related articles

headless

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

%d bloggers like this: