Posts Tagged ‘introspection’

Life after stress: practices, introspection, & mentoring

April 26, 2015
“Simple stress solutions: use easy secrets to relieve stress and manage it well.”

The 3 treasures:

Practices- These are reliable methods of a few kinds: first to calm the body and then to relieve chronic tensions that have social origins.
Mentoring- Because some of the most important practices can be unfamiliar and challenging to most people, mentoring with competent guides can be essential for promoting effectiveness and avoiding imprecision.

Introspection- Ultimately, one can develop sufficient calmness, focus, and clarity to notice any rigidity of body and mind, then understand the underlying issues to resolve them independently of reliance on mentors. Mentoring of others can even accelerate one’s own competence.

Practices- The simplest practice for relieving stress is calm breathing. Here is the simplest form of that practice: take a slow breath in, then pause for a comfortable period of time, then slowly exhale, and then briefly pause again before inhaling.You can quickly experience that practicing a calming breath does in fact produce a calming effect. Next, you can learn the simple background of exactly how this practice works so well. Note that understanding how it works is entirely optional, although comprehension can be very useful as a source of commitment to applying the method consistently.

Notice that there are two common reflexes related to breathing: the startle reflex of holding the breath and the panic reflex of rapid, shallow hyperventilation. While these reflexes can promote survival temporarily, they are unfavorable as long-term adaptions or habits. When startled, it is natural to take a single sudden breath in and then hold it. If the fright is very brief, then the body’s next reflex often will be to calmly sigh.

However, when there is a longer period of caution or alarm, such as a startled inhalation followed by fleeing or fighting or freezing (holding the breath longer), then a singlesigh is not enough to return breathing to normal. At some point, a panting reflex will begin.Again, in many circumstances, the rapid, shallow panting contributes to the well-being of the organism. However, when there is lasting stress of certain kinds, a brief period of panting will not return the organism to calm alertness. In cases of distress, there will be the initial startle reflex of a sudden inhalation and hold, then that will resolve in to a sequence of gasping called hyperventilation.

The problem with hyperventilation is that instead of returning the organism from temporary alarm to calm, the organism will experience lasting anxiety (a semi-hysterical state on the edge of panic). Hyperventilating creates a deficit of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream. That state is called hypocapnia by medical professionals. It is a very common problem and can be very serious.

Basically, for a molecule of oxygen (O2) to be carried from the red blood cells to other tissues adjacent to the bloodstream, a molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2) is required (among other contributing factors). Hyperventilation starves the brain cells of oxygen not because of a lack of oxygen in the bloodstream, but because of a lack of carbon dioxide to transport the oxygen from the bloodstream in to the adjacent tissues.

There is only one primary ways that carbon dioxide gets in to the bloodstream: from out of the cells of the organism. Cells produce CO2, sometimes in small amounts and sometimes in large amounts.

Even in the deepest sleep of hibernation, there are biochemical reactions happening inside of living cells. These reactions often produce CO2 inside of cells, which can be then released in to the adjacent bloodstream. When there is physical exertion, such as walking, stirring, or sawing, that produces CO2 at a higher rate than when there is no exertion.

So, there are two major ways to increase the CO2 levels in the bloodstream. They can be used in isolation or together.

The first method is to slow down the rate of breathing (to slow down the release of CO2). The second method is to increase the intensity of physical exertion (to increase the production of CO2).Note that if someone increases physical exertion and then also increases the rate of exhalation (panting), that will reduce or eliminate any benefit from the increased physical exertion. The point is to put enough extra CO2 in to the bloodstream (and keep it there for long enough) that tissues will  receive an increased supply of oxygen.

Are there real consequences of increasing or decreasing O2 levels in brain cells and other tissues? Yes, such as in the case of sleep apnea in which the brain is getting so little oxygen that it may produce a nightmare to wake up the body and force an interruption to the hyperventilation of the organism while asleep.

When people talk about anxiety attacks or panic attacks, they are referencing the predictable effects of chronic hyperventilation (“over-breathing). They experience “shortness of breath” (mild choking) because of breathing too fast.

When there is a chronic deficit ofCo2 in the bloodstream, that will always produce a chronic deficit of O2 within the cells (including brain cells but also in many other tissues). We can call that chronic anxiety.

In that case, a relatively mild startle reflex from an external trigger (which would not produce much more than a sigh from an organism with sufficient Co2 in the bloodstream) can produce a severe enough diminishing of bloodstream CO2 (and intracellular O2) that we would call that an attack of anxiety or an attack of panic (or an attack of asthma).

Anxiety, panic, and even asthma can be reliably produced by chronic hyperventilation. Of course, because of the diminished supply of CO2 in the brain among so many people, the simplicity of this mechanism is unfamiliar to most people. They are in a state of chronic alarm, paranoia, and hysteria.

They may be easily fatigued (quickly depleting the constricted supply of oxygen that is actually getting in to the brain and other tissues). If they attempt to exercise, they may overexert themselves and then pant, eliminating the potential benefit of the exercise to increase co2 levels in the bloodstream.

They may even experience despair. What can they do to resolve this? To frequently practice the calming breath, perhaps in combination with a moderate increase in physical exertion, has been established as a reliable way to eliminate the effect known as asthma (over the course of several weeks).

Not only is it quite easy to produce anxiety and hysteria through hyperventilation, but quite easy to reverse. Of course, there may be other health issues besides the supply of oxygen to the brain cells, but the vast majority of modern populations have chronic deficits of oxygen in their brain cells (leading to early death of brain cells), which is due to chronic deficits of CO2 in the bloodstream, which is due to excessive breathing (as in too rapid- not enough delay between inhalation and exhalation).

Why all the frightened breathing? Because the stress of modern life can be nearly constant. Even when people are not driving huge metal containers at high speeds, they may seek out a steady supply of stressful stimulation, such as dramatic soap operas, intense action movies, and news reports about disturbing scandals (sometimes featuring exchanges of antagonistic hysteria between two bickering fanatics).

In addition to frequent practices to keep CO2 levels in the bloodstream sufficient (through the calming breath and moderate increases in physical exertion), there is one other very simple practice that is easy to use. Before sleeping, someone can put a piece of tape over their lips. This can be loose or, if appropriate, tight.

What is the benefit? While sleeping, many people will typically breath poorly (as in excessively). This includes any snoring.

By greatly reducing the amount of air that escapes through the mouth (or blocking the mouth completely), this allows CO2 levels in the bloodstream to remain high for the entire period of sleep. Sufficient CO2 in the bloodstream results in sufficient O2 in the cells (including brain cells).

Why do so many people wake up groggy (and yearning for coffee, sugar, or other stimulants to create a flood of adrenalin and invigorate their blood chemistry)? They did not get much O2 while sleeping, so instead of their brain being clear and alert, they wake up foggy.

They find it hard to concentrate. Those ignorant of biochemistry may call this “an attention deficit disorder.” It is a deficiency of oxygen in the brain cells due to over-breathing / chronic hyperventilating / a deficiency of CO2 in the bloodstream.

After a few years of poor breathing and poor sleep, the brain can begin to accumulate toxins that normally would be cleaned out every night while sleeping. After a few decades, not only are they foggy, but they begin to physically stiffen. Depleted oxygen to the cells of the body is also known as suffocation. Some people have been suffocating for years and some for decades.


There are two basic categories of stress: future-related and past-related. We will quickly review them both.Future-related stress is of two general types: worry and hope. Both can produce stress. Neither is always “bad” (and stress is not always bad either).

In simplest terms, worry and hope both refer to ways of relating to a particular possible future outcome. There is recurring focus (as in “pre-occupation”) on at least one possible outcome. One’s current activities can be organized in reference to that future outcome. That can be very functional.

However, the “problem” with hope is that hope can lead to disappointment, which people may be seeking to avoid hysterically.  The “problem” with worry is that worry can lead to despair, which people may also be seeking to avoid hysterically.

In other words, the real problem with the future-oriented stresses of worry and hope is not the actual future possibility. The underlying issue is present hysteria (distress) as a foundation for relating to future stresses.How can that underlying distress be resolved? See the “practices” section for a simple solution.

As for past-oriented stress, we can call those guilt and shame. Those can be internalized and then externalized.

Guilt is about pre-occupation with something that happened but related to with a hysterical idealism condemning that event as something should not have happened. What happened is not the source of the guilt. What happened is the trigger for exposed a hysterical ideal that has already been internalized through a process of social distress or indoctrination.

Guilt can be projected at others in the form of contempt. Someone else did something they should not have done, according to some linguistic ideals of hysterical fanaticism/ present distress.

Next is shame. Shame is about what did not happen. When we already have an internalized anxiety about what should happen, but then that does not happen, we call that experience shame. It is a chronic tension of desiring to hide the terror of failing to conform to a perceived social essential.

The only way to block the display of physical gestures that signal terror is through chronic tension of the face, neck, shoulders (etc). Shame and guilt involve the same physical tensions.

Also, shame can be projected at others (a common strategy to distract others from noticing one’s own shame) and that can be called resentment. We resent others when we are terrified that they did not do something that we hoped they would do, but we do not have the internal resources to flee in terror. So, we fight. We repulse. We resent and then present passive aggression or open condemnation and antagonism.

That shameful aggression is very distinct from violence that is designed to kill prey, to openly intimidate/deter disobedience, or produce a redistribution of some kind of wealth (as in robbery or warfare). The shameful aggression is intended to destroy someone socially (as in their reputation).

We are jealous of their results. We hysterically assert that we should have had better results. We blame them for our disappointing results. We attack them (socially or physically or both).

This projection of internalized shame does not resolve the internalized shame. It does not relax the distress and chronic tension. It can be very dangerous.

In the case of a past history of contempt or resentment towards others, we may consider that we value an increase in social affinity with a particular individual or group. In that case, an explicit apology may be helpful.

We state to them (in whatever way fits best, considerate of their own input) that we wish to apologize. We apologize for first being in distress, then we had particular hopes and/or worries (specifying them with enough detail to produce comprehension in the other party but without so much detail to trigger a surge of hysteria in them). Then, we related to them as violating our preferences (which terrified us), then we panicked, condemned their action or inaction, and then ongoingly practiced contempt and/or resentment toward them.

We state next that we withdraw our condemnation of their action (or inaction). We respect them and their choices. We admit that our expectations or preferences are the ultimate source of our reaction, not their action or inaction. We apologize for our general distress and our particular animosity.

We may also make a symbolic offer of goodwill. We may make a request or invitation. We may make a promise (in exceptional cases).

We are primarily interested in their comprehension of the basic details of our apology. We are not expecting anything from them and we are not groveling. We may withdraw from interaction.

Usually, there is no stressing of anything that we owe them or that they owe us. The communication of the apology is ideally distinct from any other “negotiations” and, until the apology is completed (with a sense that the other has experienced relief of any concerns about the past condemnation), other communications may be halted.


There is much more to the issue of introspection. What is above is simply a general framework for additional exploration.The issue of exactly how the masses are programmed with specific social anxieties and hysterias can be addressed next (unless there is an immediate interest for mentoring first). Mentoring, briefly stated, is the practice of introspection with the assistance of one or more other people who are competent enough in the practice of introspection to increase the efficiency and benefits of introspection for someone else.

Step inside a new reality

July 24, 2012

open door in field

Imagine that a joker walked through a free-standing doorframe in the middle of a field and then came up to you and said “Hey,  I can give you what you really want, what you value most, what you can only get through me, your magic genie Santa Claus of a God: I will give you anything you could desire, including power and authority over the entire world, including even treasures and romance and utopia and fame and glory, but in exchange for that you must give away your attention.” Could anyone accept such a devil’s bargain? Can anyone give away their own attention?

If attention focuses on attention itself, what does attention find? If attention focuses on attentive introspecting, would learning be possible? If learning happens, isn’t every instance of learning a discovery of a new reality- not actually isolated from the rest of reality, but another part of reality that may have never been witnessed until the moment of discovery?

Speaking subjectively (poetically, figuratively), then “a new reality” could simply be a label for any new perception. After all, all perception is a real perception, right?

Yoga Class at a Gym Category:Gyms_and_Health_Clubs

Yoga Class at a Gym Category:Gyms_and_Health_Clubs (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There are no essential instructions for introspection. To study one’s own language is introspective. To study’s one’s body or one’s physical movements (like in an aerobics class or hatha yoga class) is also introspective.

Further, to study language at all is already introspective, because anything that you study becomes familiar to you, becoming yours. To even study human physiology or biology or biochemistry again does not exclude introspection (self-discovery). Isn’t your physical organism included in what you can reference when say use the label “me?” To the extent that ecology or economics or geology or law are important in any human life, even studying those subjects inherently involves an element of introspection, of “how I am relating to what is related to me.”

Every observation or experience includes the process of subjective perceiving. So, there is really no getting away from introspection.

Step Back to Reality

Step Back to Reality (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Similarly, there is no getting away from reality. Even dreaming is not getting away from reality. Dreaming is just the reality of dreaming.

Where is the boundary claimed between “reality” and “unreality?” Where is the linguistic boundary declared between “I” and “not I?”

Famous people, whose names I do not recall at this moment, have said things like “Seek God and you will find yourself. Seek yourself and you will find God.” Maybe the point is that everywhere attention goes looking for anything, attention will always be there. Can you escape from your own attention?

Put another way, can attention escape from you? Can you isolate yourself from attention? Can you isolate attention from yourself?

If you passed out and went unconscious, falling down in the middle of crowded forest full of people, would you actually fall down or would whatever happens to any remaining physical organism be completely independent of attention and perception? When you are in deep sleep, do you sleep, or is perhaps there just a sleeping body without any functioning of attention, like no conscious identifying of a self or a body or anything else?

Category:Educational research

Category:Educational research (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Maybe you are just a body. Maybe a body is just a vehicle of attention or consciousness, or a form or formation composed of attention and consciousness.

What if a body is like a garment?  Or, what if the identity in language is like a garment? During the manifesting of schizophrenia, personality can suddenly shift. So, which is more fundamental: the physical organism or a particular personality or identity or character? Doesn’t personality eventually change over time anyway? A senile elderly person may have an “infantile” personality, right, as well as someone who is barely awake, or in a hypnotic trance, or extremely drunk (in a “stupor”).

What if there was a recognition that a physical organism can produce the function of attention and then there was another recognition that the attention can identify or relate in a variety of ways? It is not called schizophrenia when a person is an actress and the actress performs different roles with different names and different characteristics or characters (personas or personalities), but what happens to the actress when the actress’ infant cries to nurse? The actress and all of her characters may simply disappear, with a nursing mother showing up instantly “replacing” or “displacing” the actress.

Attention may be a function of “the” body. Language can also be identified as a bodily fuction, as in a neurological development or process. However, attention is quite distinct from language. The Logos is distinct from The Eternal Living Presence.

No matter where you go, The Eternal Living Presence is there “with” you, abiding in you. Language can form the words “I am not the Eternal Living Presence,” but consider what is directly observable: is the presence of a particular linguistic formation evidence of anything but the presence of that particular linguistic formation?

English: Santa Claus with a little girl Espera...

English: Santa Claus with a little girl Esperanto: Patro Kristnasko kaj malgranda knabino Suomi: Joulupukki ja pieni tyttö (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Once upon a time, the Devil walked up to Jesus and said, “Obviously, when you look around, you can tell that neither of us are really here. We are not even real. There is no such thing as us. There are no such thing as identities in language. There is no such thing as attention. There is no such thing as reality. There is no such thing as language. However, if there were such a thing as language or attention or reality, then it would be my duty and my privilege to condemn it, to stop it, to prevent it, or at least to make jokes about it until someone starts laughing so hard that everything else seems extremely easy. By the way, just because Santa Claus is just an identity in language, yes, this is a real beard, so please stop pulling on it or else I will throw you over my lap and spank your bottom.”


attention (Photo credit: gordonr)

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 (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 (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)

introspection, courage, and shame

April 13, 2012
Human Eye

Human Eye (Photo credit: Manav Gupta)

Introspection is a  word meaning “insight” and “looking within” and “self-examination” and “inner perceptiveness” and “wisdom” and “self-awareness.” The Ancient Greek philosophers such as Socrates gave the instruction to “know thyself,” which is a concise reference to introspection

Raphael's "School of Athens"

Raphael’s “School of Athens” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In fact, introspection is the subject matter of the entire realm of psychology as well as so much poetry, spirituality, religion, and philosophy. Jesus Christ provides one of the most famous proverbs relating to introspection:

Luke 6:42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

I also think of the entire realm of mythology to be a set of stories to display human patterns of interaction. For instance, the term narcissism (from psychiatric diagnosis) comes directly from the ancient  myth of Narcissus, which is a story about a common stage in the process of introspection, the stage of a relatively infantile fascination with such things as one’s own physical appearance.  We might not even consider attention to one’s own physical appearance to be “looking within,” but all forms of self-discovery have an element of introspection.


Narcissus (Photo credit: pogobee)

How broad can introspection be? How much can it cover? What about an introspective exploration of our patterns of language and other behavior (since language is fundamentally behavioral, though also neurochemical and anthropological)?

Or, what about experimenting with diet and exploring the principles of developmental physiology and biochemistry? What is the boundary between looking within and any other looking?

When I review my own experiences of external phenomenon, “where” do I label those subjective experiences? Are my personal experiences external or internal? Isn’t experience relational- like a particular way of relating to some thing as either “out there” or “in here?”

If I study anything about humanity, isn’t there an element of introspection inherent in that study? If I study ecology or physics or geology or trees falling in a forest, am I not there as witness, as student, as explorer?

Am I a linguistic being or a physical being or a spiritual being or what? Is there any biochemistry in me? Am I completely unrelated to ecology, or merely a tiny mobile unit branched out from an ancient root of geology and terrestrial evolution?

If there are aspects of myself that I have repressed as unsafe or evil, that could be called shame. Obviously, there must be some value to such repressions or they would not be so common, right?

However, what if introspection can bring courage and appreciation to the exploring of subject matter that might

Narcissus also known as the Mazarin Hermaphrod...

Narcissus also known as the Mazarin Hermaphrodite or the Genius of eternal rest marble 3rd century CE (Photo credit: mharrsch)

even be kept private because of shame or modesty? What if it is functionally unproductive (or even counter-productive) to say certain things in certain ways, at least in certain company? To learn discretion and discernment and discrimination are major stages in personal development, maturity, and emotional intelligence.

Ultimately, everything on this blog has a prominent aspect of introspection to it, from the humor to the investment analysis to the nutrition research and political commentary. As for investments, my experience after 9 years of accurate forecasting has included many experiences of intense criticism and resistance to the primary forecasts (all of which have proven accurate). Many people may be terrified of experiencing clarity about the relative degree of sustainability of a variety of economic and political trends.

Shame may be defined as the repression of the experience of terror- as in the ability to maintain a certain marginal level of functionality even while “in shock.” Courage may be defined as the pattern of taking action even in the midst of fear and recognized ignorance (admitted lack of information which would be relevant, but is not evident).

Courage could be considered a type of blind faith, an uncertain faith that may not be especially graceful. Courage is the first step of introspection and the resulting self-knowledge. Shame is that which propels us toward courage and introspection.


introspection (Photo credit: twenty_questions)

[C17: from Latin intrōspicere  to look within, from intro-  +specere  to look]

Matthew 7:3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank  [obstruction]  in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

New Living Translation (©2007)
How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye?

English Standard Version (©2001)
Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye?

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

International Standard Version (©2008)
Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when the beam is in your own eye?

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Or how do you say to your brother, ‘Let me cast out the chip from your eye’, and behold, a plank is in your eye?

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
How can you say to another believer, ‘Let me take the piece of sawdust out of your eye,’ when you have a beam in your own eye?

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull the speck out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye?

American King James Version
Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull out the mote out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye?

American Standard Version
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye?

Douay-Rheims Bible
Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?

Darby Bible Translation
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Allow me, I will cast out the mote from thine eye; and behold, the beam is in thine eye?

English Revised Version
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye?

Webster’s Bible Translation
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thy eye; and behold, a beam is in thy own eye?

Weymouth New Testament
Or how say to your brother, ‘Allow me to take the splinter out of your eye,’ while the beam is in your own eye?

World English Bible
Or how will you tell your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye;’ and behold, the beam is in your own eye?

Young’s Literal Translation
or, how wilt thou say to thy brother, Suffer I may cast out the mote from thine eye, and lo, the beam is in thine own eye?

the secret of power

April 8, 2012

“The secret of power” is my new blog. As traffic to my main blog has averaged far above 200 views per day last week, I have launched a new project.

If I had to use just one word to describe the new blog, it would that it is about INTROSPECTION. However, there are several keywords that I have listed on it to attract traffic, such as:

cfr, Council on Foreign Relations, forbidden, introspection, New World Order, nwo, power, secret, secret of power, taboo, the power of, the secret, Trilateral Commission

Here are some of the links I am using to connect my page with others, including for the purpose of “tickling” search engines with several instances of the words listed above:

boldly condemning politicians

December 28, 2011
(Note that the below comment to this blog, while not at all funny, is quite provocative and also quite a relief- balancing the clowning around in the video.)
Ok folks, I have a serious problem and I’d like your input.

Some parasites are eating my house, I think they are called termite politicians, which is a type of parasite. First, should start an anti-parasite blog and see if that scares them off? How about this: let’s picket around the sidewalk with megaphones and big signs condemning them as immoral parasites and see if that scares them off? Or how about we pass an amendment to the constitution that prohibits parasites from eating so fast or even completely prohibits them from being in the vicinity of the house?

That was not the serious problem, though. My serious problem is that I think that speculative demand for something like silver or gold is stable. Speculative demand is when people want silver or gold not for some immediate functional application, but just to hoard it based on the speculation that it might hold it’s value or even increase value relative to absolutely everything else. That is called a bubble of speculative demand, and the speculative demand for silver and gold may be even greater than for real estate.
Anyway, I just got an apology note from the termite parasite politicians congratulating me on buying my new megaphone with gold and silver coating. They said it would be a very good investment. The apology was for the fact that silver fell about 50% in value in the last several months since I bought it. Wow- this seems like- gosh- about the fifteenth time that I have taken the investment advice based on the PR announcements of the termite parasite politicians. I wonder what they are advising next?
Oh, here look: it says in the note. They advise me to send in cockroaches to handle the termite parasite politician problem in my house. I can tell though that it is just a trick. I know that cockroaches have no morals and are filthy and ugly and are shiny and black.
Instead, I will go on a crusade to fight against cockroaches because the termite parasite politicians claim to want me to send in cockroaches and I hate the termite parasite politicians and I must rebel against them. They probably are trying to take advantage of that old wive’s tale about cockroaches eating termites. I know what they are trying to do though. They are trying to trick me in to wasting my time with irrelevant endeavours.
I have caught on to them now, and I condemn the termite parasite politicians. That’s right: I sit here at my computer keyboard and fervently condemn the termite parasite politicians for taking advantage of my total negligence and ideological blindness. They should not do that! They should not be allowed to tell people what should not be allowed. They are using propaganda which, according to their own propaganda, is immoral and no one should do because it is so immoral.
I am going to tell it like it is and support a candidate who tells it like it is. Those termite parasite politicians are just a bunch of termite parasite politicians and I am shocked that they are eating my house. They are liars. Or at least they should have written me an email notifying me that they were going to go eat my house unless I took some precautions. They are impolite and unfair. They are morally despicable. They eat houses and damage infrastructure and they really should not. They told me that themselves in their anti-parasite political propaganda. That is why I am faithfully condemning them, because they told me to and I am very loyal to them.
Anyway, I have some antique telegraphs- still in the box, never been used- and as you all know these are really great hedges against hyperinflation. If you buy the whole group today, I will throw in this megaphone with gold and silver coating for no additional charge. Customer service agents are standing by. Call now while supplies last.
(Note again that the below comment to this blog, while not at all funny, is quite provocative and also quite a relief- balancing the clowning around in the video.)

on “what should be”

December 26, 2011

What is the effect of informing or indoctrinating others as to “what should be” and “what should not be?” Of course, these communications program attention toward the specific patterns referenced.

For instance, in religious programming, there may be an instruction such as “people should be honest.” This focuses attention on the issue of whether or not honesty is present, or at least is perceived or publicized, and so on. Of course, the word “honest” is not defined in the above instruction, so let’s use an even more revealing example:
“People should be flaggy.” (The point is that I just made up the word flaggy).

So, now even without knowing whether or not people are flaggy or not, we may be interested in learning what it is so that we can be that way (or at least do those things that would predictably result in us appearing flaggy to other people). We may also be interested in identifying when other people are not flaggy so that we can point out their lack of flagginess and establish ourselves as all the more flaggy relative to those extremely unflaggish folks.

If someone suggests that I am not flaggy, I may withdraw from them, accuse them of being even less flaggy than I am, or simply target silencing them, such as by killing them. Or, I may thank them for pointing out my unflagginess, apologize for the isolated incident of unflagginess, and then publicly do some things that are very flaggy.
So, by constructing models of how people should be, the rulers or propagandists inform groups as to how the recipients of the propaganda should be. The instruction “people should be flaggy” is actually not really about other people. The instruction is about the recipient of the propaganda and how that recipient should be.

If I tell you that “people should be flaggy,” and you know that you are one of those people who should be flaggy, then really all that just happened is that I told you to be flaggy without directly telling you that. We could call that an indirect or covert or unconscious instruction.

Obviously, you may then be suddenly concerned with learning what flaggy means and displaying any flaggy behaviors of yours and minimizing exposure of any unflaggish behaviors. The flaggishness of your behavior may or may not change, but a new behavior of emphasizing certain behaviors and minimizing attention to others will arise. In other words, you have been instructed to be attentive to other people’s perceptions of you. “People should be flaggy” means that you should present yourself as flaggy and show your conformity to the bias toward flaggishness by criticizing people who are unflaggy, unflaggish, and otherwise lacking in flagginess.
You may want to join campaigns for the promotion of flaggishness. You may insist that politicians be more flaggy in particular, as well as the media and also notable people in distant countries. They should be flaggy, too, because they are people and people should be flaggy.

In fact, you may eventually presume that all people, unless proven otherwise, are inherently flaggy because that after all is simply how people should be. Not only should you focus on the issue of whether other people perceive you to be flaggy, but you should perceive other people, at least those close or dear to you, to be flaggy. Anything less would be to invite conflict and guilt by association.

Not only do we focus attention on whether or not other people perceive us individually to be flaggy, but whether they perceive our friends and business associates to be flaggy, even our political party or our country. “Our political party is the most flaggy of all, and so is our government and our whole country, and so are my very flaggy friends!”
Since everyone should be flaggy, it becomes important to occasionally punish some folks for their lack of flagginess, or even just for their lack of loyalty to the idea that all people should be flaggy. People need to be reviewed for flagginess and rewarded or punished in accord with their flaggishness. It is only fair, right?

Flaggishness becomes the great moral issue of a culture. Our great triumph is our flaggishness and our pride is that some other people are not as flaggy as we are. As an individual, I emphasize how particular individuals are not as flaggy as me. In business, I emphasize how other businesses are not as flaggy as my business. In politics, I emphasize how other political systems are not as flaggy as mine. In religion, I emphasize how other religious groups are relatively less flaggy or even anti-flaggists.

All of this proves my loyalty to the idea that people should be flaggy. My loyalty proves that I am flaggy. After all, convincing everyone I encounter that a few other people in particular are “not flaggy enough” is the absolute pinnacle of flagginess. It is very flaggy of me to monitor the flagginess of other people and to condemn them for unflaggish behaviors. Our conversations may center on the breakdowns in flaggishness on the part of our spouses or co-workers or competitors.
Why? Because everyone wants to be perceived not just as somewhat flaggy, but the most flaggy. In a couple, only one of the two people can be the most flaggy. In a group of one hundred, the competition is to be the most flaggy, or at least in the top half of flaggishness.

In a business, only one of the co-workers can be the most flaggy, which means that I am constantly concerned with noting other people’s flaggishness and collecting evidence for a possible eventual witch hunt crusade inquisition against unflaggishness.

Obviously, the more that someone knows about any unflaggishness on my part, the less urgency I might have to publicizing any unflaggishness on their part, but of course I would if my own flaggishness was at issue. The best proof of my flaggishness, of course, is my willingness to condemn others for their lack of flaggishness. The better that I am at gathering evidence of flaggishness, and the more diplomatic in leveraging that knowledge, the more loyalty I can expect from others who may be aware of some minor unflagginess on my part- of course very minor and quite isolated incidents.

Also, if our business is competing with other businesses, I loyally point out how flaggy the competitors are not and how flaggy we are. Yes, the same people I just criticized for unflaggishness, I now suddenly champion for flaggishness if the comparison is no longer against me personally, but against the entire group of which I am a part.

Not only is my country by far the most flaggish, with the most flaggish history and the most flaggish current champions of flaggishness, but we are also very concerned about getting more flaggy and staying flaggy and so on. That is because we are so flaggy that we are so concerned about continuing to be (or at least appear to be) flaggy.

So, the definition of flaggishness is to rally around this flag as opposed to the other flag or flags. Those other people who are rallied around those other flags are not as flaggy as I am. They have the wrong flag, which is not just an innocent error on their part, but a moral failure for which we flaggy people should mercifully relieve them of the evil horrors of living with their moral failure… by efficiently killing them or at least conquering their social system under threat of extermination.

Flaggishness really means loyalty. Honesty really means loyalty, too, but it is impolite to say so.

Of all the things that people really should be, people should not be TOO loyal. They should be flaggy or honest or hard-working, but being loyal is a bit too direct. Be morally superior, not just loyal. Merely being loyal is what all those other businesses and countries are doing.

Be the most flaggy. Be morally superior. Encourage flaggishness by telling other people that they should be flaggy and then criticize or punish them for any display of unflaggishness, because controlling what people display is the point of indoctrinating your subject in how people should be. People should only display the qualities that they wish for other people to perceive.

Because I am so authentic about how inauthentic I am, I notice and admit how valuable it is for me to look good. This may be the most flaggy thing that someone could do.

I define how people should be. People should be direct, straight-forward, and honest, not manipulative or propagandist or concerned about appearances and results and methods that work.

People should be unselfish and moral and think for themselves. People should not just accept whatever propaganda has told them. People should definitely resist propaganda, or at least condemn it, or at least deny that it exists, such as by suggesting that it was recently invented, like just 14 seconds ago. Also, if you are going to rally around a flag, make sure that the flag that you are rallying around is the most flaggy flag of all, or at least appears flaggy.

Anyway, what is the difference really between the appearance of flagginess and actual flagginess? What specific behavior distinguishes between actual flagginess and the mere appearance of flagginess?

After all, people should not be concerned about appearances and other people’s perceptions. They should only be concerned about their own actual flagginess, like how much they condemn other people’s unflaggishness. People should condemn other people’s unflaggishness, by which I mean that people should condemn other people, like for being other than they should be.

People should be concerned about condemning other people, but not directly to those people. That could be a safety issue. Condemn others safely, like from a safe distance and among other people who can safely join in the condemnation against spouses like that (unflaggy spouses), bosses like that (unflaggy bosses), politicians like that (unflaggy politicians), and of course flags like that (unflaggy flags).

Thank you for your flaggishness. I wish you an absolutely flaggy day, and may God flag us all.

the rebirth of God

December 25, 2011
the core of all gospels
Have you met different individuals of different sizes and ages? Do you know different creatures including various kinds of animals and plants? Have you learned different words and do you even know of languages foreign to you? You can identify many different perceptions, right? So, could it be that all identifying and all perceiving have a single source?
First, consider that there is only one ultimate authority or power, and one word to label it is God. However, beware of worshiping the label and missing what is symbolized by the label. Note that many labels have been used in many languages for the ultimate authority, which is the source of all of those languages and all of those labels. With caution, use the labels. However, do not make any labels or any symbol in to an idol. That would be an error or mistake or sin or foolishness.
Further, turn away from whatever is troubling to you. Let it be. Choose grace and calm.
Leave your troubles to God. Do not leave God for your troubles, making an excuse of them. That is also idolatry.
If your cleverness is useful when you are relaxed, be grateful. However, if you are troubled and then still presume to rely on your cleverness, you may be humbled. Repent from arrogance. Arrogance is the root of antagonism, arguing, resentment and animosity.
Abandon your troubles while they are still small. Direct your attention away from your troubles toward God.
The ultimate authority organizes the capacity for sensations such as seeing and hearing, plus the capacity for language. God is the source of the interactions and interpretations which lead to perception.
If someone else has a different perception from you, that is natural. Different creatures have different capacities for sensation. A hawk sees better than a human. A dog can smell better than a human. A person who is blind may be able to hear better than most other humans.
Further, one who looks from the peak of a hill has a different view than one who looks from the bottom of a hill. The one on the hilltop can see many distant things which appear small, while the other may study something very close that appears huge. If most everyone has the same perception of something, then a new perspective could be of great benefit and advantage.
Differences in interpretation are the most subtle. When a logger and a squirrel look at the same tree, do they experience the same thing? An squirrel may be looking at the tree for nuts or for a place to rest safely. A logger may be thinking of the value of the wood and of the process of cutting and hauling that tree.
Beware of those who would argue over interpretation. They may not yet recognize the authority of God. They may worship their own conclusions, perceptions, interpretations, and linguistic labels, which is idolatry.
However, it is only natural to have interpretations, perceptions, and conclusions. Hell is the developmental stage of experiencing alternative conclusions as a threat to your arrogance. Of course, alternative conclusions in fact are a threat to your arrogance, but perhaps arrogance is not the most valuable quality you could develop or experience. That may be why God has exposed you to alternative conclusions which you rightly perceive as threats to your arrogance: in order to reveal to you your arrogance and turn your attention toward repenting and to God.
“Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.” Isaiah 45:22

I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.”  Isaiah 43:11 

So, if some use repetition of words and songs to turn from whatever troubles them, could that be God’s Will? If some use rituals or scriptures to turn from whatever troubles them, could that also be God’s Will? If some argue with each other and quarrel, leading to the experience of loss and regret and then repent, could that also be God’s Will?

Which of God’s creations is not God’s Will? Which of God’s creation is not the creation of God?

God forms individuals and words and languages. God forms groups and traditions and rituals and songs and oral teachings that may be written and translated and interpreted and argued about and defended with fences and weapons and wars.

So, you may have been taught that God has created you. But have you been taught what God is?

“Timeless truth, I tell you: ‘whoever believes in me, those works which I have done he will also do, and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to the presence of my Father.’ “ John 14:12

What is the source of works greater than the works of a Prophet of God? Further, which of God’s Prophets is not the prophet of God? Indeed, which of God’s religions is not the religion of God? In fact, do all religions point to a few  consistent principles?

“I am conscious of this, and am certain in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is corrupt in itself; but for the man in whose opinion it is unclean, for him it is corrupt.” Romans 14:14 

“To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and without faith, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.” Titus 1:15

“It’s not what goes into your mouth that corrupts you; you are corrupted by the [harsh, arrogant] words that come out of your mouth…. The [harsh, arrogant] words you speak come from the heart—that’s what corrupts you [and disturbs you].” Matthew 15:11, 18
Turn away from whatever troubles you. Turn away from whatever disturbs you. Turn away from evil. Turn away from blame, condemnation, animosity, and arrogance. 

Let attention rest at the source of perception and interpretation and the capacity to create. What is the capacity to create? 

Yeshua said, “Those things which are impossible for people are possible with God.”
Mark 10:27  & Matthew 19:26 & Luke 18:27 & Luke 1:37
The same idea is also in the Old Testament. See
What is a single word for the capacity to create? What is a word for the source of all words, all labels, all conclusions in language, and all formations in language, including this sequence of words and every other sequence of words? What is a word for that which anything is possible?

the birth of the eternal

December 22, 2011

The development of language and the death of the mortal

Perhaps language developed a long time ago. Then, perhaps a particular pattern in language was later formed and then continued for a while, like for instance this sentence, which only exists in language, but then suddenly and permanently stopped.
Now, the beginning and ending of something in language is just how language works. Sentences begin and end. Words begin and end. Sounds and shapes of letters and other linguistic symbols like numbers or punctuation marks are all distinct, isolated bits that have boundaries and beginnings and endings.

So, the fact that one thing ends and then another thing begins is really just a contrivance in language. Language makes up categorical boundaries and then names the two categories as distinct, like day and night. But are day and night really isolated (or “opposites”)? Does one end and then the other begins? Is there ever a time when there is neither day nor night?
For instance, we can say that day ends and night begins. However, day and night are a single cycle that language divides in to a pair, refering to a categorical distinction between the shifting positional relationship between the sun and a particular location on a particular planet.

Thus, day does not actually end. Day just moves. More precisely, the earth is turning and that turning puts different locations of the surface of the earth in the place called day (facing the sun).
Again, day and night are technically not times. They are just relationships between the rotating of the planet and the light of the sun.

So, in a particular place, language can refer to the ending (in time) of the day (as a time). However, day just ends for that place at dusk. Day actually continues, as dusk at one horizon (longitude) is dawn at another horizon (longitude).
Day and night are eternal, but various places move in and out of day and night cyclically. However, language can refer to the ending or beginning of day. As a convenience in language, the phrase “the end of the day” is quite useful. However, that does not make it true in any absolute sense.
Day and night are not isolated. They are not opposites. They are just categorical distinctions in language. Day does not replace night and night does not replace day. The planet just rotates to face the day (the sun) with one section of the planet and to face another section of planet away from the sun (toward the night or “toward the stars” where they are visible without being outshined by the sun).

A visit to the polar regions of this planet (like North of the Arctic circle) reveals that, in fact, there are places on this planet that do not conform to the popular notions of day and night. In those places, there is no such thing (functionally) as day and night. Those “times” of facing toward the sun or away from it are called “summer” and “winter.”
Still, there are cyclic 24-hour variations during the two annual seasons of winter and summer in which the specific brightness of the sun varies. However, those variations are more like the variation between dusk and midnight. Further, in those regions, we could say that there are only two seasons and no such thing as day and night. Or, we could say that one annual cycle of seasons is equal to one cycle of the day and night “of the Gods.”

Along the equator of the earth, there are day and night, but no seasons. At the poles of the earth, there are two seasons, but no day and night.
So, day and night and the seasons are not times. They are relationships of place. Most fundamentally, they are words in language.

Look around you. Is it day or night where you are? What season are you at?
You are not in daytime or in winter. You are at daytime and at winter. They are places. Winter in the northern hemisphere of the earth is simultaneous with summer in the southern hemisphere of the earth. Day in America is night in Asia. There is no beginning and no end to day and night or seasons, except in language. Those relationships of place are eternal.
Now, I am not especially interested in any of that and you might not be either. However, there is a relevance to bringing all of that to attention.
The relevance is that you and I are conveniences in language. Just as day is not really a time, but a relationship, there is really no such thing as you or I, except as relationships in language.
Likewise, there is no hand without a larger organism to grow it. There is no earthling without an earth and sun to produce it. There is no sun at all… except in language.

Consider: what is the boundary of the sun? Is the sun far away in space? Have you ever said “I am going out in to the sun now?” Have you ever said “let’s close the curtains to keep the sun out of here?”
The sun is a formation in language. The sun does not exist outside of language. The sun does not have a discrete physical boundary or location.
We can say that all of the planets are “in the sun” or we can say that all of the planets revolve around the sun distant from it. Because “sun” is just a word, either use of the word is useful.
We can think of the sun as a place (distant from a particular observer) or as a process. We can refer to the sun as a measurable distinction in heat, or in light, or in various forms of invisible radiation such as infrared or ultraviolet, including radio waves, sound waves, microwaves, X-rays, and so on.

Ultimately, sun is a linguistic unit that we can say corresponds to various sensory capacities of various organs of various creatures. Plants have photovoltaic capacities to convert sunlight to energy. Of course, sunlight is already energy, so that is a rather weird thing to say, but again it is a useful construction in language.
The sun lives through it’s various parts, including various planets and the life of those planets (or on those planets). Of course, all of those words are also just categories in language.
I can consider myself a unit operating within an organ of the sun that is labeled “humanity” (as distinct from the organ or organic system called vegetation). Just as the brain has no functionality without the other nerves, there is no real functional boundary between my nerve cells, my organs, my organism, the earth on which my organism (and the linguistic subcategories of me) rely, and even the sun and the rest of the living universe.

Categorical distinctions in language are just linguistic conveniences. Seasons do not really begin and end. They are linguistic labels for distinct aspects of a single cycle. We could divide the annual cycle in to 4 seasons or 2 or any other number. The complete cycle itself is fundamental to seasons, not the particular number of verbal categories in to which we divide the cycle. The number of linguistic divisions is merely arbitrary.
We could divide the annual cycle in to 4 parts or in to 12. If we divide them in to 12 and call those months, it is silly to say that 12 is the right number of divisions and 4 is the wrong number of divisions. The divisions are just linguistic distinctions. They have no inherent reality except as linguistic units that correspond to a single cyclic pattern of time and of place.

More specifically, while the cycle of day and night is obvious from the equator, and the cycle of the seasons is obvious from temperate latitudes of the earth, neither of those is especially useful at the polar regions. So, people who traveled the entire planet (perhaps including the poles), may have found it useful to divide the annual cycle in to 12 units, roughly correlating to lunar cycles.
So, instead of using day or winter to mark the varying relationship between the sun and a particular place on the planet, the language of months (or zodiac signs) add a third element. Through the course of the year (which is just a pattern in language), the sun’s position relative to the earth can be measured against a set of star groups or constellations.
Alternatively, the annual cycle can be marked by the stellar backdrop at which the moon is full (directly opposite of the sun from the viewpoint of the earth). The moon makes twelve cycles of lunation phase each year, with one phase beginning in each of the twelve zodiac constellations.

However, one may ask, is it better to divide the annual cycle in 12 or in to 4 or what? Again, that question is actually a rather odd formation in language. Dividing something in to 4 linguistic units or 12 (or 365) is for different purposes. Each purpose has it’s own number of categorical divisions.
So, there are four equal parts of each year as well as 12 nearly equal parts as well as about 365 equal parts. All of those divisions in symbolic language are valid and useful.

And here is where it gets really interesting. To divide life in to individual units of linguistic identity (“I”) is one valid, useful operation in language. However, fundamentally, “I” does not exist any more than summer or June, which are just arbitrary words or units in language. “I” is just a categorical distinction, a relationship, a convenience.
Recognize the operation of language as “I,” which recognizing is the death of the mortal (which, technically, never really existed anyway except as a label in language). You are not really an isolated ego of linguistic alienation. You do not really exist.

Language is simply operating. Language claims the categories of humanity and non-humanity, left and right, mortal and immortal, “I” and “not I.” Just as “left” cannot die because left is just a unit in language, the same is true of sun and day and “I.”
The eternal cannot be born. The eternal is always here.
To recognize that you are the eternal movement of language can be called “the birth of the eternal.” Though a useful phrase in language, it is also nonsense, but so is “the death of the mortal,” there is no mortal outside of language.

Language is simply operating. The sun is not even shining. Language makes up that there is a sun and a witness of the sun and that it’s shining light and so then language says “I am over here and I see the sun shining, which is way over there.”
No! I am the sun.
Language declares the life of the sun. Language declares the life of the mortal. Without language, there is no sun and no mortal.

The sun does not give life to the earth and the earth does not give life to the earthling. Language divides one thing in to 4 or 12 or 365. Language may CLAIM that the sun gives life to the earth, but from where? Are the sun and the earth really isolated? Outside of language, what is the boundary between the sun and the earth?
What is the boundary between the front of a piece of paper, the back of that same piece of paper, and the edges of the paper? Front, back, and edges are just distinctions in language. Paper is also just a distinction in language.
When language notices the operating of language, that can be called the birth of the eternal, the death of the mortal, the creation of life, and the developing of language. Further, once language notices the operating of language, language may or may not stop claiming to be something other than language.

Language may say “I am worried about surviving and I am even more afraid of dying.” Language may say almost anything, though of course language cannot actually say anything, because if I know one thing for sure, I know that there is no such thing as language. There is just me, and I cannot be language becasue I say that I am not language. I am over here and language is way over there and I can notice it happening, like happening to me. Language controls me and victimizes me and tricks me in to pretending that there is a devil and that I am not language and that language does not even really exist.
By the way, if there is one thing that I know for sure, it is that God is omnipotent and the creator of all things, which is why God is terrified that the devil might defeat the influence of language and ruin everything. I mean, what if the devil makes a time machine and goes back in time and stops God from making up the devil? Then what?!?!

maturing beyond sinfulness

December 22, 2011
Sin = ANY error  (not just moral violations) or ANY act of misconduct (including even a failure to take responsible action)
3 types of sin (in the tradition of the ancient Hebrews): negligence, shame, and malice
You are soul. Soul is attention. Attention is the source of words. Words are your creation, not your source. Words can direct the attention of the young and impressionable, but, when the soul matures, attention is stabilized beyond words.
It is an error to believe in words. Belief in words is the root of all malice or ill will. In particular, people may identify themselves with or against certain words. That is the root of all psychological suffering (guilt, anxiety, depression, etc…).
That misidentification with linguistic labels is also the root of idolatry, which inovlves mistaking a word like “sacred” or “holy” with Divinity itself. When one is ignorant of Divinity and then labels as “holy” some mere word or phrase or idea or physical object or pattern, that is idolatry. The word Divinity is not what is symbolized by the word Divinity. Worshiping the word Divinity or even a particular scripture (including the US Constitution) is idolatry.
So, sin includes ignorance, negligence, shame malice, as well as the resulting actions. While some uses of the word sin refer in particular to actions, that usage diverges from the traditional Jewish (Hebrew) or Greek usages, as well as the words of the most famous religious figures such as Jesus, Buddha, and Isaiah.
Sin is not just a category of action, but also the source of some behavioral reaction. Consider this translation of a famous heretical prophet: “you have been told that to put someone to death is sin, but I say to you that even to be angry or hold ill will toward another is sin,” as well as other famous instructions: “Condemn not,” “Judge not,” “Let the one among you without sin cast the first stone” and of course “Forgive one another.”
Ill will requires language. Resentment does not arise from action or inaction, but from the language that we can use to ongoingly produce an experience out of our commentary and imagination relating to a memory. Resentment requires first creating shame from a past incident, then blaming someone else for our experience (while we mature in the capacity to accept the experience). In other words, our challenging experiences are part of our development.
The cultivating of antagonism through language is the root issue. From antagonism, many actions may arise, such as war, murder, rape, theft, fraud and so on. However, as Jesus said, it does not require the action of a murder or rape for antagonism or jealous lust to be a disturbance to one’s well-being.
First, we are totally ignorant. Then we begin to learn but still are developing discipline and thus are subject to negligence (which can also be viewed as any failure to be responsible for our reputation). Next we construct linguistic rationales to blame others for our results, which is malice or ill will or resentment, but also shame and pride. We create pride as a barrier to accepting responsibility for our overall results (by focusing on particular results while we ignore the rest of our results, of which we may be quite ashamed and quite hysterical if anyone attempts to direct attention at those results for which we may have been constructing a linguistic identifying or labeling as shameful). In other words, on the foundation of shame, we may develop malice toward those who fail to agree with us about our prides and shames.
That experience of malice might be called hell or purgatory. There may be access to “heaven” at a later stage.
These are the three basic stages of human socio-linguistic development: ignorance, shame, and malice. Next, however, is maturity. A comprehension of the role of language in the constructing of shame and malice allow for an attention to that linguistic process, the realization that inattentiveness or negligent language itself is what creates the malice, so the only remedy required is to cease the negligent language and remain attentive, and that is freedom from sin. That is spiritual rebirth.

%d bloggers like this: