Posts Tagged ‘label’

language directs the perception of reality

May 4, 2013

a correspondent wrote: Reality is always , without exception , defined by the observer !

JR replied:

What is “beyond” reality? We could say that in language we can categorize physical sensations/perceptions in contrast to labels (like there is the visual perception of the color in the photo above, but we can use several labels, like “pink, fuschia, bright, rosa” and so on- in English or other languages. Those labels are a distinct subset of reality from the other subset called “physical perceptions.” Multiple labels can all refer to the same physical perception.

Euler diagram showing A is a proper subset of ...

Euler diagram showing A is a proper subset of B and conversely B is a proper superset of A (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Only “within language” can we REFER to anything as being “beyond reality” or “unreal.” Such linguistic labels are completely arbitrary. We can say that memories are unreal or that the dream I had last night was unreal. Or, it was a real dream and a real memory- even if the memory was inaccurate or imprecise or imaginative or involved a “creative” reconstruction of the past, rather just raw facts without any filtering and re-organizing through the neurological program of translating some “memory” in to the words of a human language.

Words are not physical perceptions. I cannot talk about a memory without talking. The talking is not the memory.

Whenever we speak of the future, that is an act of creativity. whenever we speak of the past, that is also an act of creativity. In fact, speaking is a creative act.

Marketing professionals and PR propaganda lobbyist teams specifically create perceptions and beliefs in others. Salespeople are trained to do that. Musicians and artists are creating results or stimulating people in specific ways using communications that includes some non-linguistic elements.

So, using language is creative, directing the attention of others, directing the perception of others, directing the experience and behavior of others. Be grateful that you are clear about this… and notice that many are blind (symbolically), though they have eyes that see- and they have ears to hear, but yet they are deaf to the simplest implications of the spiritual poetry of the last several thousand years.

the correspondent replied again:

Hey J.R. , enjoyed your Post !

I like your insight in reagards to ” …only in language can we refer to anything being ” beyond reality ” or ” unreal ” .

What I find most impressive is your correct use of the words ” Real & Unreal ” , the Neo–Advaitists are in the process of destroying these words just as they’ve destroyed the word ” Enlightenment ” . 
Real = means to exist !
Unreal = means not to exist !
Plain and simple !

The words Real & Unreal have nothing whatsoever to do with whether anything is permanent or if it will last forever !

All Blessings

JR replied:

Hi, anyone can use any sequence of letters (any word) as a symbolic code to represent anything they want. In the field of economics, we use the term “real” in contrast to “nominal.” Real means after adjusting for inflation (fluctuations in the purchasing power of a currency), while nominal means “not real.” In other words, “real” means “precise/recalibrated” and nominal means “simple/imprecise/convenient/uncalibrated.” In another country that uses the Spanish language, the “real” (pronounced close to the word ree-al and probably derived from “royal” or “regal”) is the name of the legal currency in that jurisdiction of the “Holy Roman Empire” of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits). (And you probably do not know what I mean precisely because of the beliefs that the Jesuits have instilled in you through their systems of mind control AKA public schools and mass media).

Also, I might reply to Matt Kahn, the author of the original quote, that (genetics, epigenetics, and an individual’s) past experience “trains” perception, then current presumptions (in language… AKA beliefs) also “filter perception,” and all language directs perception and organizes it. When we recognize perceptions and expectations (and labels) as just perceptions and expectations (and labels), that does resolve confusion and frustration and so on.


Reality (Photo credit: Beatnic)


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 (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 (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)


why I do not believe in the existence of atheists

March 29, 2012

Below is a dialogue between myself and Mark Newbrook, “resident” Linguist of Skeptical Humanities (as of a few weeks ago):

Major levels of linguistic structure

Major levels of linguistic structure (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This dialogue emerged from my recent post linked below, with Mark’s original comment (not interspersed with my reply) posted at this link:

…It is claimed here that language means nothing and never will mean anything.
It is claimed where? Let’s imagine that someone did claim exactly what you stated. Wouldn’t it be self-evident as nonsense and thus inspire no further comment?
Given my deep appreciation for parody, let’s imagine that I may have said “language does not mean anything.” If I were to say something so obviously absurd, such as “this sentence is not an instance of language,” that might only be for the “philosophical” point of playfully demonstrating the absurdity of the issue.
Of course language has meaning. For instance, one obvious definition would be that language means “symbolic codes for directing the attention and behavior of other humans.”
However, what I may have written (and I also reserve the right to make innocent typographical mistakes), is that no particular symbolic code has any particular meaning. The same word can denote a few very different things or a multitude of not very related things, and that is just denotation- not even connotation.
The mere fact that there is such a thing as connotation (as well as “secret codes”) points to the fundamental reality of language: the meaning is not in the words themselves. The meaning is in the social context in which the words arise- not just in the context of syntax, but of non-linguistic social “cues.”
From sounds, language arises. However, the mere fact that it is possible NOT to be fluent in a particular language is prima facie evidence that the language itself inherently means nothing. Only in a particular social context can language arise, and the social context DEFINES the meaning of the language.
What do these shapes on this screen “mean” to my cat or my infant? Nothing at all.
What do these shapes on this screen “mean” to you? Something very specific!
Language is amazing. In fact, it is so amazing that I titled this video that:
Now, is this supposed to be news to linguists or anyone else? Of course not. It is self-evident. Everyone knows from direct experience that language is amazing and that social contexts define the meaning of language, like “I love you” can be spoken with several different tones that all communicate different WAYS OF RELATING, such as the soothing “oh, sweetie, I love you” and the apologetic “Really, I love you” and the defensive “hey, I love you, alright?” and the longing, manipulative “but, but…. I love you!”
Actually, it is all manipulative. Language is manipulating. That is what it is for- at least in the broad sense of manipulating as influencing or re-organziing.
So, I state the obvious not to inform you of something new, but to establish a particular context or way of relating.  Now, let’s explore from here together, given that what we have been doing all along is self-evidently nothing more than that.
English Language and Linguistics

English Language and Linguistics (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  Subject to the major issues regarding how the term nothing is being used here, this viewpoint is, of course, contrary to prevailing opinion both popular and academic (the latter including both linguists and philosophers), and thus needs to be justified at this point. Indeed, it might be suggested that if language ‘means nothing’ it cannot itself be used to say anything useful.  And, while – as is proclaimed here (albeit in somewhat strange wording) – language can be seen as ‘a sequence of codes for the directing of attention’, it is generally taken as obvious that language has other functions and aspects in addition to this.
Such as? I challenge you to name one instance of language that is not directing my attention to whatever alleged instance of language you might name.
You could say that language is the moving of attention or the motion of intelligence or the activity of consciousness, but all that would be a trivial variation on the other statement. You can say that “unconscious linguistic events” do not qualify as “directing attention,” but that is limiting the verb “directing” to its transitive case only, which is not the only possible meaning.
Within language, it is accepted here that different words and letters are distinct.  (The use of the term letters seems to betray a folk-linguistic starting-point; a writer with knowledge of linguistics would instead talk here primarily of phonemes.)
…perhaps unless writing for an audience that may lack a knowledge of the formal lexicon of non-folk linguistics. Whatever, though…. Or are you unplayfully applying the standards of a academic linguistics journal to a non-academic linguistics journal internet blog entry?
  But these words and letters are all seen as variations on ‘nothing’ (this raises the above-mentioned issues regarding this term); and, while they do possess meaning (this apparently contradicts what is said earlier), this supposedly arises only ‘through perception’. Concepts are identified as ‘linguistic formations’ arising ‘out of nothing’, which is ‘the capacity for linguistic formations to simply happen by themselves’.  Like individual words and ‘letters’, each specific language is distinct, being seen as ‘a specific set of distinct, isolated formations’ – and is ‘finite’, in contrast with ‘language itself’ which is ‘infinite’; it is not clear how the terms finite and especially infinite are to be understood here.  And boundaries between languages are, again, seen as different manifestations of ‘nothing’.  I find the conceptualising obscure at this point, and it is difficult to comment helpfully.
What if all concepts are inherently obscure and only so precise? What if the spectrum ranging between precision and obscurity is one which language can never escape?
Further, returning to the issue of language as a utilitarian (or “useful”) phenomenon, what if directing attention does not require any more precision than actually “required?” What if, upon the fulfillment of whatever amount of clarity is deemed subjectively “enough,” the activity of language simply ceases?
I add here brief comments on some specific points in later sections of the material.‘One language evolves into another, with perhaps an entire family of languages being similar to each other’While essentially ‘along the right lines’, this claim apparently mixes diachronic and synchronic points and needs to be clarified.  (The term evolve is also contentious here.)
I admit that in the case in point, I was just synchronicalizing mixtures of diachronology. Okay, I might have just made up those words, but apparently you made up synchronic and diachronic first before I did because, when I see those words, I instantly recognize that they are synonyms for harmeronomic diaxophosphate, by which I mean slightly unfamilair to me.

linguistics (Photo credit: quinn.anya)

‘Languages mix and influence each other.  Languages may be called distinct, but the boundaries between them shift’Although the reference to shifting boundaries is obscurely expressed and perhaps mis-conceptualised, these general points are, of course, very familiar to linguists. 
This reminds me again of my clearly stated disclaimer at the beginning of the article: “this is written exclusively to professional full-time linguists, both of them.”
‘If the boundaries shift, then the boundaries are arbitrary. In fact, the alleged boundaries between various languages are alive, existing only through the declaration of language’This appears obscure.  There may be a good (if familiar) point in the former of these two sentences, though it needs to be much more clearly expressed; but the second sentence, as expressed, is very strange (what do alive and declaration mean here?).
Alive means changing or evolving. And that was a great question: what do these words actually MEAN?
My analogy is this: how many colors are there. Are there exactly 6 colors, as any 2 year old can tell you? Or, are there actually 24 different colors, as anyone 4 year old with the big yellow box can tell you? Or, are there any number of colors depending on however many distinct labels one chooses to categorize?
Language is categorizing. How many languages are there? 214? 32,915? That is a trivial question. Fundamentally, there is one language which is language itself.
The most famous poets of human history, such as Lao Tzu and Buddha and Abraham, have referenced the singularity of that universal meta-language by such labels as Logos, Tao, and even The Heavenly Father, through which “the world of subjective experience” is “created” by what method: speech!
Name one word that is not fundamentally just a word. Yahweh? YHWH? Jehovah?
No, those are all words, too- though those “words” are all references to something “subtler than all other concepts.” Linguists who do not comprehend “metaphysics” may be liars, insofar as metaphysics and linguistics could be two labels for the same- but wait, that simply could not be possible to have two labels or appellations or names or titles for the exact same pattern, right?
What if when ignorant translators translate some ancient Sanskrit phrase in to the English words “name and form” and then call it “Buddhist mystical metaphysics,” that is an ENTIRELY ARBITRARY way of relating to those Sanskrit terms, though of course an entirely valid way of interpreting them or labeling them or translating them or relating to them? Was the Buddha a linguist or not? Well, if the English word “linguist” had not been invented by the time of his life, then how could he have been a linguist? Maybe he is finally now a linguist, but only became a linguist within the last few sentences- not that I care, by the way- but that brings me back to the earlier question raised by our academic correspondent of what is meant by declaration: by declaration, I mean all instances of language, as in all instances of the directing of attention, including gestures or then again possibly not… 😉
Anyway, there was no such thing as a linguist until someone created the term “linguist” and then declared self-authoritatively themselves to be the apt target of such a label. “Linguist” is a totally arbitrary label like all labels of symbolic code, but many “academic” linguists may or may not pretend otherwise, even though they do not deny the self-evidence of any of it.
Before there was a linguist, there was language. Linguist is just an instance of language, as is “The Buddha” and “metaphysics” and “spiritual poetry” and “incurable diaxyphosphatitis.”
I am the author of language. Why? Because I said so.
Is it even true, though? Well, declarations in language are never exactly TRUE. They are just more or less USEFUL. Precision (aka “TRUTH”) is a spectrum invented in language and language never can get all the way to the end of a spectrum that only exists as a linguistic concept.
In other words, precision is just a relative term. In fact, because precision is just a relative term, all terms are just relative terms. Truth is just a relative term. Language is just a relative term. “Absolute” is, ironically, just a relative term.
In the ancient Hindu tradition of Advaita (“non-dualism”), the fundamental relativity of all terms of linguistic relating is relatively recognized as just one way of relating to the absolute relativity of all language, except of course for the word “joke,” which is actually not a word at all. 😉
‘Is Creole [= a particular creole language? (MN)] a language? Clearly it is entirely composed of other languages.  [Not necessarily the case. (MN)]  However, it is also not a dialect of any particular language. What is it? It is whatever it is called!’It is not clear that there is a genuine issue here regarding creoles as such.  There are relevant definitional-cum-philosophical issues at a more general level concerning the individuation of languages, the ‘language’-‘dialect’ distinction, etc.; but these are not rehearsed here.
Labelification is individuation. That was my point.
The fact is that “languages” is just a label and so is “dialects.” You can’t get away from the fact that all words are just symbolic categorical linguistic conceptualizations of individuation or division or duality. Beyond language is the non-duality called “nothing” by certain Buddhists, about which there is really not a lot that can be said, but then again, all language is an expression of that nothing and a labeling of that nothing and a directing of that nothing.
While quite contradictory, language is inherently contradictory. Or then again, maybe not. However, there either are or are not any instances of contra-diction except only in language. If language is not inherently contradictory, fine, then I take it back and contradict myself as if to demonstrate the point: language gives rise to the possibility of contradiction, not that it is at all important to point this out.
It may simply be a lot of fun. But that could be important, too, right?

‘Is there such a thing as “I” (“me”)? In many languages there is such a thing as “I” or similar concepts to the concept of “I.” However, “I” is fundamentally a concept, a construct of language, merely a thing. “I” is not itself fundamental (which is the ancient teaching called anatma).’

There, of course, are words meaning ‘I’ in all languages.  But it is not clear how significant linguistic facts of this kind might be for philosophical issues regarding the reality or otherwise of persons; as I have argued elsewhere, it is probably dangerous in a philosophical context to focus too heavily upon the ways in which ideas are expressed in specific languages – although this approach is common enough in mainstream ‘analytical’ philosophy.

What do you mean by the “reality or otherwise?” What are you talking about in reference to something besides reality?
“Person” is a real WORD. Isn’t that enough? Is it so dangerous for me to just come out and say what is self-evident? Next thing you know you are going to launch in to some obscure poetry about “nothing.” That would be very diaxyphoshate of you, sir!
 ‘Language is more fundamental than “I,” and nothing is more fundamental than language.’It is not clear what fundamental means here, or what this claim amounts to.


The same source presents  This material again deals with some linguistic issues, this time in the context of an essentially religious discussion involving claims regarding souls, sin, etc.  Linguistics, as an empirical discipline, cannot be grounded in specific theological viewpoints; and as an atheist I would prefer not to engage in this context in discussion which assumes a religious stance that I do not share.

“Religion” is just a category of language. If you deny the existence of that particular category of language, that is entirely alright with me.
As a worshiper of Santa Claus, I would just like to state for the record, your honor, that there is no such thing as mythology or poetry or humor. Also, I do not believe in atheists. There is simply no such thing, by which I mean no such word.
 However: it is undoubtedly true, as is claimed here, that it is a conceptual error to mistake a piece of language, such as a word, for the item in the non-linguistic world to which it refers.  Like the well-known picture of a pipe by Magritte, the word pipe is not itself a pipe.  Some such conceptual errors are potentially damaging.  But the further claim that ‘belief in words is the root of all malice or ill will’ is not adequately defended and appears vastly overstated.
I completely agree. I furthermore assert that the hypocritical idiot who made such a ridiculously dramatic accusation was entirely precise in an “absolute truth” kind of way. Forthwith, the diachronic subjective experiential pattern of “malice” is completely unrelated to words, which are just ways of relating, and therefore do not exist, at least not in the absolute sense of the word. I arrest my case.
More credentials of Mark:

Brahman asks: “who is this I?”

March 28, 2012
In ancient Latin, persona meant "mask.&qu...
Brahman by any other name is still the nameless – Image via Wikipedia

who wrote this? who reads it?

what could prevent me from being as I am?

what could disturb me from being as I am?

what could protect me from being as I am?

what could distract me from being as I am?

what could teach me to be as I am?

what could support me in being as I am?

what could help me to be as I am?

what could force me to be as I am?

Being is unconditional.

Being is unpremeditated.

Being is not created.

Being is not a phase or a stage.

Being is unpreventable.

Being is without beginning or end.

Being is beyond true or false.

Being is beyond self as a concept.

Being is impersonal.

Being is universal.

Being does not ask approval.

Being does not need validation.


a reply:

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Angelina Alire wrote:

Angelina understands this as she reads it but can only attempt to imagine what it is to dissolve in to pure being. She asks to no one in particular, “What does one do with the ability to create a personality and play this “reality” when one has disolved their person, when one has died to self?” Things that make you go, “Hmmmmm“. Thanks for sharing, love.

Here is one possible reply:

Hi, God. Thank you for pretending to be a dumbass and asking stupid questions so that I have something to do.

This all reminds me of the saying “turn off the lightswitch and wait for the light to dissolve” or “turn off the video projector and then wait for the images to dissolve.” Remember, language is not the source of attention or intelligence, but just a form of intelligence or the moving of attention.

The “one” that would “dissolve their person in to pure being” is just a persona. Pure being can create personas and the instant that pure being does not create any persona, there is no persona (personal identifying) created, which means persona is not present… though pure being can make up any persona whenever wherever however.

So, there is nothing to dissolve over time. The very thought of “something that is fundamental and would be dissolving over time” is a sustaining of something that has no inherent stability.

The nature of the persona is that it is phenomenal, as in “not inherently real, temporary. momentary, incidental, trivial.” So, we do not say “turn off the lightswitch and wait for the light to dissolve” or “turn off the video projector and then wait for the images to dissolve.” The instant that pure being does not actively generate persona, pure being remains as it always is.

Persona does not diminish or dissolve pure being. Pure being can create any persona as well as the experience or identifying of “I am only this or that particular persona.” Or, pure being can notice linguistic identifying as just linguistic identifying.

It is like putting a new label on a jar of pickles and then saying that the new label has changed the contents of the jar. The labeling (the process of identifying) cannot change the contents of the jar or the jar itself. Adding pickles or removing them does not change the jar itself either.

However, pure being can pretend that an empty jar with a label that says pickles needs time for the pickles that were never in it to dissolve once the label is removed. Add a label or remove a label. The being is the one doing it all.

first Published on: Aug 2, 2011

Related articles

the wrong way to label something “the wrong way”

March 17, 2012

wrong way

First, I do not know who decided to put a “w” in the front of the word “rong.” The proper spelling should be “rong,” not “wrong.”

Anyway, I saw this on facebook today:

Which is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard so far in my life, though I am relatively young and I am planning to live forever, so I don’t  want to be over-dramatic about how stupid the above quote is supposed to be.

Anyway, after I read it, then I made this audio, in which I eventually say all of the words below the video.

pattern of how it is supposed to be is actually just a pattern of how it is supposed to be. How we relate to life when life does not fit a particular pattern can include “excuse me, but something is wrong” and “life is screwed up” and “life is screwing up my life” and “my life is getting screwed up by this particular linguistic pattern about how life is supposed to be.” That is obviously very screwed up and clearly there is nothing we can do about that pattern of “here is what is not supposed to be screwing up my life, but it is in fact screwing up my life,” which is actually just another pattern of language. Consider that the key to life is finding out what screws us up the most. Or, instead, consider that we are supposed to learn linguistic patterns and then we are supposed to presume that those patterns are the only valid ones and then, if we ever find find out that those patterns might not be the only valid ones, we are supposed to make ourselves wrong for presuming that those patterns are the only valid ones. We should not have been so naive and innocent and presumptive. It was wrong. So, how do we fix “making ourselves wrong?” We do not fix it. We just continue it or we stop doing it.

for those who have the ears to hear

March 16, 2012

paper (Photo credit: tray)

now start as you are, then notice how you focus- focus on the sound, then begin to notice
how the words come from sounds, but sounds don’t come from words
the sounds come first, and words are made out of them
a dog can hear the sounds, but a deaf man can never hear these words
like dog and sound and deaf and clever
if a blind man ever held a map would he know what it was? he might say it is just some paper and that would be his label
and he might never look beyond the first label that he put over the map that he thought was just some worthless piece of paper
I might say hey I know what it’s a map of and he might say no, it’s just a paper you crazy man
then I might say yes it’s just a worthless piece of paper, so I’ll trade it with you for a paper napkin to dry your hands
and that is how I got this map to the secret treasure buried underneath the words of a precious
label that a dog overheard and interpreted as exactly what it’s labeled not how it functions
so once there was a blind man that couldn’t see through his eyelids
now let those who have the ears to hear open up their closed minds
and notice how these sounds guide your focus through the power of the words
of an invisible map that is really just a worthless piece of paper according to the sounds reported by a deaf man

Bible Search Results 1 – 20 of about 27 for “ears to hear”. Search took 0.2 seconds.

Mark 4:9 Then Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Then Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” … 
// – 15k

Luke 14:35 It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile 

 thrown out. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” … 
// – 16k

Deuteronomy 29:4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind 

 But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to
understand or eyes to see or ears to hear
// – 15k

Mark 4:23 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” … 
// – 15k

Ezekiel 12:2 “Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people 

“Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but
do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people. 
// – 16k

Matthew 11:15 He who has ears, let him hear.

 Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand! 
He who has ears to hear, let him hear. 
// – 15k

Luke 8:8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up and 

 It came up and yielded a crop, a hundred times more than was sown.” When he said
this, he called out, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear 
// – 17k

Matthew 13:9 He who has ears, let him hear.”

 Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.” … 
// – 15k

Matthew 13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the 

 their Father’s Kingdom. Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand! 
of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. 
// – 16k

Mark 7:16

 “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” … 
// – 14k

Romans 11:8 as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor 

 just as it is written, “GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO
// – 17k

Jeremiah 9:20 Now, O women, hear the word of the LORD; open your 

 Listen to the word of the LORD, you women, and open your ears to hear his words.
Teach your daughters how to cry. Teach your neighbors funeral songs. 
// – 16k

Ezekiel 24:26 on that day a fugitive will come to tell you the 

 that in that day he that escapeth shall come unto thee, to cause thine
ears to hear it?  one to thee. To cause the ears to hear
// – 15k

Jeremiah 25:4 And though the LORD has sent all his servants the 

 You have neither listened nor inclined your ears to hear, although the LORD
persistently sent to you all his servants the prophets 
// – 16k

Revelation 2:7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit 

 “Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and understand what
he is saying to the churches. To everyone who is victorious 
// – 18k

Revelation 2:29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit 

 “Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and
understand what he is saying to the churches. 
// – 16k

Revelation 3:22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit 

 “Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and understand what he is 
// – 16k

Revelation 3:6 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit 

 “Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and
understand what he is saying to the churches. 
// – 16k

Revelation 3:13 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit 

 “Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and
understand what he is saying to the churches. 
// – 16k

Revelation 2:11 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit 

 “Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and understand what
he is saying to the churches. Whoever is victorious will 
// – 17k

song: “a new label” (the secret of language)

January 1, 2012
a new label (the secret of language)
My words are law
as long as you obey them
My name is God
but you can call me Satan
I tell you what should be
I train you in the art of hating
I may say it’s all for you
but maybe I am making
out like a bandit
as in pirate
as in banking
cartel empire monopoly
mafia syndicate racketeering
politician drama mythology
one party media propaganda machine
It’s not crazy talk
unless you don’t know the code
Can you speak Jabberwock?
If not, then don’t interpret it as broken
My dog only hears noise
when you speak in fluent Latin
Letters are just shapes
until you learn the whole alphabet
I know the secret
you have been trained does not exist
But I can’t tell you
Till you stop resisting and just listen
to the sounds
before you make them in to words
what do they mean
is it gibberish, brilliant, or absurd
Well you won’t know until you get it
and you won’t get it till you wake
up to the power of the language in the brain
is it a mystery
or is it confusing
if I use words
beyond your fluency
ignorance is not confusion
what is confusion
is there even really such a thing?
how would you know?
compared to what?
are you only dreaming
that you’re just a front
a facade, a fake, a layer of an onion
claiming to be the whole enchilada
is it the opposite: a giant pretending to be small
are you God playing the victim of your shadow on the wall
people should not be evil
as in powerful
so if someone shows power
then we must hate them
why must we hate them
because I said so
but what difference does that make
hell, I don’t know
I hate the politicians
cause they taught me how to hate
I blame the propagandists
cause they told me not to blame
Diagnosis is hypnosis
a new label refills the jar
my excuses are the juiciest
my problems are so hard
I can’t beat the system
because I think I should
I won’t give up suffering
feeling bad looks too good
I caught hypochondria
and it is incurable
I got an immune system
but it isn’t working
it’s coughing and sneezing
I don’t know what is wrong
it’s vomiting and wheezing
we should probably turn it off
If people should not be powerful, that includes me
If people should not be anything, that includes me
So sacrifice your limits at the risk of being free
is your only limit idolatry
the false gods you worship so loyally
is it a church, teacher or ideology
who taught it to you
or was it written on your heart directly by God
and is that who you are certain that you are not
so you need a mediator, priest or courier
Jesus said:
“I am the gate” and “I am the way
the truth and the life,” but what does that mean?
Yes, it’s translated,
but the point is not going through another,
not using good works nor one certain method
Straight to God, directly, no intermediary
no intercessor, for “I am the truth” already
but what say you?
do you deny that there is a light within you
or is there only the light
and the identity in language is just a shadow?

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work…. You will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.”

My words are law
as long as you obey them
My name is God
but you can call me Satan
Is diagnosis hypnosis
does a new label really refill the jar
or are the contents still the same
with or without a new label made of thought?

%d bloggers like this: