Posts Tagged ‘labeling’

the most essential distinction: being content or being contentious

April 6, 2012

Now, how I am is serene, at ease, at peace, calm, steady, empty, open, pure, content. Perfectly content, I am the witnessing of all perceiving, including the perceptions of all contending and all contentiousness and all contention.

I am the witnessing of the operating of language. I am witness to the contrast between being content and being contentious. However, to say “being contentious” is actually a new labeling of some other distinct activity or process as the contentious activity or process or behavior. The new labeling of something else as contentious is itself a distinct activity or process- the process of labeling. I can witness the arising of the activity of labeling in language, such as the labeling of “contending” and “contentiousness” and contention” and “being content” and “I” and “serene” and so on.
Contending is something that I can witness. Contending is also something that I can do.
How can I do the activity of contending? I can label something as contending or contentious or contention. That labeling of something as contending or contentious or contention could be contrasted with me as the one who claims to be content. However, without the operating of language, is there a labeling of a someone who claims to be content in contrast to some process of contending, some activity of contention, some pattern of contentiousness, some claiming of discontent.
Labeling of different parts of a neuron

Labeling of different parts of a neuron (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Witnessing the operating of language, I am contrasting the labeling of content with the labeling of discontent and contentiousness and contending. When the operating of language is present as the labeling of something as contentious, is there also an operating of language present as the labeling of someone who simply is serene and content?

When the language of contentiousness is present, is there also a contending against that language of contentiousness? Is there a process of claiming to be someone who is content in contrast to the something which is labeled as the contentiousness or the contending?
When I am simply being content, I can be content even with contentiousness. The operating of the language of contentiousness can be or not, and, either way, no one even needs to be claimed as being the one who is content with any of that or not.
When the witnessing of the operating of language is happening without any additional identifying of someone who exists in contrast to that observed operating of language, then perhaps all that is happening is that operating of language. However, when the witnessing of the operating of language is happening including a specific additional distinct identifying of a someone who exists and who labels their existence or being in a stark contrast to a contentiousness that is labeled as external to them, that is still just the operating of language.
Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Co...

Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Cox for Congress (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, to paraphrase an ancient Zen koan, consider that when a tree falls in a remote, isolated, abandoned forest, but there is no one there to ask whether or not a tree has fallen, then all that has been happening in the asking of the question is the operating of what? Now, what am I except for the operating of language? Now, the operating of language is serene, at ease, at peace, calm, steady, empty, open, pure, content, contentious, contending, contrasting, labeling, operating, witnessing, simply being.

Be still and know the kingdom of heaven within. Simply remain as you are already.
By the way, faith is the fruit of being in heaven already. Striving to get faith as well as striving to be perceived as having faith or as being faithful is the height of agonizing and vanity and idolatry and heresy and blasphemy. Striving is also required in order to be clear about the absence of the behavior of striving.
the devil's pitchfork?

the devil’s pitchfork?

Negativity is labeling ANYTHING “negative”

March 29, 2012

Negativity is labeling ANYTHING “negative.”

Icon for Template:Cognitive-psych-stub illustr...

Icon for Template:Cognitive-psych-stub illustrating classic Stroop test. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There may be a time for thinking positive thoughts, but there is a time for many other things as well, just as there are infinite ways to let someone know of love- even the raising of walls as levies, the abandoning of ships, the lifting of cars off of toddlers by 90 pound grandmothers, and perhaps even- given that parent history of … such things- the building and dropping of bombs. AS a former pacifist, that is an odd thing to write, but isn’t interesting how many negative thoughts it takes to declare something negative. What is negative about a lightning bolt, a hurricane, or a flood? What is negative about an explosion- whether of laughter or of popcorn in the microwave?

Consider that people who believe in negative things are people who are negative. How many infants do you know that believe that something around half of life is negative? How many unhappy people do you know that do not spend much of their life condemning much of their life- and the rest of life which they may not claim as their own: “no, that is the activity of the devil, of the negative people, of what should not be!”

a couple related blogs of mine:


Negate Negativity

Negate Negativity (Photo credit: cybertoad)

Related articles
Mookaite (811) 1
Mookaite (811) 1 (Photo credit: Tjflex2)
positive thinking:
English: Lines of electric strain between posi...
Image via Wikipedia
Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Co...

Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Cox for Congress (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The symbol of the Holy Trinity

February 19, 2012


Detail - Glory of the New Born Christ in prese...

Image via Wikipedia

English: a Venn diagram-like symbol for the Ch...

Image via Wikipedia

This is the presence of the operating of language. This is also the presence of the noticing of the operating of language. In fact, even the word “noticing” is itself the operating of language. There is no word that is not the operating of language. The word presence is the operating of language, too. The words “the operating of language” are of course also the operating of language.

The operating of language includes every instance of labeling. To reference the noticing of any particular thing is to reference the labeling of a particular thing in language. Thus, noticing something and labeling something are both the operating of language. What something can be noticed without labeling it?

Of course, the presence of noticing is also vast. The presence of noticing can include the presence of the noticing of a perceiving that is distinct from the presence of labeling, such as a development that does not quite fit any particular label already operating in language. In other words, there can be the presence of noticing a perceiving of the distinction between perceiving and labeling.

Noticing and perceiving are basically two labels for the same thing. Every noticing is also a perceiving. However, the noticing of the operating of language can begin and end, like when there is the noticing of a movement or a shape or an unfamiliar sound. The presence of noticing remains with or without the operating of language.

The presence of breathing is the noticing of breathing. That is, noticing always involves a presence. There is no noticing of an absence. There is only the noticing of distinction among various forms of presence.

There can be the noticing of the operating of language in contrast to the noticing of other developments, such as the hearing of sounds or the seeing of light and colors and shapes. While the operating of language may involve the hearing of sounds and even the seeing of symbolic shapes such as letters, there are other instances of the hearing of sounds and seeing of shapes distinct from the symbolic sounds and symbolic shapes of language.

There can be the noticing of both the actual sound of an “o” sound as well as the labeling of that sound specifically as an “o” sound. There could also be the presence of the noticing of the “o” sound as coming from the howling of the wind or from the vocalizing of an animal such as a human or from the hum of a vibrating bowl or from the blowing of a musical instrument like a horn.

So presence itself is eternal and the noticing of various temporary distinctions contrasts with the continuity of presence itself. When noticing the distinction between a familiar sound that is automatically labeled in language and an unfamiliar sound, noticing is present.

So, there are three distinctions: the noticing of a sound, the noticing of the labeling of a sound, and the noticing of the distinction between the sound itself and the labeling of the sound in language. Further, there is a fourth noticing that each of those distinct instances of noticing are all the presence of noticing.

In order to notice the distinction in language of “pure noticing,” other forms of the noticing of distinctions are recognized and labeled in language. There can be the noticing of sound, the noticing of labeling, and the noticing of the distinction between the noticing of sound and the noticing of labeling.

Those three are all the noticing of a particular presence. None of those three are the noticing of the presence of noticing itself.

So, the noticing of sound is first. It is like the elder in the family of noticing. The noticing of sound can be labeled “the father.”

Next comes the noticing of labeling. It is like the child of the elder in the family of noticing. When the noticing of sound is labeled as “the father,” that labeling can be noticed as “the son.”

Further, the distinction between the noticing of sound and the noticing of labeling can be called the distinguishing of noticing itself. Noticing sound is not noticing labeling and noticing labeling is not noticing sound. That is the noticing of distinction. Not only are there distinct sounds that can be noticed, as well as distinct labels in language, but the categorical distinction between the label “all labels” and the label “all sounds.”

Noticing multiple forms of noticing is still the presence of noticing. This presence of noticing may also be labeled the spirit of noticing or the spiritual presence of noticing the similarity of all instances of noticing as instances of noticing. This noticing can be labeled “the Holy Spirit.”

So, here are these three distinct forms of noticing: the noticing of a perceiving such a sound, as in “the symbolic Father,” then the noticing of the labeling of distinct perceivings in language, as in “the symbolic Son,” then the noticing of labeling itself as in the noticing of the symbolic labels of language or the noticing of the operating of language, as in “the Holy Spirit” or “Logos.”

All of these three distinct instances of noticing are all noticing. The noticing that all instances of noticing are all noticing is the recognition that the label “noticing” is just another symbol in language.

If noticing were compared to a tree, we could say that the tree had several branches: the branch of noticing sound, the branch of noticing labeling, and the branch of noticing the distinction between noticing labeling and noticing sound, which is also the noticing of noticing itself. All three of those branches of noticing are instances of noticing.

Notice that the three distinct branches of a single vine are united as branches of the same vine. We could label three distinct branches of a symbolic tree with the symbolic labels of “The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost).” All three of those symbols in language would merely be symbols in language. Each of the three branches of a tree would merely be a branch of a single vine.

The noticing any group of contrasting distinctions in language is presence of noticing. Notice the presence of noticing.

The noticing of labeling itself is the presence of noticing. There is no labeling that is not labeling. There is no branch of a vine that is not a branch of a vine. There is no noticing that is not the presence of noticing.

The noticing of the linguistic symbol of Heavenly Father is noticing. The noticing of the linguistic symbol of Divine Son is noticing. The noticing of the linguistic symbol of Holy Spirit is noticing.

The noticing of the linguistic symbol of the Holy Trinity is distinct from noticing any of the three symbols of that Trinity. The noticing of the linguistic symbol of the Holy Trinity is the presence of the noticing of linguistic symbolism. All instances of labeling are symbolic.

The noticing of the sound “o” is not the noticing of the labeling of that sound as a letter. When labeling a sound as also a letter, that is making the sound itself in to a symbol, in to an instance of language.

Language is the realm of the divine or the symbolic. Language is symbolic. Language is divine. Symbolism is divine.

The noticing of noticing itself is distinct from the noticing of any other particular noticing. All instances of noticing are noticing.

Notice the presence of the operating of language. Notice the presence of any of the various contrasting symbolic labels in language. Notice the labeling of the inclusive category of noticing.

Which symbol is not a symbol? Which branch of a tree is not equally a branch of a tree?

Which is the most important linguistic symbol in the Holy Trinity: the symbol of the Heavenly Father, the symbol of the Holy Son, or the symbol of the Holy Spirit or Ghost or the Presence of the noticing of noticing itself? Is not each symbol equally symbolic?

The Holy Trinity is itself just a fourth symbol in language (distinct from the other three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). There is no label in language that is not just a symbolic operating of language. Every symbolic label in language is the presence of the operating of language.
In language, there is also a symbolic category possible that can be called “anything that is not the operating of symbolic language.” Of course, that alleged “thing beyond language” may be a joke, an instance of silly non-sense, a construction in language that is useful for distinguishing the all-inclusiveness of language itself.

What is beyond language? Name one thing that is beyond language, if you can. By the way, notice that the labeling of the presence of an isolated noticing as “mine” or “not mine” may be entirely symbolic.

When breathing is noticed and labeled as breathing, that is distinct from labeling the breathing as mine or not mine. “Mine” is a symbolic labeling of the operating of language.

Name one thing that is beyond the operating of language. Name one thing that is not a symbolic label.

Name one name that is not the operating of naming. Label one label that is not the operating of labeling. Notice one noticing that is not the operating of noticing.

Even “Mine” and “my” and “me” and “I” are just symbolic operatings of language. They are namings, labelings, and noticings. All namings, all labelings, and all noticings are the operating of language.

Name one word that is not the operating of language. Name one instance of the operating of language that is not the operating of language.

Even foreign words, such as “anatma” and “advaita” are still words even without the recognizing of those patterns as symbolic patterns of language. Are those words still words even when not recognized as words or when no definition or comprehension of those words are present?

What is the difference between a round shape of a circle and the shape of the letter “o”? Perhaps it is the same difference between six and half a dozen: the difference is purely linguistic, purely symbolic, purely arbitrary.

Below are two artistic depictions of the “Holy Trinity.” One is called the Trimurti of Hinduism: Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva (AKA Shiva). It is several thousand years older than the other depiction, which is Roman and would be labeled in Latin rather than Sanskrit (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) or English (Heavenly Father, Divine Son, and Holy Spirit).

Notice that the operating of language includes all instances of the operating of language. Are there three distinct symbolic trinities (Sanskrit, Hebrew, Latin, and English) or only one trinity but three different languages for labeling it?

Temple carving at Hoysaleswara temple represen...

Image via Wikipedia

cuadro que representa a la Trinidad (santuario...

Image via Wikipedia


what is the devil?

January 6, 2012
  • English: President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, fro...

    Image via Wikipedia


    before 900;
    Middle English devel, Old English dēofol  < Late Latin dia-bolus  < Greek diá-bolos
    to assault someone’s character, slander, accuse, 
    (to vilify, to shame, to relate to from a spirit of contempt)
    Of the various categories of human action, one can label some bad or evil or any one of many labels that may be more or less extreme in their connotations. You may even think that the acts themselves are inherently evil or good or diabolical or bad or pure or heroic, which is exactly what you have been trained to do. However, occasionally people may disagree or even change their perception as to whether a particular event was heroic or evil or what.
    I know what the root of the word devil is, as in dia-bolos (shown above). I know what it means (shown above).
    It is a reference to labeling something bad as if that thing is inherently bad, rather than recognizing the labeling as one valid way of relating to something. It is a very, very simple linguistic issue- elementary, fundamental, self-evident, but perhaps only rarely recognized.

    So, when politicians demonize other politicians (the “enemy”), that may be intentional propaganda or it may be sincere rage. In the case of the US, villification of the alleged threat posed by the Native Americans has been followed by vilification of the British, the French, the Spanish, the Cubans, the Japanese, the Germans, the Soviets, and various other former allies throughout the world. Basically, as George Orwell pointed out in his book 1984, all of our greatest enemies were our prior allies (and perhaps will be again soon). By “ours,” George Orwell of course implied “whoever and wherever you are.”
    In the case of Saddam Hussein, the propagandists of the US presented justifications of pre-emptive strikes by condemning his use of chemical weapons against civilian populations in the 1980s. The US supplied those weapons and did not seem to condemn the use of them at the time, nor any of the many uses of chemical weapons by the US against civilians, such as the 3 million Vietnamese civilians allegedly killed by the US military in about 10 years, many through Agent Orange and other chemical weapons.
    So, is it demonizing to suddenly condemn something, especially while one is hypocritically doing the same thing? Yes, that would be demonizing.
    Let’s look at the root of the word vilify:
    15th century, Latin: vilificare
    to make worthless to make vile, to speak evil of, to speak ill of, to slander, to defame
    In other words, vilifying or demonizing is to cultivate ill will or contempt. We might even call it to curse, as in a type of black magic.
    What does the root of the word vile mean? “Common.”
    So, propaganda may be used to justify certain actions by condemning other actions. If the action condemned and the action justified are essentially the same action, that is still propaganda.
    In many traditional forms of spiritual practice, there are warnings about the spirit of contempt or the spirit of the devil. In some cases, people may even be trained to have contempt for contempt or to condemn condemnation or to vilify vilification. However, to be ware of or be aware of vilification is actually the core teaching.
    In the Christian New Testament, is the teaching to vilify vilification or to remove the blind rage from one’s own perspective before trying to remove the blind rage from someone else’s point of view? Is the teaching to throw stones of blind rage at those who throw stones… or to question the blind rage that might lead to throwing stones?
    While it may be popular to condemn the US government for propaganda, especially within certain subcultures of the US, which government in the last several thousand years has not consistently used propaganda? Given that the US has been the dominant imperialist operation on this planet for many decades, the US has certainly used propaganda much more than certain smaller operations.
    However, propaganda indoctrinating people to reactively and reflexively condemn all propaganda may be the single most universal ingredient of all propaganda campaigns for thousands of years. Propaganda is evil.
    Why is propaganda evil? Well, that is what the propagandists trained us to think, isn’t it?
    Why is vilification vilified? Well, if everyone knew the secret of what vilification is (and how easy it is to practice it in language), then concocted vilifications might not work nearly as well to govern the perceptions and actions of the masses.
    Propaganda must first be labeled evil for propaganda to be so openly and widely used. Propaganda must be vilified. Vilification must be demonized. Demonizing must be condemned.
    That may be the best way to keep a near monopoly on the power of demonizing and vilifying. That may be essential to the justifying of the operation of governments. If there are no enemies (near and far) requiring protectors and saviors, then why would people want to eagerly pay taxes to the ruling protection racketeers? Fear!
    Realistically, whenever there is an absence of a bureaucracy protecting the masses from organized violence through the use of organized violence, a new bureaucracy forms in filling that void. Dense populations of humans naturally produce social structures of stratification.
    The denser the population, the more stratified the structure is.
     The more stratified the structure, the more that justification of that stratification through propaganda is relevant.
    To serve that propaganda function, many dense populations of humans create enemies. Leaders of dense populations are those who unite dense populations by identifying enemies, even concocted enemies. Even the “global” enemy of global warming is used to justify new bureaucratic concentrations of authority.
    Other “global enemies” include epidemics or intergalactic threats like pole shifts or asteroids. Of course, one of the most popular global enemies is war, especially nuclear war.
    All of the organizations that have nuclear weapons seem to be very focused on keeping their club exclusive by discouraging any other organizations from developing nuclear weapons. Why do the organizations with nuclear weapons agree so consistently that nuclear weapons are so dangerous that any group that tries to develop nuclear weapons should be discouraged even if that means by using nuclear weapons against them? Well, perhaps because that kind of propaganda works very well to justify a wide variety of bureaucratic practices and produce compliance from the masses.
    Propagandists never announce that there is a new war being sold to perpetuate warfare and war profiteering and the perpetuating of governments of organized coercion. Propagandists instead announce that there is another new war to end all wars.
    How many thousands of years have propagandists been justifying wars in the name of peace and national security? I am not certain. I would guess that propagandists have been rationalizing “peace-keeping” wars of organized coercion for about as long as propagandists have been vilifying propaganda.
    Given that taxation could be considered a war of organized coercion against the domestic population, I would assert that propagandists must have been useful to governments almost as long as mercenaries. In fact, if a competent propagandist hires enough mercenaries to perform operations of organized violence, that might be the origin of all political systems and governments. When an operation of organized violence is so effective that it excludes competing operations of organized violence and forms a functional monopoly, that is called a government.
    I am not aware of a single operation of government that does not extensively use language for propaganda to justify the existence of that operation. Mythology about the heroism of the founders of a government is one of the universals of propaganda, besides the obvious anti-propaganda propaganda.

%d bloggers like this: