Posts Tagged ‘should not be’

Repentance: on “what should not be” & the withdrawing of condemnation

May 11, 2014
 
“What should not be”
I admit that I have said things like “the past should  not have been how it was.” I had a list of developments that I condemned, such as the Nazi Holocaust or the crimes of Ted Bundy or the 9/11 Attacks or even Major League Baseball’s 1919 World Series. In the last case, 8 members of Chicago White Sox were banned for life from the sport in 1921 for being involved in a gambling conspiracy to intentionally lose the championship in 1919. The famous line of “say it ain’t so, Joe” comes from that incident.A team picture of the infamous 1919 Chicago White Sox, with the eight players involved in fixing the World Series circled.
I might have called some of those famous incidents “villainous” or “evil.” But what less famous incidents that were more personal to me?
What about the neighborhood dog that I saw attack a little kid? What about the teenage drunk driver from my school who killed 2 people and paralyzed another? What about the person who told me that if I told anyone about her actions,then she would lie to the police to protect herself, then make accusations to discredit me and injure me, and then even torture or kill anyone who was unfaithful to her wishes?Imagine that someone knows who the drunk driver was, but is afraid of reporting any knowledge of the incident.  Wouldn’t it be natural for that person to say things like “I really just wish that the car wreck had never happened” or “I should never have been there that time or else I would not even have known about it in the first place!”
 
 
Condemnation of what should not be
If you had not noticed yet, we are talking about condemnation. In particular, we are talking about condemnation as a natural extension of terror.
If someone is terrified about talking about a subject, then it is natural for them to condemn it and call it disgusting and to passionately say “that kind of thing should never happen!” Their condemnation is a huge surge of fear that interrupts or censors the conversation.It is more extreme than “this is not the time or the place to talk about it.” It is more like saying “do not ever talk about that or else I will go crazy and, if possible, physically attack you.”

 
The hysteria of “That should never happen!”
When someone experiences an extreme stress (as in distress or trauma), then it is normal for them to create a chronic tension relating to that incident. A physical tension of muscles will actually manifest in connection with the intense fear or paranoia over the possible display of fear (because of a concern that if others witness someone’s fear, then that will be unfavorable for the social welfare of the one who displays “politcally incorrect” fear).In order to totelly prevent the display of intense fear (such as in facial expressions or gestures), then chronic muscle tensions are required. So, one who is so traumatized as to be disgusted about a subject will eventually be quite paranoid about it. They will reflexively label the subject as something that “should not be” or is simply “unmentionable,” then display an outburst of emotional upset or tantrum in order to interrupt conversations with drama (in order to dominate the topic of conversation if not to terminate the conversation completely).
 
“But what if it should have happened?”
However, if I did see something traumatic (like a dogvciously attacking a child), then avoiding the subject does not alter the effect it had on me. In fact, avoiding the subject allows for the chronic physical tension to persist.It is predictable for a small child to learn not to mention something. If every time they mention it, it upsets their peers or causes them a private emotional breakdown, then they will learn to censor the topic.
So, at most, a child may say “that should not have happened.” Is it too disruptive to bring up the general topic of the 9/11 attacks? Then one learns not to bring them up.Is it too disruptive to bring up the specific details of those attacks? Again, one may learn not to bring up those details- or only in very specific circumstances.
“Soldiers and spies must keep secrets, right?”
Secrecy is important in many undertakings. Obviously, an undercover police officer will attempt to keep their true intentions and purposes as a secret.In fact, elaborate disinformation schemes may be created to distract people from the truth. Not only might an undercover officer or spy use an unmarked car, but fake documents showing a fake identity.How can the government justify such acts of fraud? A government simnply does not categorize it’s own acts of deception as fraud. Since governments regulate fraud, that means that they make rules for how they conduct fraudulent activities and also how they penalize the fraudulent activities of those outside of their exclusive network.
They do not eliminate fraud. They regulate it. They systematize it. They define it.

Rulers rule on the legal definitions of words
Governments define fraud. Since the legal definition of fraud is a legal matter, different governments can use different definitions of the same word. That is not “fraud.” That is how legal systems work; they define what they mean by the words that they use.For instance, if alcoholic beverages are legal at one time, then they can be criminalized. Later, the same government that criminalized something can decriminalize it. Or, perhaps the beverage is still criminalized, but only for people under a certain age or only while driving.Governments regulate crime. They define it. They prosecute it. They punish it.

They prevent some crimes, but until governments define something as a crime, there is no such thing as crime. In other words, they create crime (as a category of language- a legal category).

“So should it have happened or not?”
So, a dog viciously attacks a small child. Is it a police dog mauling a runaway slave? Is it a wild dog attacking the child of a famous and popular athlete? Is it a pet?
Who owns the pet? Is it owned by the President? Is it owned by rich and well-connected person who is more powerful than officers like the President? Is it owned by your own political enemy?All of these factors could be important issues in regard to whether a court system will focus on some incident as a criminal case or a civil case or what. Court systems are systems of privilege. Privilege is by definition exclusive.
So, maybe a case gets prosecuted or maybe it does not. That depends on things like the County Prosecutor’s personal interests in the case.
Next, maybe the case goes to jury, but then the judge overturns the jury’s decision. Or, maybe a higher level court overturns another judge’s decision.
What everyone knows about court systems is that wealth influences court proceedings. A company with a lot of expensive lawyers may not win every case, but they are attempting to use their wealth in order to hire lawyers who can effectively influence the outcome of the case (independently of the actual facts of the case).Again, everyone generally recognizes the truth of this principle, but it is rarely stated outright. Why? Many people may find it disturbing or even disgusting. They do not like to admit that every court system is simply a coercive operation for the inequitable redistribution of economic resources.
Courts use organized violence to govern human society. The human resources are managed through governments- sometimes very invasively and sometimes very loosely.
“But should the dog have attacked the child?”
Well, did the child “deserve” it? This is not a question of the historical details, by the way, but just a question of how you choose to relate to the incident.Will you interpret the incident as justice, injustice, or something else? Will you label it a crime, a tragedy, a victory, a cause for a new military offensive, or what?
Any of those are valid. However, there is another alternative unlike any of those.
One could simply refrain from commenting on whether something should have happened. If it did happen, then that is all there is to say about it (for some people).
“Why would God have allowed that?”
We can use the term God to refer to a poetic ideal of an Almighty creative power that produces all effects that we observe. Within the context of this interpretative framework, everything that happens is God’s creation.
Language is God’s creation. Labels like “good and evil” are just categories in language. Those are just ways to relate to things. Good and evil aresociallabelings in language.For instance, 23 degrees or 19 inches is not inherently good or evil. Only in a specific social context of labeling with language would the terms good or evil be used.23 degrees might be a good temperature for skiing but a bad temperature for a picnic. Or, if we are talking about Celsius degrees instead of Fahrenheit degrees, that different context (in regard to what kind of degrees are we using) can make big difference.

 
“Why does God create anything?”
So, you are God’s creation. Others may judge you as heroic or evil or too tall or too short or just the right height. That interpretation is about them and their perspective.However tall you are, that is how tall God has made you. Also, however other people label you is how God has made them label you.
Why does God create the things that God creates? God creates whatever God creates because… God creates whatever God creates.”Why” is in the realm of theoretical justification. It is like saying “why is there an effect that humans label as gravity?” The effect just happens.
“Why does God create things THIS way?”
 
But why does God create things? Then again, why not?
Why is a question for human intellect, not for the Almighty. To say “God sent the flood at the time of Noah because humanity sinned” is speculative (as in “prophetic”). There may be social utility to saying that (as well as to saying “God caused the flood but should not have done that”).
In a similar train of thought, why do humans tell lies? Generally, they tell lies out of sincere misperception (which we might not even call a lie, but just an error) or out of an intent to deceive.Wow- not very shocking, right?Of course, when people are so terrified or disturbed or disgusted by a subject that they do not want to explore the truth, then they may worship sincere misperceptions as a way to avoid the possibility of accuracy. They may argue with animosity and ridicule “heretics” and even kill innocent people to preserve their sacred idolatries.
They may say “this is an insult to God’s Will! This is a cause for hysteria and panic and outrage!”
Others may speak with much less obsession and paranoia: “If God wills it, it happens. If it happens, God wills it.”
Repentance: the withdrawing of condemnation
For those who understand the interpretative framework of an Almighty God and then apply it, there is a notable result. When the entire function of linguistic condemnation is withdrawn (or at least relaxed), then there is a releasing of the network of chronic muscular tension that corresponds to hiding “negative” emotions (the ones that emotionally terrify you).Instead of investing huge amounts of energy in to avoiding the display of certain emotions (or displaying intense emotional reactions to what allegedly should not be), one can interpret all developments as the Will of the Almighty God. One can resign from the being the constant authority always agonizing with sincere perfectionism over what should be and what should not be.Again, if it happens, God has willed it. If it does not happen, God has not willed it.
“So should I put up a fence for safety from dogs?”
Yes, you should have a fence. If you do not already have one, you should put up a fence. If you do have one, you should occasionally make sure that it is strong and secure.
However, what should we do about the humans who use language to deceive other humans, such as government undercover agents and the people that they criminalize? We should do whatever we do.If we do not do something, then we should not- or not yet. Until we do it, God has obviously not willed for us to do it. If we do it, then God has obviously willed for us to do it.
“How can we make up for what should not have been?”
When one practices humble repentance (by withdrawing any condemnation of God’s creation and of God), then there is no issue of compensating for the past. We do not need to do anything to earn our way out of hell or in to heaven if we are already in heaven.
Sin is the belief (the linguistic interpretation) that “this is not what should be.” It is the rejecting of the Authority of God Almighty. Hell is similar: “I am not what I should be.”It may be socially useful to display self-hatred and shame and so on. Many effective apologies may begin with words like “I am not what I should be.”
Sp what is a fitting label for those who in a sincere terror worship the idea of a devil who threatens the Almighty God? We could call them devil-worshiping idolaters. Either God is Almighty and, according to God’s own will and poetic creativity, has created a poetic character called a devil (among many others)… or else God is not Almighty.
Now, do you reject the possible value of the poetic interpretation that God is Almighty?In particular, do you worship an Almighty God or do you reject monotheism and instead worship two competing powers: a devil as the real focus of your attention, and, as a sidenote, an insecure “god” who is threatened by that devil but also offers you eventual salvation from the villain of the devil (who really just threatens you, like because you lack faith)?Do you know the eternal savior now or are you still desperately agonizing over hopefully being saved in the future? Do you experience (under any social pretenses) fear or courage?
I am not asking if you ever did reject the idea of an Almighty God. I am also not asking if you ever used an alternative interpretation in language.I am asserting that whatever you did, God did through you. What you said, God willed for you to say.
I am asserting that whatever happens, that happens according to God’s Will.
Be clear that this is not a theoretical speculation or a justification- it is not a matter for debate or evidence or proof. This is a poetic interpretation- a matter of pure faith.
God is the creator both of mindful poetic interpretations as well as hysterical emotional speculations (and also of the terrified antagonisms that tend to correspond to hysteria and paranoia and so on). If you can witness it (or even imagine it), then the Almighty God is behind that witnessing or imagining.

 

Advertisements

Being the great change (and the language of grace)

March 23, 2012

Being the great change:

The Great Comet of 2011
The Great Comet of 2011 (Photo credit: lrargerich)

Could you ever be how you should not be?

Many place themselves outside of their world, outside of their life, and in opposition to their life and their world. That way of identifying is conflict and suffering.

Here is how it happens. We learn words. That is when things get confusing.

The confusion or problem is not in life, but in the words. There is no such thing as a problem until someone says so.

A problem is something that (allegedly) should not be how it is. Problems are created by the concept that something should be other than it is.

Confusion

Confusion (Photo credit: Kaleenxian)

As long as something should be how it is not, that is a problem- not the thing itself, but the perception that it should be how it isn’t. It is how it is. That isn’t a problem in itself, but we can make “it is how it is” into a cause for confusion, conflict, and suffering, simply with the use of words.

“Here is how it should be” is declared by words for a reason. The reason to declare “here is how it should be” is to hide how it is.

When one is operating from the concept of “here is how it should be,” then anything that is not how it should be is how it should not be. The concept of “how it should be” creates the possibility of “how it should not be.”

We may try to ignore how it should not be. We may violently oppose how it should not be. However, as long as there is a way how it should be, how it is may not fit how it should be, and clearly that is how it should not be.

How it should be is the source of how it should not be, such as “that traffic light should be green, not red. The one facing me should be green, not that one facing the other direction. Wait, I cannot tell which traffic signal is facing me. I should be able to tell. I should not be unable to tell. I should not be confused. This is wrong. Something must be wrong. It cannot be me. It must be someone else. Wow, this really should not be so confusing!”

Confusing signal

Confusing signal (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, those who worship “how it should be” live in opposition to or even denial of how it simply is, then fear that “how it simply is” may be recognized as “other than how it should be, ” then, upon recognition that how it is may not be how it should be, anger arises. How it should be is how it should be! How it should not be is how it should not be!

Various versions of “how it should (not) be” manifest across the various times and places and language patterns. The frightened anger over the gap between how it is and how it should be is what leads to worry and war. Agruments start over which way it should be and how to fix it.

Frustration and exhaustion and blame all are branches of the concept of how it should be. The question may arise as to “who is to blame for the gap between how it should be and how it obviously is?” The urgent question may arise as to “how can we fix how it is and make how it is conform with the whatever particular version of how it should be?” The desperate question may arise of “how can we save our children from the gap between how it should be (which is allegedly very important) and how it is (which is allegedly only important secondarily)?”

Now, how is it that “how it should be” is used to hide how it is? By promoting “how it should be,” that automatically creates “how it should not be.” When “how it should not be” is worshiped as more important than how it is, how it is must be rejected as confusing. How it is must be experienced as a problem, as the cause of suffering. How it is must be fixed.

However, what if “how it is” is never the cause of suffering? What if suffering is just one way of relating to “how it is,” particularly relating to how it is as less important than a linguistic belief (idolatry) that we label “how it should be?” If it were not for the arrogant, vain worship of “how it should be,” then “how it is” would never have been labeled “how it should not be” as in “the problem” as in “the cause of suffering.” In other words, idolatrous morality (AKA shame) is the cause of suffering.

To the one worshiping the existence of sin and shame and so on, what must be fixed is one’s own self. When one identifies any aspect of one’s own self as how one should not be, that self-rejecting projects a “psychological shadow” at the world (at life).

Since one obviously must not be how one should not be, the world out there must be the domain of how it should not be. Clearly, over here is the domain of how it should be: just ask me! Over there, though, that is the domain of how it should not be: again, just ask ANYONE!

Words have a power all their own

Words have a power all their own (Photo credit: waɪ.tiː)

Then along comes some sages who say RIDICULOUS things like this: “I did not come to judge the world. I came to take away sin…. Do not remove the speck from the other’s perception, but the beam from your own.” Obviously, these folks are asking for trouble!

On the other hand, these folks seem not to be at all troubled- not by their world or anyone in it or their own past or present or future. How come they are not troubled like everyone else? Confusing, wasn’t it?

Be the great change. Do not make great changes to fix the world into how it should be. Simply notice the changing of the world, your world, your life, your self.

Reclaim what you used to call “over there” as you, even the language of “how it should be” which may be used to hide how it is. If you play a little hide and seek with yourself, so be it. If you pretend to be confused, so be it. If you pretend to be something other than the Great Change itself, so be it. If you pretend that there is a gap between how it should be and how it is, that is one way that you could be about how your life may be. A very serious problem, wasn’t it?

Published on: Dec 24, 2009

Related articles

complaints about complaints

January 12, 2012

COMPLAINTS ABOUT COMPLAINTS

Spit in the wind hits my own face

I heard the words of old complaints

I blame the world for how it is

I relate to it as a shame

it should not be the way it is

it should be like in sacred myths

I learned them from a TV screen

a preacher teaching us his dream

a creature pumping her campaign

of ads for politics of hate

“There is the thing that should not be

Here is the only remedy

No, here’s the cure- no, here’s relief

for side effects of wonder drugs

treating the symptoms not the cause

by cutting wires to quiet alarms

just make them silent; make them stop

will I complain “I turned them off!”

I can’t believe the things I did

I can’t believe the way I am

I can’t believe the things I say

I can’t believe how I pretend

to blame the world for how it is

to relate to it as a shame

it should not be the way it is

it should be like in sacred myths

of innocent, ignorant bliss

not victimizing me like this

it should not label me like that

or is it me who labels it?

Spit in the wind hits my own face

I hurled the words of old complaints

about complaints about complaints about complaints

New super-condensed version of Buddhism‘s 4 noble truths:

1) the truth of complaints
2) the truth of complaining as the cause of complaints
3) the truth of complaints vanishing in the absence of complaining
4) the truth of whether or not there can be a life after complaining
English: The moment of revealing four noble tr...

Image via Wikipedia

the four noble truths

January 10, 2012
Neuroimaging sheds light on the seat of suffering

Image via Wikipedia

This is a lesson based on a tradition called “the four noble truths.” Briefly, those truths are the first truth of suffering, the second truth of the cause of suffering, the third truth of the discontinuing of the cause of suffering, and the fourth truth of the way to live life after suffering.

The first truth of suffering involves relating to life as if there is some part of life that should not be how it is. Suffering is not simply pain or illness or old age or dying or even violence. Suffering is a way of relating to life. Suffering involves ill will as in contempt as in enduring madness as in mental illness as in agonizing as in hell. While there are a variety of forms and intensities of suffering, what I mean by the word suffering includes all of them.

The second truth of the cause of suffering involves the recognizing of the power of words. Words are symbolic codes with an origin as signals of sound, though words can also be written. The term “words” can even include gestures and hand signals or “sign languages.” 

Words are distinct from a mere signal because of the importance of the sequencing of the words. Words are the origin of what can be called nonsense, such as “this should be what should not be.” The second truth, briefly, is that all suffering is caused by nonsense made of words.

Specifically, “this should not be how it is” is the kind of formation in words that can correspond to the experience of suffering, at least if there is a belief in the nonsense rather than a recognition of the nonsense as nonsense. “This should not be how it is” is rooted in “there is exactly one way that this should be.” In other words, suffering is rooted in the linguistic model of “there is exactly one way that this should be,” at least as it applies to some particular perception or experience. “There is exactly one way that this should be” is further rooted in “there is exactly one way that life should be,” which is nonsense.

However, if operating as if it is inherently true that life should be a certain way, then suffering is the natural and inevitable result. That suffering could be in the form of ill will as in contempt as in enduring madness as in mental illness as in agonizing as in hell. Or that suffering could be mere frustration, worry, resentment, sorrow or grief.

Earlier than the belief that “there is exactly one way that life should be” is another presumption in language. That presumption is “there is exactly one way that life is,” which is also nonsense.

So, if there is a belief in the nonsense that there is exactly one way that life is, then that leads to the belief in the nonsense that there is exactly one way that life should be (which is also the way that it allegedly is), which leads to the various forms of suffering such as shame and blame and rage. If there is a belief that there is exactly one way that a particular thing is (which is also the way that it should be), then that belief in nonsense inevitably leads to various forms of suffering.

Beliefs are made of words. Beliefs are all nonsense. They are the origin of suffering.

Beliefs in what should be produce suffering. Beliefs in what is also produce suffering. Belief is also called idealism and idolatry and foolishness.

So, before we proceed to the third noble truth of the discontinuing of the causing of suffering, let’s review. The first noble truth is that suffering is relating to some part of life as if it should not be how it is. The second noble truth is that suffering originates in the belief that there is exactly one way that a particular part of life is and that is the only way that it should be.

Now, by summarizing those two truths close together, the nonsense of suffering may be extremely clear. If there is exactly one way that life is, but then life is not that way, then how can there be exactly one way that life is? Obviously, a linguistic construction of how life is exactly one way is part of life. So, if there is a logical conflict between a linguistic construction (or belief) about how life should be and the actual experience of how life is, then suffering is neglecting the actuality of life for the nonsense belief in words. 

In the Judeo-Christian terminology, neglecting the actuality of life by worshiping a nonsense belief in words is what is referenced by “placing another God before God.” In Muslim terminology, recognizing the actuality of life as distinct from worshiping a nonsense belief made of words is what is referenced by “there is no God but God.” Of course, because language involves codes, various interpretations of the encoded messages in words are possible. However, worshiping language instead of God is the root idolatry. 

Even the phrase “literal interpretation” is ironic because if something is recognized as an interpretation, then interpretation implies the use of symbolic codes of language. How can there be a “literal symbolism?” Such idealisms and idolatries are nonsense from the start.

However, nonsense is part of life. Should there be no nonsense? Should there be no beliefs made of words and no words? Should there be exactly one interpretation of anything?

Those ideas fall back in to the same trap of nonsense. It is not that there should be no suffering, nor that there should be any suffering. There either is suffering or there is not suffering. That is all.

So, the third noble truth of the discontinuing of the cause of suffering is simple. To discontinue causing yourself suffering, simply recognize how you have been causing yourself suffering through the inattentive use of language. That recognizing is sufficient to discontinue the causing of suffering. 

In other words, suffering does not need to fixed. Suffering can be distinguished. The distinguishing of suffering results in a relaxing away from the beliefs that cause suffering. Once the beliefs are distinguished as nonsense, no additional beliefs are required to replace the presence of the prior beliefs. More beliefs will only bring more suffering.

To review again, the first noble truth is that suffering is relating to some part of life as if it should not be how it is. The second noble truth is that suffering originates in the belief that there is exactly one way that a particular part of life is and that is the only way that it should be. So, the linguistic belief that there is only one way that some part of life should be results naturally in relating to one or more parts of life as if they should not be how they are, which is suffering.

Further, the third noble truth is to discontinue causing yourself suffering by simply recognizing how you have been causing yourself suffering through the inattentive use of language. Recognize the power of language and you will never worship any beliefs of language. You will be free of the suffering caused by the inattentive use of language.

So, there is no single way that life should be. There is no single way that anyone should be. There is no single way that I am. There is no single way of labeling life with language that is the only possible interpretations. All of those constructions in language are nonsense. Many interpretations in language are possible.

As for the fourth noble truth, the way to live life after suffering is basically to be attentive to language. Do what you must do. Do what you can do. Do what you should do. Do what you will do.

Now, there may be other interpretations of these four noble truths. Since these four noble truths are just symbols made of language, why shouldn’t there be multiple interpretations?

Is there exactly one way that the four noble truths should be? Is there exactly one way that the four noble truths are? 

Are there exactly four noble truths? Are these noble truths even true? What if there is no such thing as a noble truth except as a symbol in language?

If someone says “attention to language makes no difference,” so what? If someone challenges you with a nonsense belief made of language, so what? If someone says that their nonsense belief made of language is not a nonsense belief made of language, so what? If someone says that idolatry is not idolatry, so what? If someone says that their language is not idolatry but some other language is idolatry, so what? If someone says that there is no such thing as freedom, so what? If someone says that there is no such thing as language, so what?

Remember, when nonsense is recognized as nonsense, nonsense cannot cause suffering. Only believing in nonsense can cause suffering. So, one can play along with someone else’s beliefs or not. If someone is speaking the language of suffering, you can speak in that language as well, yet is there another form of language beyond suffering? Also, is there another form of interacting beyond the use of language?

no such thing… as original sin?

January 2, 2012
NO SUCH THING (as Original Sin)
Life should be how life should be, so life should not be so much like this.
I should be how I should be, so I should not be so much like this.
She should be how she should be, so she should not be so much like this.
We should be how we should be, so we should not be so much like this.
Now, who is going to fix all this mess which we made up by labeling all this a mess?
and how will they ever fix all this mess which we made up by labeling all this a mess?
who can we blame for making all this mess which we made up by labeling all this a mess?
who can we hate for not fixing this mess which we made up by labeling all this a mess?
Is the original sin the naming of a sinner or just the naming of a sin?
Eve should be how Eve should be, so Eve should not be be so much like this.
Evil should be how Evil should be, so Evil should not be be so much like this.
There should be no such thing as Evil and no such thing as blame
There should be no such thing as labels and no such thing as hate
There should be no such thing as what should be and no such thing as sin
There should be what should be and nothing else; things should not be so much like this.

Now, who is going to fix all this mess which we made up by labeling all this a mess?
and how will they ever fix all this mess which we made up by labeling all this a mess?
who can we blame for making this mess which we made up by labeling all this a mess?
who can we hate for not fixing this mess which we made up by labeling all this a mess?

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
remember
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
already
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: