Posts Tagged ‘sincerity’

“Deal with it” (Part 3) [Going beyond mere sincerity]

June 20, 2014
  • J.R had written:


    If you go to a job interview and the interviewer is a woman and she is “insecure” because she is jealous of your figure or whatever, you can either condemn her or you can be powerful about your power over her. When someone gives you power, what do you do?

    People evaluate based on their values, their interpretations, and their perceptions. The ideal that “People should not judge” is ironic.

    Arrogance is the idea (or the hysterical delusion) that other people SHOULD naturally have as much interest in my opinions (or my experience) as I do. That orientation could also lead to frustration.

     

    8:48am She replied again:

     I never realized someone or at times people give me power. Until you just said that. I saw it as me being attacked just for existing. It is a more powerful space to see it as “they gave me power”. Thank you.what i tend to do when People look up to me, is i try to make them happy or laugh. I want people to feel good and enjoy life…

    I don’t think people should have as much interest in my opinion as i do…. Yet i do think people should llook to themselves first, and wonder why they are judging? Jealous? Or whatever. It brings new insights for ones own personal development and access to upgrade their own conversation
    When u say people evaluate etc based on their interpretations etc… That is true.. And what we learned at Landmark Education is that we interpret based on our “already listening” [our inherited filters] … Our context….. Our identity… Which…. If not being generated in the moment, is defaulted to machinery .. Past based… And is therefore not by conscious choice… Thus a disempowering context.
  • So. If people want to “judge me” from their machinery , their past… And be disempowered in their lives and not create for themselves what they desire…. i will just hold the space, be a clearing and be me…. Generating fun, laughter, non judgemental joy.
  • Again, thank you for your insights and wisdom…. And the energy you put into considering all this.

  • Today
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn
    J R Fibonacci Hunn

    You are welcome. Regarding “it brings new insights… And access,” I think of curiosity as the ultimate cure for “upsets of sincerity.” What people call sincerity is so often just presumption held stubbornly (in fright) and thus without attention / mindfulness.

    Since many of the sincere presumptions are programmed through schools and media and churches, they may have a lot of popularity and thus it is rare to actually question them.

    It can be important to identify “rackets of sincerity” and be mindful of moderation when disturbing those presumptions with direct attention to them. Upsetting people unintentionally can be rather counterproductive, right?

  • 3:38pm

     I have generally found that I prefer to discover my own habitual pretenses when there is not a spotlight of attention on me (without the pretenses being made in to a public spectacle by some other person or people). Sometimes I remember that preference when interacting with others (in regard to what I perceive to be their sincere pretenses and frightened, sacred presumptions) and, if I forget, then sometimes I am quickly reminded by witnessing the reaction of a “predictable” upset.

The Supreme Faith: supplemental audio on sincerity & stubbornness

May 19, 2014


sincerity, stubborn, faith

Maturity: results vs sincerity, hope, regret, & blame

August 30, 2013
Attention ne pas couper le courant électrique

Attention ne pas couper le courant électrique (Photo credit: zigazou76)

 

If you value results, then sincerity and hope are just minor factors. Sincere hope that some method will work is not an access to reliable results.

 

 

Intergrity. Sincerity.

Intergrity. Sincerity. (Photo credit: Renato Ganoza)

 

 

It takes maturity to accept responsibility for producing results. People who present their sincerity as an important historical detail may be quite immature. They want approval and validation, not responsibility.

It is wise to target delegating responsibility to those who are focused on actual results.  You can ask yourself: who wants results and who just wants attention (which they may attempt to distract with dramatic breakdowns and tantrums about who is to blame or what is their very interesting excuse)?

 

 

Mere good intentions are not enough and do not replace research, planning, skill, and dedication. Excitement and passion is not enough either. Nervous excitement or arrogant “confidence” are not signs of reliability.

 

 

Can you qualify for the Green Berets?

Can you qualify for the Green Berets? (Photo credit: U.S. Army Korea (Historical Image Archive))

 

 

Maturity also involves being open to experiencing disappointment about results without justification or blame. No one is ever the victim of the choices they made and the methods they used. Results are the sole basis of assessing the value of the methods and procedures that were used.

 

 

How fast will someone dedicated to results discard a method that is clearly not working? How long will they take to get frustrated enough to be open to a new approach?

 

 

If you value results, then sincerity and hope are just minor factors. If you value being congratulated for your amazing sincerity, then the actual results that you produce are just minor factors.

Imagine a parent complaining that their children just do not appreciate them enough- or that their teenagers should value them more. Imagine a grandparent whining that their infant grandchild does not give them enough attention.

 

 

An infant

An infant (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

If you ever get frustrated that people are not congratulating you “enough” for your sincerity, then it may be time to focus on results. If it is time to focus on results, then it may be time to focus on what results to measure and when, plus how to track which results come from which methods. Willingness to revise or discard methods is maturity.

 

 

 

 

Where do you invest your time and energy? There is no “wrong answer” to that question. However, the accurate answer will reveal what you have been valuing.

 

 

Are you willing to face the precise details of how you have been investing your time? Have any issues or topics been “dominating your thoughts?” That is where your energy (emotion) has been invested.

 

 

Just how committed to results would you like to be? Right now, are you more committed to the future than to defending the past (or avoiding it)?

 

 

Miley Cyrus

Miley Cyrus (Photo credit: rwoan)

 

 

There is a constant publicizing of scandals and trivia and controversy. Have you been obsessed with learning the latest detail or on spreading the word heroically about the “big” issue?

 

 

You’ve probably obsessed over at least a few things at some point in your life. Some people’s job is to create sensationalized magnets for your attention. Many issues may be

Can't Be Tamed

Can’t Be Tamed (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

worthy of SOME of your attention, but how much?

 

 

 

 

Painful Maturity

Painful Maturity (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

They will promote to you pre-packaged hopes and blames and values. So what?

 

 

The biggest barrier to focusing on results may be regret. Investing in regret tends to lead to exhaustion, blame, resentment, resignation, and cynicism.

 

 

Being disappointed is much more functional than nursing regret. Welcome disappointment. Even welcome fear. Allow yourself to be vulnerable to reality- to partner with it rather than be dismissively terrified of it (AKA arrogance). This is how to learn from the past.

 

 

For sincere people, the past is what justifies the alleged heroism of their most dramatic regrets. For mature people, the past is a series of results that can be lessons for which we are grateful. Maturity may seem a bit more boring, but if you are actually interested in results, maturity is valued over familiarity.

What could be more boring than focusing on what is already familiar to you? What could be more interesting than learning about what you actually value?

 

 

If you value results, then sincerity and hope are just minor factors. If you value being applauded for your latest new hope, then the actual results that you produce may be just minor factors.

 

harmonious humility and hysterical animosity

August 16, 2013
Myths of the Near Future

Myths of the Near Future (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

English: The arrogance of youth. Despite numer...

English: The arrogance of youth. Despite numerous notices warning of the dangers of approaching too closely to cliff edges on Trwyn y Witch,these lads stroll blithely along on the very edge. A few days after this photograph was taken, another appeared in a national newspaper of youths sitting on the edge of cliffs at Beachy Head! (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

The more terrified I am that some presumption of mine may be inaccurate, then the more tenaciously I may defend against perceived criticism. I may defend by condemning others for (allegedly) condemning me, by argumentatively justifying, and by ridiculing perceived critics for some past point of disagreement. That intense reaction can be called shame or guilt or pride or ego.

 

 

 

I resist the exploration of my presumption. I present my sincerity as something deserving respect. I focus away from the accuracy of presumptions toward my sincerity, my righteousness, what is familiar to me.

 

 

 

My process is terrified, desperate, and, in the extreme, raging passionately with sincere self-righteousness. It is hysterical.

 

 

Stuff your eyes with wonder . . . live as if y...

Stuff your eyes with wonder . . . live as if you’d drop dead in ten seconds. See the world. It’s more fantastic than any dream made or paid for in factories. Thanks Sweet Arrogance for the Editing + Tittle (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

My myths are not questionable because they are not myths. My myths are not open to exploration. I do not have any myths. I do not have any presumptions. Any implication that I might is an accusation deserving to be attacked viciously.

 

 

 

A drawing of a dining fly tent

A drawing of a dining fly tent (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

And so there is the story of the tent built on dry ground and the tent built on mud. Which one is more steady?

 

 

With the tent built on dry ground, the stakes stayed firmly in the ground. The ropes of the tent stayed tight. The wind came but the tent just flapped a bit and remained stable.

 

 

Wooden stake holding guy rope

Wooden stake holding guy rope (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

With the tent erected in the mud, the stakes went in very easily, but they were so loose that heavy rocks were put on top of them to keep the stakes in place. The ropes of the tent sagged, but there was enough tension on the ropes to raise the tent (after a great deal of time and effort).

 

 

Then the winds came, plus more rain. Inside of the tent there were a small crew of people who had raised the tent. The youngest one asked “why is the tent sagging?”

 

 

The Tent

The Tent (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

This was obviously just too much! The elder shouted “who do you think you are to dare criticize the way that we raised the tent? We have the right number of ropes. We have the right number of stakes. We even made an extra effort to put stones across the stakes to hold them in securely. You just do not appreciate how hard we have worked on this tent! You are just a negative person who is investing in fear instead of unconditional love.”

 

 

This is the face of arrogance

This is the face of arrogance (Photo credit: phunkstarr)

 

 

The young questioner was a bit stunned. A different approach might go better. “I do appreciate your hard work. I simply am curious whether you agree that the tent is sagging more than usual?”

 

 

English: This picture is taken with help of Mr...

English: This picture is taken with help of Mr Shiva Shrestha (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

The reaction was even more intense. “Have you ever heard that curiosity killed the cat? You are rebellious. You are arrogant. If anything goes wrong with the tent, it must be because of your lack of loyalty. Also, four months ago, you made a mistake in the raising of a tent and I have always wondered about that. Was it intentional? Did you sabotage this tent again? Is that what you are trying to confess?”

 

 

The young questioner said “Wow, it is getting really stressful in here. Does anyone else need to go out of the tent to pee like I do?”

 

 

The elder screamed “hold it! You need to answer the question whether you sabotaged the tent. No one let this one out until we get the answer! You have disrupted the harmony of our crew. Isn’t harmony important to you? First, you have brought hysteria and animosity to our crew. Now you want to destabilize everything by going outside to pee. Look, can’t you see that this tent is unstable? We cannot let you out to pee because all of that zipping and unzipping might be enough to bring down the whole house of cards, you idiot!”

 

 

 

Look up on others (DSC2773)

Look up on others (DSC2773) (Photo credit: Fadzly @ Shutterhack)

Illustration from a collection of myths.

Illustration from a collection of myths. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

So, it is not always so obvious when there is a hysterical avoidance of the questioning of a presumption (such as whether a particular tent is sturdy). However, now that we have reviewed an example of hysterical animosity (as distinct from harmonious humility), let’s review again the original statements. Perhaps they will be more clear for you this time.

 

 

 

The more terrified I am that some presumption of mine may be inaccurate, then the more tenaciously I may defend against perceived criticism. I may defend by condemning others for (allegedly) condemning me, by argumentatively justifying, and by ridiculing perceived critics for some past point of disagreement. That intense reaction can be called shame or guilt or pride or ego.
 
I resist the exploration of my presumption. I present my sincerity as something deserving respect. I focus away from the accuracy of presumptions toward my sincerity, my righteousness, what is familiar to me.
 
My process is terrified, desperate, and, in the extreme, raging passionately with sincere self-righteousness. It is hysterical.
 
My myths are not questionable because they are not myths. My myths are not open to exploration. I do not have any myths. I do not have any presumptions. Any implication that I might is an accusation deserving to be attacked viciously (of course!).
Illustration from a collection of myths.

Illustration from a collection of myths. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

 

On the sincere fanatics of mainstream Holy empires

August 15, 2013

Rand Paul

calm, peace and... sincerity?

calm, peace and… sincerity? (Photo credit: Angelo González)

The system tames the masses. It terrifies them in to compliance, then confuses them with a mixture of punishments and rewards.
For instance, tax claims are publicized as justifiable extortion. It is the duty of everyone to contribute (under threat of garnishment and incarceration etc).
Non-compliance attracts jealousy from the other involuntary donors who are still supporting the system of organized coercion (mass piracy). While everyone knows that many of the richest people can afford to hire tax lawyers and lobbyists to minimize their taxes, as long as your own immediate neighbors are not getting away with an unfair advantage over you, then you can easily fixate on some other passionate controversy to distract you from the simple fact that all governing systems have the primary function of redistributing wealth disproportionately.
Generational Theft

Generational Theft (Photo credit: NObamaNoMas)

Which disproportionate redistribution is best is the central issue of hysterical argument by political fanatics. The merit of the idea of disproportionate redistribution is just not questioned by these argumentative fundamentalists. All disproportionate redistribution systems are labeled evil, except of course for whatever one that a particular fanatic worships as the one that is right and good and just and holy.
Further, the consistent giving of financial support by the masses contributes to a psychological fixation with labeling the system as the ultimate good (AKA “the greater good”). Their traumatized terror of the system’s organized coercion leads to a reflexive pride in glorifying the system and also to a shameful dismissing of criticism- not just as irrelevant, but as… insane. The reality is that the involuntary donors are terrified of any logical criticisms of their religion (AKA “statism“), so those identified as threatening critics must not just be dismissed, but intensely ridiculed, then even drugged and confined in mental institutions or in correctional facilities to correct their politically incorrect criticisms.
Rand Paul

Rand Paul (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Ironically, glorifying of a heroic critic may be very popular. “Valiant” criticism of prior flaws is celebrated, even if reforms were unsuccessful. Sincerity is the measure of value in the statist religion.
Prior reform is celebrated as the unquestionable proof that the system is open to intelligent input and progress and so on. In fact, in some systems of imperialism, the central figures of the statist mythology are rebels. Some heroic rebels founded their nation, then other heroic rebels defended it or kept it united or promoted whatever polices were eventually glorified with such labels as “justice” or at least “progress.”
Map of the United States of America showing th...

Map of the United States of America showing the largest minority group by color in each state. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Statists say things like “Of course we should do more to promote the well-being of the indigenous tribes that we plundered. However, at least we recently passed a law criminalizing animal cruelty and protecting 3 rare species of owls. Further, look at how far we have come so far in honoring the rights of not just two but three minority groups, together constituting nearly 8% of the population! Isn’t that wonderful?”
The state is awe-inspiring. The state is not just the Holy Empire, but the popular God.
Certain criticisms of the holy state are considered taboo, while others are considered to be absolutely required. “We really must do more to balance the budget,” said every public figure ever.
Security and order and justice are all central values of the state, but sincerity may be the top priority. Prior political leaders are presumed to have all been sincere (with a few notable exceptions presented as the alleged “proof of the rule” that all the others were sincere). However, current leaders are either labeled as heroic or vilified for promoting the “wrong” version of systematic wealth redistribution through organized coercion.
Sincerity is a central personal value, with one own’s sincerity presented as validation of accuracy and merit, while the sincerity of opposing militant fundamentalists is ridiculed with comments like “how can the other party be that stupid?” The display of that kind of confusion (“how can THEY be so different in their beliefs?”) is the hallmark of sincere militant fanatics of statism. One statist group ridicules their main competitor as fanatical, which is precisely how that group views them. “They are deceived by their own blind faith,” both groups say of the other.
Who's got the money in America - romney economics

Who’s got the money in America – romney economics (Photo credit: EN2008)

The two groups are locked in sincere divisiveness against each other. The opposing policies of systematic wealth redistribution are attacked as being policies of systematic wealth redistribution (which “should not exist at all”) because those polices conflict with one’s own holy policies of systematic wealth redistribution through organized coercion, which are called “justice” and “what is best for the greater good” and “what everyone agrees is right.”
However, everyone does not agree. The sincerity of the fanatics leads to opposing groups both yelling at each other that “yeah, but we only promote what everyone agrees is right!” A neutral observer might wonder: how can they all be so stupid? 😉
Hardcover Edition

Hardcover Edition (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Terrified frustration that others have different perspectives is distinct from humble curiosity about perspectives and perceptions and so on. The fanatical worshipers of terrified frustration say things like “what should not be is something that just should not be, and you people do not seem to understand how sincere I am about that!”

Some other people simply do not value your sincerity at all. The only ones who do value your sincerity may be those who are afraid of diverse perspectives and thus are desperately avoiding any potentially threatening perspectives (“the unfamiliar” AKA “the unknown”).

Do you know what you will have for lunch 1,128 days from now? No, you do not, and it does not matter to you at all, does it?
The unknown is not what fanatics fear. Fanatics fear perceived threats to their illusions and delusions.
English: Sen. Joseph McCarthy chats with his a...

English: Sen. Joseph McCarthy chats with his attorney Roy Cohn during Senate Subcommittee hearings on the McCarthy-Army dispute (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When a few systems of disproportionate wealth redistribution are accurately identified as being just that, then some fanatics will gingerly celebrate the condemnation of foreign systems, but then passionately attack any implication that their own holy system of organized coercion may be just another fanatically worshiped system of organized coercion.
“Of course I am sincere about the holiness of my own system. My glorifying of my system is not based on sincerity but on facts. Our way really is right. Our way really is best. For instance, our system is the only one that opposes ethnocentrism and condemns xenophobia. In the McCarthy hearings a few decades back, we conclusively proved that we are not socialist fanatics because we condemned and excommunicated 213 socialist fanatics that were trying to overthrow our system of disproportionate wealth redistribution and replace it with a system of disproportionate wealth redistribution, which is evil.”
Come My Fanatics...

Come My Fanatics… (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The system tames the masses. It teaches them to worship their own sincerity.
It influences their perceptions, their language, their behaviors, and their results. It uses organized coercion to systematically redistribute wealth disproportionately, terrifying the masses in to blind compliance and passionate participation in the modern secular religion of holy statism.
Statism and Anarchy, first print 1873

Statism and Anarchy, first print 1873 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

emotional maturity and the root of all Eve

August 8, 2013

 

naturaleza viva - living nature

naturaleza viva – living nature (Photo credit: jesuscm)

 

 

Welcome. Thank you for your openness to experience something new.

 

You are about to learn about the distinction between innocence and maturity. Maturity is extremely useful, supremely practical, and immensely valuable. Here is a short, simple example of how maturity makes such a difference.

 

 

 

Innocence

Innocence (Photo credit: Suresh Eswaran)

This image shows a whole and a cut lemon. It i...

This image shows a whole and a cut lemon. It is an edit of Image:Lemon.jpg to reduce blown highlights and slightly darken image. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When I was a small child, my big sister and I would argue about many things. Sometimes an adult would respond to our outbursts with some mature attention.

 

My sister would say “this is a lemon.” I would say “no, that is a fruit.” She would say “yes, but is it an apple?” I would say “No, stupid, anyone can see it is not an apple. Apples are red.” She would say, “I’m not stupid. You are the one who is stupid. It is clearly a lemon. Plus, apples can be yellow or green, too, not just red, stupid!”

 

Today, reflecting back on a long past event, you may be able to relate to that kind of an interaction. We could have been talking about politics or religion or some other possible subject of controversy, but we were just talking about different kinds of plants.

 

 

 

Apple

Apple (Photo credit: elycefeliz)

So how were we talking about plants? We were arguing, right, but what else?

 

We were sincere. We did not know any better. In other words, we knew not what we were doing. We were unaware or innocent.

 

We were also competing with each other and even confused and distressed, right? Maybe we were even seeking to have an authority clarify things for us, to present some new language for organizing our conversations, to set things in to order. Maybe we were inviting a new maturity in to our lives.

 

 

 

So what could a mature adult do in response to those two little kids arguing so sincerely and innocently? First, it is obvious that more sincere arguing would not be anything new or distinct. But what about insincere arguing (or joking around)?

 

“Okay, this is clearly a little yellow round thing, but are you sure it is a plant? I don’t know. What do you think? And you, what about you, do you also think that this might be a plant? Well yes that is true, but what else can you tell me about this that proves that it is some kind of a plant? Okay, so you both agree that it is a plant.”

 

The mature person might find an uncontroversial point of agreement. By bringing in the idea of skepticism, the kids are challenged to prove that it is a plant. Their sincerity is welcomed and encouraged. The actual controversy is simply ignored at this stage.

 

Lemon tree02

Lemon tree02 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“I agree with both of you that it is a plant. However, have either of you ever heard of the species of plant called citrus limon? No? Well, how about you? AHA! Well, now we all know what the problem is! You people did not even know what a citrus limon was, did you? What are you asking about a species? Ah, yes: what does species mean? Now that is a very good question. Thank you for asking. A species means a specific kind of thing, a special thing that is similar to other things in certain ways, but also a little bit different.”

 

You can think of many other things that a mature person could say to the kids, or things they could do without saying much at all. They could just grab the lemon and then say “This is mine now. It was your problem, but now I took the problem from you and it is my problem, so your problem is over. So, now I am wondering how quickly can you two find something else to argue about? Can you even find another problem at all? I dare you!”

 

Surprise is a key factor in the actions of the mature person. Surprise interrupts the prior momentum of the interaction.

 

The mature person welcomes the sincerity of others and even encourages their initiative, their approach, their momentum. But a new approach can surprise the innocent arguers. A new momentum that is more powerful can effectively resist the old momentums- creating a new conflict- or the new mature approach may even avoid the conflict between the prior approaches.

 

 

Sincere Happiness

Sincere Happiness (Photo credit: gianna.ratto)

“This reminds me of the time that I was going to your favorite restaurant and I walked in and then sat down and soon someone came over and asked me what I wanted as a drink. Have you ever had someone ask you that? So anyway, what I said is that I wanted some water with a slice of lemon. They came back a few minutes later with an entire lemon though. That was a problem. I repeated that I wanted just one slice. They said what about an entire lemon tree. I said no, I do not want a plant or a fruit or a whole lemon, but just one slice. They said that there are several slices of lemon inside of the whole lemon and I just needed to cut open the citrus limon and then I could have a slice of the fruit plant in my water. I said no how do you put a bunch of slices inside of a lemon, because that is impossible. They said they put the slices in the lemon the same way that they put the lemons on the lemon tree. Then we all laughed and I cut up the lemon in to some slices and squeezed some juice in to my water and had a sip.”

 

Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve (Photo credit: mikecogh)

 

 

But that is not what most people do when there is a bunch of sincere, innocent arguing about politics or religion. All the sincere innocent people will not welcome the statements of others which conflict with what is most familiar to them, most comfortable, most reassuring, most safe, least dangerous, least threatening, least terrifying. They will intensely resist certain statements or even avoid interacting with people who categorize reality in unfamiliar ways.

 

Mature people may welcome new ways of categorizing their experience. They may even intentionally approach new ways of labeling life and relating to reality.

 

 

 

Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve (Photo credit: autowitch)

So, there are four basic patterns of activity: welcoming or resisting and approaching or avoiding. All four of these have value or else they would not ever happen. The mature approach to life is to recognize that every method has value, but no method is always the best.

 

Each method is valuable specifically for the results that it can promote. Welcoming is the default method of newborns. They innocently welcome everything. However, some of the experiences they have are so rewarding that they begin to develop a familiarity for certain things and then they begin to not just welcome but to approach those things, like an appealing sight or intriguing sound or pleasant smell. Young children are not just open anymore but also curious, even passionately (and annoyingly).

 

Innocence

Innocence (Photo credit: Mohammad A. Hamama, A reflected version!)

Eventually, though, that does not go so well. They learn to resist certain things and even avoid certain dangers. That is all part of the process of maturing.

 

 

 

Every pattern has value. Every method is valuable to the one who is mature.

 

Arguing has value. Blaming others has value. Condemning and resisting and avoiding all have value, at least in certain specific circumstances.

 

Saying that only certain things have value also can be valued. Saying that nothing at all ever has any value can even be valuable. Sincerity and joking and deception all can be valuable, such as the ritual deception of children with the Santa Claus myth.

 

English: Santa Claus as illustrated in , v. 52...

English: Santa Claus as illustrated in , v. 52, no. 1344 (December 3 1902), cover. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

So, the value of any thing is not in the thing. Value is a way of relating to something, like welcoming it or resisting it or approaching it or avoiding it.

 

It is valid or valuable to call the same thing by many different labels, such as plant, fruit, lemon, or to even use a different language like Latin and call it a “citrus limon.” Those variations in language are just distinctions of precision. They are all entirely accurate.

 

Arguing over which label is most accurate can be an innocent error. Noticing the function of arguing is part of the process of maturing.

 

English: Fruit on a lemon tree in Stratford, V...

English: Fruit on a lemon tree in Stratford, Victoria (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

If you want to avoid maturing, then it is important to avoid arguing and also avoid having a sister. Having a sister is one of the leading causes of arguing over whether a plant is a fruit or a lemon, which is a dangerous thing to welcome or approach.

 

Resist sarcasm and reverse psychology or else I will have no choice but to threaten you with slicing your lemon in to a bunch of lemon slices, which will permanently destroy the lemon, making it completely worthless. That would be like having an apple that was green, but then turns yellow and finally red, which is a horrible color for an apple and must be prevented or else the entire world will be tempted in to tricking someone in to biting the wrong apple, thereby cursing everyone with the opportunity to develop maturity. In conclusion, that is why arguing over forbidden fruit is the root of all Eve.

 

English: Apples on an apple-tree. Ukraine. Рус...

English: Apples on an apple-tree. Ukraine. Русский: Яблоня со спелыми плодами. Украина. Latina: Malus domestica (Borkh., 1803) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Instructions for how to be a better perfectionist

July 10, 2013

Instructions for how to be a better perfectionist:

1. Identify which ideals are the very best.

2. Pretend that your life does not fit those ideals, but really should.

3. Be totally miserable and pretend that how you got to be so miserable is a complete mystery to you.

Symbol for the Enneagramic type " Perfect...

Symbol for the Enneagramic type ” Perfectionist” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

That’s it. If you really understand those three points fully, you will become the ideal perfectionist. Well, actually if you really understand those three points fully, then you really should become the ideal perfectionist, but of course you actually won’t (…knowing you).
I should warn you that I might be joking. In fact, I should have warned you before I started that I would probably be joking eventually.

I’m really sorry. I take back that I did not warn you before I started. Please allow me to start over now.

My Life, by Bill Clinton

My Life, by Bill Clinton (Photo credit: elycefeliz)

Ok, so what you need to know about me first is that my past is not how it should have been. How I know that is because I have identified precisely how my past should have been (which I occasionally revise) and then I compared my past with my latest ideals of how my life should have been so far and… well, there is some good news and some bad news. So, which do you want first?

The bad news is that no matter what ideals I identify (arbitrarily) as the very best ideals, none of them perfectly match my life. My life simply has way too much variation for certain ideals (and not enough variation for others).

The good news is that it is optional for me to value a certain specific set of ideals over the totality of my life. Yes, I can be an idealist, a perfectionist, a miserable worshiper of arbitrary ideals. It is one possibility.

In fact, being an agonizing idealist is probably what I should have done (given that I have actually done that). However, I could stop.

Agonizing is a behavior, a pattern of activity. It takes time, right? It takes energy, right? It takes practice to develop it in to a habit (or even an identity)- a lot of practice!

Great! So, now I have told you the good news and the bad news. That only leaves the old news.

The old news is that I used to argue with people about which ideals are the very best. I used to be very sincere. I would even prove to you that I was more sincere than you. Sincerity was probably the very best of all possible ideals, right?

By the way, you may notice that everyone who is miserably cynical is also very sincere. In fact, a leading expert in the field of making things up has claimed that the most extreme form of naïve sincerity is cynical misery, which is also known as perfectionist agonizing.

Cynical (song)

Cynical (song) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Obviously, that assertion is quite preposterous. Everyone knows that cynical misery is a very serious condition which can only be treated with a brain transplant.

Unfortunately for… everyone… there are no available brains for transplanting and there are no available surgeons and it is not covered by any insurance plan anyway and obviously never will be (because you know how the insurance companies are…). Anyway, I really could not afford it even if it was free because… because… my busy schedule simply does not have time for taking any time off from identifying the very best ideals, then obsessively comparing my life to those ideals, then complaining that my life does not fit those ideals and blaming some politician for that (obviously), and then frequently promising to stop whining. Also, just as a reminder to you, I am still keeping my promise to stop procrastinating right after I finish waiting for the right circumstances to show up magically.

(“No, not those ideal circumstances… the other perfect circumstances. Don’t you realize that what I said last week about the right circumstances was back when I was very naïve and sincere and idealistic! I’m not LIKE that anymore. I’ve CHANGED… can’t you tell? What kind of a friend are you anyway?”)

Yeah, but… have you apologized lately for saying that you are sorry way too often? Have you promised to stop making promises that you have no intention of actually keeping? Have you called yet to explain why you do not want to talk to me? (Note that I only ask because I see that I have 14 missed calls from your number in the last 2 hours.)

In conclusion, you really need to be a better perfectionist. Because you clearly are not sincere enough about your commitment to being a miserable, agonizing, idealistic cynic, you may have a serious case of sincerity (which is often complicated by a sincere case of seriousness). That’s why you should ask your doctor today about whether Ofukitol is right for you.

By the way, this offer is not valid if you are a procrastinator. In that case, please don’t even bother.

No, listen, just forget it, okay? You always act like this. It’s so annoying!

This is why you are never going to have any friends. You are always so negative. I hate negative people like you.

Sincerity Is an Easy Disguise in This Business

Sincerity Is an Easy Disguise in This Business (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ironic? What is ironic about any of this? You really don’t even take me seriously, do you? You don’t understand me and you never will!

You don’t even KNOW me. If I was not a very polite person, I would TYPE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS and then calm down momentarily and extend my middle finger at you in a gesture of sexual frustration– but your sexual frustration, not mine.

I’m not frustrated. I’m not angry. I’m not contemptuous and I am DEFINITELY not resentful… you stupid idiot!

But the only reason that I am not resentful is because I am such a perfect idealist. I do have every reason to be resentful, of course, but I am so forgiving because that is how I should be. Anyway, how many flipping times do I have to tell you that I have already forgiven you for how you are always so negative (and passive aggressive… and critical… and a naïve hypocrite)?

Anyway, that is why I do not want to talk to you either. Yes, I called you back to just tell you that.

Hello? Are you there? Did you just hang up on me? You can’t do that!

Oh, hi… yeah I think I accidentally put you on hold for a second. Sorry about that. What were we talking about again?

Right, we were talking how I can’t just stop agonizing any time I want, you know, because of my schedule which is too busy…. exactly! Hey, do you still want to sign up for that course eventually on how to stop procrastinating about agonizing about the best way to be a perfectionist..? Okay, right, once you have better circumstances in your life, of course, yes, I agree completely. There is no need to rush in to it, grandpa.

Sanity or sincere gibberish?

June 27, 2013
Do you really care if people agree with you? Or do you just care what they do?
sincerity: the inability to recognize any alternative viewpoint as valid.
 
to Sanity?

to Sanity? (Photo credit: wadem)

 
There are a lot of humans, right? However, many of them do not even understand your language. They have no idea what you are saying or what I am writing. 
 
These construction in language are gibberish to them. They simply cannot decode the words in to ideas. So, these words do not influence their attention or perception or behavior.
 
Noam Chomsky at World Social Forum - 2003. Sou...

Noam Chomsky at World Social Forum – 2003. Source: Marcello Casal Jr/ABr, January/2003 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
In contrast to those who do not even know your language, some of them use language similar to how you use language: similar patterns, similar phrases, and similar logical presumptions.  Some of them are going around with some set of ideals (some language patterns about what they imagine would be “better”) and then sorting through who agrees or disagrees with them.
 
They value the comfort of familiar language. They want to connect with people who appreciate their perspective, who value the patterns of words that they present, who value them (who agree with their self-image).
 
Wladss

Wladss (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
Have you noticed that you can create interpersonal repulsion simply through words? I sometimes have said things that scare people, that disturb them, that shock and horrify them. Sometimes I have done that accidentally and sometimes intentionally.
 
“You’re dumb. You’re wrong. You’re repulsive!”
 
 
Some people are unusually easy to insult. Some people are very easy to make mad. They can be quite “sensitive.”
 
Some people may seem very scared of getting mad, like they are already frustrated, but are putting a lot of energy in to suppressing their rage, pretending not to be angry, irritable, and disappointed. Others seem absolutely committed to finding something or someone to justify a complaint or criticism or even rage.
“You should not say things like that. If you do not have anything nice to say, then… then don’t even talk to me, you rude piece of crap!”
 
Ron Paul

Ron Paul (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

 
Obviously, it can be unfavorable to rile certain people. It can be favorable to keep certain phrases private, like your disappointment about your boss and their lack of effectiveness. 
 
It might even be useful to communicate in ways that are customized for a specific person or situation. It might be wise to occasionally consider “what could be a good way to produce the desired result? What would evoke in them the kind of experience that fits with my priorities? What might they want to hear? What do I want them to do and what do I want them to feel and what do I want them to hear?”
That is simply being selective and deliberate in one’s communication. That is being interested in effectiveness.
English: Barack Obama

English: Barack Obama (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Do you want to get hired for a job or project? If so, then what can you present to other people to promote that outcome? Which people would you communicate with? How? What would work to actually produce the result?
Do you want to produce an increase in sales of a particular product or service? If so, then what can you present to other people that will produce that increase?
Do you want to produce a surge of public support for a particular political policy? If so, then what spectacle or publicity stunt can you create that will create a media sensation in order to attract public attention, shift public perception, and even change behavior? To borrow a saying from Noam Chomsky, how can you “manufacture consent?”
GWB Stood Still

GWB Stood Still (Photo credit: monkey_bob99x)

Flags in the inauguration crowd

Flags in the inauguration crowd (Photo credit: binarydreams)

 
The purpose of communication is to produce results. The specific purpose of a particular communication is the actual result produced.
 
Do you want to know why you said something distinctive that may have surprised you and other people? Notice the results. The results that you produced are why you did whatever you did. In other words, isn’t it possible that you said the thing that surprised people because that is precisely what you wanted to do: to surprise them?
 
New York (1982) - Twin Towers

New York (1982) – Twin Towers (Photo credit: galabgal)

 
Is that an argument? Is that a scientific principle excluding all other possible theories?
 
No, it is one perspective or interpretation. The actual results were the purpose. So, if you have another purpose in mind as a current priority (like if you have other results in mind), then a new method may be relevant.
 
Japanese executioner prepares to behead a cond...

Japanese executioner prepares to behead a condemned Chinese man kneeling before his own grave, Tientsin China. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. By the way, that includes saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results!”
 
What if I stop talking about my intention as being in conflict with the past? What if I say that if I made someone mad, I meant to do it? What if I claim that if I made someone sad or afraid or happy or curious, that is what I meant to do?
 
Obviously, I could also claim the opposite: “I admit that I made them feel guilty, but I did not want that. I admit that I made them feel relaxed, but I wanted something else completely.”
 
 
Those are two ways to relate to my past: it happened according to my will or it happened against my will. In other words, those are two ways to identify myself: I am powerful and responsible for the results that I have produced or I am a helpless victim whose life has been ruined by my life.
How can my life be ruined by my life? Isn’t that illogical?
Further, isn’t that kind of insanity extremely popular? Isn’t that pattern in language programmed constantly through culture: “apologize for your past. Apologize for your life!”
"A Kalighat image of the moment when the ...

“A Kalighat image of the moment when the government clerk, Nabin, stands poised to behead his wife Elokeshi with a fish knife. Wearing a burgundy sari against yellow skin tones, Elokeshi kneels before her husband with her face turned away and hand raised to ward off the blow. The black ‘holdall’ used by the painters to illustrate one of Nabin’s westernised accessories lies on the ground in front of Elokeshi whilst the umbrella, a further western attribute, hangs limply from his left hand.” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I can make a long list of regrets. Would you like to read it?
What are regrets? Regrets are things that happened in contrast to what I now say that I wanted then. Unless I say now that I wish now that something different had happened, then it is not a regret. Another word for regrets is “complaints.”
What if I was newly grateful for my past- not just as a recollection that I used to be grateful already? What if I suddenly appreciated my life just for really making my life what it is today? What if I acknowledge my life for being such a huge contribution to my life?
I know it sounds silly. I know that it may be more familiar to say “my past is ruining my life right now.” It might be very unfamiliar to be sane, to be grateful, to be self-affirming.
“What about what happened in 1978? What about what happened in 1789? Don’t we need to correct our past mistakes? In fact, don’t we need to present ourselves as victims that deserve special treatment and compensation and privileges?”
We could talk like any of that. If it produces the results that you value to talk like that, go ahead.
This image was selected as a picture of the we...

This image was selected as a picture of the week on the Malay Wikipedia for the 44th week, 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Things right now are not how they should be- certain things in particular of course. My life is still a very serious problem!”
You know, that is truly a very fascinating way to label or identify or relate to life. I do believe that I have heard a very similar story (that myth) from you before. In fact, I have heard that same creative poetry from myself!
We could call it “a popular unsanity” or “the popular distress” or “the paradigm of the disturbed.” We could even call it “the plain and simple truth!”
However, if it is the truth, then why is anyone ever upset if someone does not agree strongly enough? If it is so self-evident, then why is it possible to have a different perspective? In other words, if it is universal, then why isn’t it universal?
Consensus is only the consensus because of popularity, not because of accuracy or precision. A consensus interpretation is still an interpretation. A consensus fiction is still a fiction. A consensus “truth” that fits the definition of insanity is still insane, even though it may also be a consensus “truth.”
Too bad this is a bit blurry. Taken by the Dir...

Too bad this is a bit blurry. Taken by the Director of “New World Order” for me. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Do you remember ever getting upset that someone did not agree with you? Do you remember how sincere you were? 
 
Two sincere people who disagree can both argue that their perspective is established as accurate by their passionate sincerity. That may be what is otherwise known as insane (or at least immature).
 
Do you recognize now that sincerity is related to the experience of upset? Sincerity is easily threatened. Sincerity is already frightened. Sincerity is a pretense from the beginning: “This MUST be the way that it is because this is what is familiar to me!”
No, familiarity does not establish accuracy. Sincerity does not establish accuracy either. Sincerity establishes how easy it is for someone to get upset, to get threatened, to get defensive, to go insane with arrogant naivete.
“The truth must be true because EVERYONE knows that it is true! How DARE you have a different perspective?!?!”
Well, perhaps that is not the truth. Maybe that is just a consensus idea (ideal, myth, interpretation).
Alex Jones Tv 7_8_Alex Takes Your Calls Today

Alex Jones Tv 7_8_Alex Takes Your Calls Today (Photo credit: The Alex Jones Show)

If sincerity promotes producing the result you value most, so be it. If not, so be it.
 
To presume that others are always sincere may be less effective than to focus less on what they say and more on what they do. Actions are never “insincere.” Actual results are never “insincere.” 
 
Only words can be sincere or insincere. So what?
 
 
Sanity is not based on words. Sanity is not the result of words. Sanity is freedom from a popular delusion about words. 
 
Sanity is knowing that words are inherently symbolic codes. A code means anything that can mean something distinct from it’s actual appearance. It is like poetry. It can have more than one interpretation, more than one result, more than one meaning.
 
realamericans

realamericans (Photo credit: fsgm)

 
Words are not gibberish. That is just more insanity.
 
Words are tools for producing results. The actual sequence of sounds or letters may not be at all important. The result is what is important, right?
 
 
Can words point toward sanity? That might be possible.
 
Can words demonstrate or display sanity? That also might be possible.
 
Can specific words produce specific results? Some people have passionately denied that possibility.
 
 
“No, your honor, words are not important or influential and that is why I have no desire to make jokes about making a plea or praying for the mercy of the court. Further, I totally condemn the use of words and forever renounce all linguistic communication. From this moment forward, I will not ever speak or otherwise use language in any way, except perhaps to invoke my sacred right to remain silent. Of course, if I ever have the tragic misfortune of being spoken to, I promise that I will not understand the words used because there is no such thing as coherent language. Therefore, when there are words written on paper or on signs, I will certainly not decode them. As for numerals such as the number 8 or the number 1, I will also forget what the different shapes and sounds mean. All of life will be confusing gibberish to me. Your honor, please know that I say this from the bottom of my heart because I am committed to presenting myself as a deeply sincere person. I would NOT want anyone to accuse me of EVER being in the least insincere or ironic or playful. Furthermore, if anyone dares to question the sincerity of my declaration to never use language, which is the root of all evil, then I may be forced by my victimizer to resort to giving them a serious tongue-lashing. Frankly, I am deeply distressed, your honor, by the problem of the existence of language and thus I will do my part to prevent language from ever developing and causing any further influence on human perception or behavior. In conclusion, there is no such thing as reverse psychology and, even if there was, there should not be. And that’s why I am casting my vote today for the passage of the anti-lobbying bill to prevent bribery from destroying the eternal sanctity of our sacred temple of government sincerity.”
MikeCriss Blog - Alex Jones L'Inganno Di Obama

MikeCriss Blog – Alex Jones L’Inganno Di Obama (Photo credit: mikecrissflick)

 

Defending sincerity (and the art of passive aggressive finger-pointing)

April 13, 2013
English: Sincerity by Marino Gropelli,1717 at ...

English: Sincerity by Marino Gropelli,1717 at Summer Garden. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sincerity

Sincerity (Photo credit: mctrent)

First, I was pure and innocent. Eventually, I was terrified in to repressing certain capacities. That is the developing of shame.

Then, I diverted attention from my shame by projecting arrogance: “Notice what a good boy I am! Notice that I am so much better than that one person in particular and those groups of people in general, who are such horrible villains, don’t you agree? Well… you do like me best, don’t you? I deserve your validation! I have earned it, right? So then you better agree with me right now before you make me mad and force me to come over there and defend my sincerity.”

Finger pointing

Finger pointing (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I called my terrified arrogance “sincerity.” I called my panic of sincerity “what other people should agree with me about” or “what other people should think, too.”

If anyone said that my entire display of “sincerity” was a pretense or fraud, I would defend it by attacking them for being blind, deluded, argumentative, stupid, evil, and so on. Any threat that might reveal my shame (my repression) could unleash those repressed capacities.

For instance, if I should not be violent, then if someone accused me of repressing my capacity to be violent, then I might be quite violent in reaction to their accusation. Or, if I should not be argumentative, then if someone accused me of repressing my capacity to argue, then I might be quite argumentative in reaction to their accusation.

“I am not repressing my capacity to argue. No, hey, listen, I am not! No, I am actually just not argumentative at all. Look, stupid, I am not pretending not to be argumentative. I really am not. Really! Why can’t you just accept me how I really am?”

 

English: Sinceer "Hate" message. All...

English: Sinceer “Hate” message. Allegory of sincerity. Français : Message sincère de haine. Allégorie de la sincérité. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“How I really am” was the central pretense of my religion of sincere arrogance and terrified sincerity and naive arguing. Other people should think that I really am how I think that I really am. Or else at least they should not say anything that points to any inaccuracy in my sincere pretenses.

“My pretenses are sacred. Only an idiot would dare to question them. Therefore, obviously, anyone who dares to question them is an idiot and deserves to be shamed and humiliated and punished for their idiotic, arrogant, argumentative, pretentious, so-called sincerity.”

That used to be my religion. Now, if someone calls me arrogant or evil or argumentative, I might respond in some way. I might not respond. I might apologize. I might laugh. I might cry. I might get very defensive, passive aggressive.

I might say “Me? Argumentative? I am not argumentative! Why can’t you just accept me how I really am like you should? You should not be pointing fingers! Pointing fingers is bad and you are pointing fingers at me which means that you are bad. What? No, I am not pointing fingers at you! You are the one pointing fingers at me. Anyway, you started it. I am just telling the truth. I am just being honest- unlike you. I am just pointing out with my finger that your finger is pointing at my finger pointing at mine, which is your evil act of finger-pointing, and that is bad and you should not do that because you should not be so evil and do such evil things. Also, you should accept that I am not argumentative like you. You should acknowledge that I am better than you because I am too a good boy and… and you are a bad boy just for saying that I am not a good boy, which is evil finger-pointing and you really should stop that right now before you make me mad and force me to come over there and defend my sincerity!”

Passive-Aggressive

Passive-Aggressive (Photo credit: Burns!)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

Sincerity

Sincerity (Photo credit: joe.oconnell)

Recognizing language and the linguistic activity of agonizing

February 24, 2013

This piece may challenge your most sacred presumptions about sincerity and how it is valuable (or worthless) in different contexts. I will also include some references to the distinction between sincerity, accuracy, and precision.

 

Sincerity

Sincerity (Photo credit: mctrent)

When red is present, you simply recognize it. You do not “understand it” or defend positions and argue about what is idolatry and where does your understanding of red come from and how does one get to understand red.

That is the foolishness of sincerity. Nothing is wrong with that, but it has no power or authority. Do you recognize directly what language is without having any reactions about your cherished ideals and “do I agree or do I disagree” and “is that really red or is that really in fact not red but MAROON?”

This is language. Recognize it as language. Later, when language arises again, if it ever does, then will you ever have any issue with recognizing language as language?

Do you know the difference between the subcategory of experience called “language” and all other subcategories of experience? Do you recognize that only within language can subcategories arise?

Do you recognize that the kingdom of language is supreme over all other kingdoms of subcategory, which only arise inside of the context of the kingdom of language? Language is a context. Distinguish it. By the way, God and Allah and Adonai and Brahman are just units within that context which is beyond any particular symbolic verbal unit of code.

 

English: Sincerity by Marino Gropelli,1717 at ...

English: Sincerity by Marino Gropelli,1717 at Summer Garden. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, I can be sincere and say that I am confident that housing process will rise in 2013. My confidence really just refers to my sincerity. It is not that I really have any particular logic or reasoning behind my sincere presumption. I am confident based on an unconsidered presumption. That is also called naivete.

Now, if I knew that a 20% increase in mortgage applications was just reported and a 23% increase in building permits was also just recorded and a new technology called air conditioning was just being marketed to people who live in hot places like Arizona- and there was already production underway for 200,000 of these new air conditioning units- then that would be a set of measures that would be distinct from mere sincerity.

The measures are 20%, 23% and 200,000. That is not sincerity. That is on to the realm of accuracy.

Inside of the realm of accuracy is the realm of precision, which just means EXACTLY HOW ACCURATE. Note that these realms are not about sincerity in particular. Sincerity again is just an acceptance of a possibility without any awareness of any particular evidence to the contrary.

So, I say that there was an increase of 20%. That is specific. That is not just sincere, but measurable.

What if someone challenges my precision and says, “actually, it was a 19.6% increase?” That is simply more precise. That is not an attack on my sincerity. That is just a different level of precision.

I could get even more precise:  19.58293%. At some point, further precision may be deemed irrelevant. Precision is actually all about relevance.

A sudden loss of consciousness

A sudden loss of consciousness (Photo credit: Pulpolux !!!)

 

Now, here is something that TE recently wrote to me:

And the aware person may be able to figure out how to recognize the places that they are suffering needlessly because of their own misunderstanding of their train of thought. But we have all been given something that will bypass all of that thinking, worrying, and figuring to a place that we have peace and direction in such a way that we can become like God – a perfected being! Do you have a reasoning of what that is?

JR wrote:

Forget the “places” where you do the activity of suffering and agonizing. Turn away from them. Notice the distinction of agonizing. That is enough.

The one who recognizes that agonizing is a behavioral choice (an OPTIONAL behavioral choice involving language and neuro-linguistic programs) does not lose “inner peace” in the midst of someone else agonizing- we can “forgive” their sin of agonizing rather than condemn them.

See JOhn: Yeshua said to them again, “Peace be with you. Just as my Father has sent me, I also am sending you.” 22When he had said these things, he breathed upon them and he said to them, “Receive The Spirit of Holiness.” 23“If you will forgive a man’s sins, they will be forgiven him, and if you hold a man’s, they will be held.”

http://aramaic-plain-english.scripturetext.com/john/20.htm verses 21-23

Also, by reducing biochemical stress (such as by changing diet), one can stabilize neurochemistry. However, it is important first that we release or discontinue any contempt. Until we repent of contempt and condemnation, we would never think to speak about diet and our spirit would be of contempt and contentioousnes, not a spirit of contentment.

TE:  its gonna be a lot longer conversation if you are gonna read from anything other than the King James. Because then we have to go over the translation issues. Maybe this conversation should be done in person or at least in conversation.

The first page of the Book of Genesis from the...

The first page of the Book of Genesis from the original 1611 printing of the King James Bible. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

JR: King James is translated via an intermediary language. In 2010, old original parchments in Aramaic were translated directly in to modern-day English and published. For the most part, the differences are not radical, though.

I think in KJV, the wording includes the word “retain:” “if you *retain* a judgment against another, then the judgment against them continues. However, if you forgive them of what you have made them wrong about, then their neural inertia can dissolve.” By the way, the latter portion in quotes is not a quotation of any particular ancient verse to the best of my knowledge.

If you know these distinctions in your heart as within in your spirit, then they you can put them in to any language with any parables or metaphors for any audience. There will be no “special” concern with scriptural references or second-hand authority. God does not require second-hand validation.

TE: I understand how the original was translated into the KING James version. If you want we can discuss in person or on phone. The NIV or any other gets further from the truth not closer. 

The original translations into King James were problematic enough – dont need any new translations

[ironic thing to say, huh?]

King James Bible

King James Bible (Photo credit: freefotouk)

JR:  I am not interested in your “truth.” You sound like you are not a student of truth, but of your most familiar translations.

TE: Red is red no matter what language or translation you try to put it in. The eye translates it as the same unless you have issues with your translators in your eyes. I am just tired. We should have some real conversations in person or on the phone.

JR: Yes, red out there is still red, but the labels are simply labels: red, maroon, brick red, fuschia, and so on. I am still talking about the issue of precision.

Agonizing is an activity in language and is MEASURABLE in neuro-linguistics and neuro-chemistry. Suffering is actually a broader term that includes things like physical pain, but the essence of Buddhism and Christianity and Judaism and so on are not about the “suffering” of a functioning nerve reflex when I touch something surprisingly hot. The ancient word “dukkha” is about agonizing, and many early translators did not have the distinction of agonizing as a behavior and thus used a word like suffering which is so imprecise as to be confusing garble.

Agonizing is about a particular form of panic in regard to the language used to relate to some trigger of the perceiving of a threat.

 

TE: it does not matter what shade you paint it – the eye translates the truth unless the translators are broke

JR: Yes, but you are repeating words from a translated book and I am “looking at the real thing.” I can recognize that you are in the process of distinguishing what precision means and what language is. Maybe we will talk further about these spiritual recognitions.

But to have loyalty to a bunch of translations of another bunch of translations is what I call idolatry- though completely understandable until one is confronted with the possibility of direct recognition.

 

TE: Direct recognition comes from God not discussion or understanding of language, but through his Spirit. We are always limited in our language, because every human experience is different. Good night

 

JR: Again, you are repeating second-hand phrases and presumptions. Some of what you said is accurate (though perhaps somewhat imprecise), however, you do not know which part is which. You are merely sincere.

That is extremely valuable, but not the fullness of what is available. In other words, mere sincerity is not direct recognition and when direct recognition is present, there is absolutely no concern for labeling “where it comes from” or referencing “where it does not come from.”

You simply do not have direct recognition. If you can distinguish the sincerity as sincerity and then rest in the humility of not having direct recognition, then you can relax and learn and, perhaps, directly recognize.

All that you would ever get from an understanding of language is an understanding of language. If you “gave up” any issue of whether you understand language- like of course you can understand English but probably not Aramaic- then a direct recognizing of language could be present.

It is not a point of knowledge, like “aha, now I KNOW that thing and I add it to one of the things that I know that I know.” It is like recognizing red. When red is present, you simply recognize it. You do not “understand it” or defend positions and argue about what is idolatry and where does your understanding of red come from and how does one get to understand red.

That is the foolishness of sincerity. Nothing is wrong with that, but it has no power or authority. Do you recognize directly what language is without having any reactions about your cherished ideals and “do I agree or do I disagree” and “is that really red or is that really in fact not red but MAROON?”

This is language. Recognize it as language. Later when language arises again, if it ever does, then will you ever have any issue with recognizing language as language?

Do you know the difference between the subcategory of experience called “language” and all other subcategories of experience? Do you recognize that only within language can subcategories arise? Do you recognize that the kingdom of language is supreme over all other kingdoms of subcategory, which only arise inside of the context of the kingdom of language?

Language is a context. Distinguish it. God and Allah and Adonai and Brahman are just units within that context which is beyond any particular symbolic verbal unit of code.

Note- when you say that you are not a perfected being, consider that God finds that to be a bit of an insult, but a cute one, so not at all offensive. 

 

The above dialogue arose from me sharing this content on the website Facebook earlier tonight:

 

 


%d bloggers like this: