Imagine the perfect machine. It would be able to do anything you asked it to do. It could mold itself into any form necessary to the task assigned. If it needed more machines to accomplish some task, it would readily be able to make them, each with as much ability as the original. It would be able to learn and then solve any problem with what it knows. And if it didn't have the knowledge it needed to solve a problem that it has been given then it would be able to seek out and discover the knowledge it needed. It might do this by inventing powerful information processors - brains, if you will - of any size and capacity necessary to come up with a solution.
This perfect machine would be capable of surviving the harshest environments, and of even changing the environments of an entire planet if necessary in order for it to function properly.
What would the purpose be of such a powerful machine? There could only be one purpose: to serve and obey the willful demands of its creator.
Now, what if I told you that such machines already exists? Well, they do. We call them "cells".
(J.D. 1-7-14)
Friday, January 31, 2014
Innocence vs. Ignorance
I have struggled for some time when using the words "ignorance" and "innocence", because to me they have a different meaning than they do for most people. I know I should be the one to adapt my understanding and usage of these words; it is after all the "English" language, not "my" language. But the words themselves scream out to me that they are being violated in mass, and used erroneously in support of a great deception that the English language itself seems to intentionally perpetuate. So, in the interest of clearer communication, and in my ongoing efforts to use words to deconstruct the deception perpetrated by words, let me say here once and for all what the words, "innocence" and "ignorance" communicate for me.
Ignorance, in my book, has no negative or detracting connotations, while innocence may. Innocence, to me, means what ignorance means to most people. It is simply not knowing something by virtue of inexperience. Ignorance on the other hand, is not knowing something by choice, i.e. ignoring our experience. On a very deep philosophical level, I believe that we only exist at all as individuals (apparently separate from other individuals, and from our surroundings in general) because on some fundamental (a.k.a. "spiritual") level we have chosen to ignore the direct and immediate experience of being One with everything, and of everything being One with us. I have sometimes attempted to express this distinction of ignorance by intentionally (mis-) spelling the word, "ignorence", (with an "e"). I like to think that this is a new word, "ignorence", more correctly express the nuance of "ignorance" that most people seem innocent of (though I suspect they are simply being ignorent).
Innocence, as I have said, means a lack of experience, which is, according to my "deep philosophy", simply not possible. So, to say one is innocent is not just a misnomer, it's really an outright misconception. It is only possible to be innocent in this sense if we are in fact somehow separate from the all-knowing Universe (i.e. our experiences, which is, BTW a.k.a. God). To believe we are separate (and that innocence is possible) is to believe also that death (or "eternal damnation") is possible, and unfortunately, we, as an infinite being capable of creating what we experience by ignoring what we don't want to experience, only end up creating "death" for ourselves with such fearful beliefs.
This should not be shocking to anyone who reads the words of our sages (including but not limited to the Christian Bible) since they have been saying the same thing (or at least trying to) for thousands of years. It doesn't take science, religion, or even brains to understand. It just takes the courage to not ignore the Truth of who we are, and the fortitude to accept that nobody is innocent - ever.
(J.D. 11-1-13)
P.S. I sometimes use the word innocence to refer to the state of forgiveness in which we are completely void of judgement, which is not the same thing as innocence as inexperience. I would call this instead, "divine innocence".
Ignorance, in my book, has no negative or detracting connotations, while innocence may. Innocence, to me, means what ignorance means to most people. It is simply not knowing something by virtue of inexperience. Ignorance on the other hand, is not knowing something by choice, i.e. ignoring our experience. On a very deep philosophical level, I believe that we only exist at all as individuals (apparently separate from other individuals, and from our surroundings in general) because on some fundamental (a.k.a. "spiritual") level we have chosen to ignore the direct and immediate experience of being One with everything, and of everything being One with us. I have sometimes attempted to express this distinction of ignorance by intentionally (mis-) spelling the word, "ignorence", (with an "e"). I like to think that this is a new word, "ignorence", more correctly express the nuance of "ignorance" that most people seem innocent of (though I suspect they are simply being ignorent).
Innocence, as I have said, means a lack of experience, which is, according to my "deep philosophy", simply not possible. So, to say one is innocent is not just a misnomer, it's really an outright misconception. It is only possible to be innocent in this sense if we are in fact somehow separate from the all-knowing Universe (i.e. our experiences, which is, BTW a.k.a. God). To believe we are separate (and that innocence is possible) is to believe also that death (or "eternal damnation") is possible, and unfortunately, we, as an infinite being capable of creating what we experience by ignoring what we don't want to experience, only end up creating "death" for ourselves with such fearful beliefs.
This should not be shocking to anyone who reads the words of our sages (including but not limited to the Christian Bible) since they have been saying the same thing (or at least trying to) for thousands of years. It doesn't take science, religion, or even brains to understand. It just takes the courage to not ignore the Truth of who we are, and the fortitude to accept that nobody is innocent - ever.
(J.D. 11-1-13)
P.S. I sometimes use the word innocence to refer to the state of forgiveness in which we are completely void of judgement, which is not the same thing as innocence as inexperience. I would call this instead, "divine innocence".
Thursday, January 23, 2014
The Power of Perfect Knowledge
If knowledge is power, and it certainly is, then perfect knowledge is perfect power. That means that if you had perfect knowledge (i.e. you were omniscient) then you could move not just mountains, but entire galaxies by simply changing the spin of a single subatomic particle at the right point in time (i.e. say, a billionth of a second after the big bang). But, you could also determine the direction an ant chooses in a quest for food in a similar manner. Or, the choice a man makes in any point in time would also be yours to determine far far before that man ever becomes aware of his choices, and even if he never becomes aware of it.
This is an interesting philosophical point, but it raises an even more intriguing and important question: if perfect knowledge is perfect power, then what is power in the absence of perfect knowledge?
Think about it. The implications are astounding. We typically assume that we have the "power" to manipulate other people (by force or persuasion for example) as well as our environment. But, without perfect knowledge, do we? Do we even have power over our own lives, or the choices we make moment to moment? According to the principle of perfect knowledge all the power and control we posses and fight so desperately for all our lives is only an illusion of power and not real at all.
I think John Lennon would say, "Imagine that".
(J.D. 12-29-13)
This is an interesting philosophical point, but it raises an even more intriguing and important question: if perfect knowledge is perfect power, then what is power in the absence of perfect knowledge?
Think about it. The implications are astounding. We typically assume that we have the "power" to manipulate other people (by force or persuasion for example) as well as our environment. But, without perfect knowledge, do we? Do we even have power over our own lives, or the choices we make moment to moment? According to the principle of perfect knowledge all the power and control we posses and fight so desperately for all our lives is only an illusion of power and not real at all.
I think John Lennon would say, "Imagine that".
(J.D. 12-29-13)
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
The Idea Of Christ
Every cell in our bodies is an individual living organism connected to neighboring cells via a matrix of fibroid tissue. If you remove a cell from the body and provide it everything it needs to live; oxygen, nutrients, moisture, etc., it will still die. In fact, if the only thing you take away is the cell's ability to communicate chemically with its neighboring cells, it will die. Brain cells (neurons and glia) are especially sensitive to their social environment. They are the hardest to keep alive long enough to study once they have been removed from the brain. That's why most brain cell studies must be done in situ (i.e. while the cell is still in the brain).
It's fascinating to note that humans also cannot survive long without social contact. We have known for years (mostfly from post revolution Russian orphanages) that human children who receive no human contact will die for unclear reasons. Even in the United States there have been documented instances of children just dropping dead who we later learned had no social life to sustain them. Crazy hermits may seem an exception, but in nearly every such case these people end up developing fragmented psychological structures that provide enough of an illusion of social interaction that they can survive on their own, but usually only for a few years at most. Our mental hospitals are full of them; we call the schizophrenics (perhaps schizophrenia is not an illness at all, but a survival mechanism that can easily be reversed by simply addressing the social needs of the individual - needs that may well be disrupted by some other mental deficiency, but is usually the result of poor social experiences).
The implications of these well known facts are clear. We need social interaction on every level of our being, from individual cells to complex human organisms (bodies and brains). No one can live for long without it, or at least without some substitute for it. In the brain, the cells that somehow manage to provide the experiences we call consciousness (mistakenly, but that's beside the point) clearly depend on this social contact with other brain cells in order to do so. So, what "consciousness" might arise on a global scale from the complex social interactions of human beings?
This is a question that Jungian psychologists spend most of their time trying to unravel. Jung himself refered to it as the collective unconscious, and spent almost his entire professional life studying it and attempting to lay a foundation of scientific observations that could be used as a structure upon which further understanding might be built. We have "collectively" learned much ever since, though most of what has been learned is still mired in the intellectual vanities of the presumption that consciousness has no influence on behavior, only stimulus does). Even though the premise of behavioralism has been thoroughly discredited decades ago, it still muddies our collective thinking and keeps us from seeing things as clearly as we otherwise might.
The thing that we are not yet clearly realizing but soon should, is that the collective unconscious is not unconscious at all. It is a living, thinking, feeling (and perhaps even sleeping and dreaming) consciousness that exhibits all the known characteristics of a functioning human brain, only on a vastly enlarged and all encompassing scale. We only experience it "unconsciously" (through our dreams and fantasies) because we can no more experience it directly than any one neuron could experience our human level consciousness directly.
Jung explains that the evidence of this higher consciousness existing is in our dreams, our fantasies, and our mythology; especially our mythology. The "ideas" that pass through the collective mind appear to us as the shadowy ill-defined ideas we call myths and dreams. these collective ideas, or "thoughts", that Jung called archetypes, are all around us, and permeate our every experience. We cannot live without them. They not only define us, they breath life itself into us. Consciousness does not emerge from the bottom up, as most scientists still presumre despite the mounting evidence in nearly every field of study, from quantum physics to biology to psychology and sociology. Consciousness is breathed into us from a higher level. And when we are cut off from it, we die.
Jesus Christ is a Jungian archetype that is commonly known as the "savior archetype", an idea that appears throughout history. Not only in our mythology, but in our literature, music, art, or any other medium typically associated with unconscious influences (e.g. the muses). The savior archetype is clearly expressed in all forms of contemporary media as well. Christ as savior is not a Christian idea and never was (Christians just latched onto it, as religious people do to anything they can "see" but not quite understand). Jung proved this long ago by demonstrating the existence of savior archetypes in cultures that exist in complete isolation from Christian influences (by actually travelig to and living in those cultures in order to study them). Not to mention documentation of the savior archetype in cultures that existed long before the religioin of Christianity was invented. In fact, there is convincing evidence --- or, should I say, a convincing lack of evidence --- that Jesus Christ the Nazarene never really existed as a man at all. Everything we know about Jesus has all the earmarks of a fabricated myth, and no independent evidence at all of his life, or his death, in this world.
But, whether or not Jesus was real, fake, or some mix of both, is not important. What is important is that the Christ exists as a persistent idea in the collective mind of our world. And that idea not only informs writers and artists, but daydreamers like me as well.
My life has paralleled the mythical life of Jesus in so many ways it is frightening! (for me at least). But, it's usually hard for me to express these parallels because they run beneath the surface of our conscious experience. So, no, I am not a carpenter, and I cannot miraculously cure blindness. Nor have I ever overturned tables in a temple, or been beaten and condemned for blaspheming the Jewish idea of God. But I was a professional craftsman (I earned a decent living building good quality computer programs), and I have helped lots of people to "open their eyes" and "see" things they did not before "see". I have also openly attacked people in the modern "tempe" of their home (which is as "holy" to a modern person as temples were in Jesus' day) and, most importantly of all, I have defiled the "sacred innocent" archetype of our modern society; the human child. My crime was in effect the worst form of "blasphemy" possible in our contemporary world. In Jesus' day, the tempe was the house of the most sacred innocent of all (i.e. God). And so when Jesus entered that house and overturned the tables, and attacked the money chargers with a whip, he was committing a crime that in the minds of the people of that day was by far the worst of the worst crime possible. Child rape in thos edays was not even on the crime radar (in fact, in some circumstances it was legally ordained!) Jesus himself could have had sex with children and no one would have cared; it would never have even been commented on by his disciples or anyone else. (But the fact that he recognized children as human beings at all was apparently noteworthy.)
So, where is all this going? I'll tell you where: I am as much "the Christ" as Jesus was. I see this clearly, but I am called crazy (or at least "incompetent") if I speak of it because others cannot "see" the truth of it. Though I'm not exclusively the Christ; and neither was Jesus (which even the Bible admits).
My life has been the expression of an idea in the mind of the world. And I believe that this idea will be continually expressed by "criminals" like me who are "possessed by demons" according to the pharisees (lawmakers and enforcers) of the day, until it ultimately accomplishes what it was originally intended to accomplish (i.e. the "salvation" of the world). So, the next time you hear of someone claiming to be Jesus Christ, it wouldn't hurt to stop and listen to what he's trying to say; I mean REALLY listen.
I'm not saying I am Jesus. All I'm saying is that there are intelligent forces at play in my life that have shaped not just my experiences, but my behavior as well: all unconsciously to me. Unconsciously at least until I "woke up" on the mountain in the Montana wilderness with Shasta (an eight-year-old child) as my unknowing guide. I saw through her eyes what I could not see on my own due to my years and years of crusted over fear and hatred. I was able to let my guard down for her, and she deftly and completely naturally took advantage of the opportunity to love me directly --- to connect with a monster, that she knew in her heart was really just a frightened man in a mask: the archetypical minataur. I was thus "transformed" in the exact same sense that Jesus was transformed, also on a mountain. The whole process is fundamental to the ultimate intentions of life itself, and this "savior" archetypical pattern takes form not only in people's lives as it has in mine, but also, as I have said above, in the form of art (see Picasso's 1935 etching, "Minotauromachy"), movies, songs, and of course myths and legends, not to mention dreams and even ordinary fantasies. So, I am making no bizarre claims here. I am only observing and testifying to the Living Truth as I see it.
[J.D. the Christ 1-12-14]
P.S. Because I am confined in a prison cell I do not have access to resources that would allow me to confirm or expand upon the facts I rely on for the above. So I must rely upon my ability to recall things that I have read or seen in the past, which is not going to be 100% reliable. But the basic concepts above are sound, and I just hope that if there are any discrepancies in the "facts" that they don't detract from the essence of what I am trying to say here. And if the reader is aware of any facts that I have either missed or misrepresented that conflict with the basic premise of this post, then please leave a comment that lets me (and everyone else) know; thank you.
P.S.S. The above P.S. goes for all posts in the Fifth Nail blogs. While I never intentionally report a "fact" that I know not to be true, I do make mistakes on occassion, and always appreciate being corrected.
It's fascinating to note that humans also cannot survive long without social contact. We have known for years (mostfly from post revolution Russian orphanages) that human children who receive no human contact will die for unclear reasons. Even in the United States there have been documented instances of children just dropping dead who we later learned had no social life to sustain them. Crazy hermits may seem an exception, but in nearly every such case these people end up developing fragmented psychological structures that provide enough of an illusion of social interaction that they can survive on their own, but usually only for a few years at most. Our mental hospitals are full of them; we call the schizophrenics (perhaps schizophrenia is not an illness at all, but a survival mechanism that can easily be reversed by simply addressing the social needs of the individual - needs that may well be disrupted by some other mental deficiency, but is usually the result of poor social experiences).
The implications of these well known facts are clear. We need social interaction on every level of our being, from individual cells to complex human organisms (bodies and brains). No one can live for long without it, or at least without some substitute for it. In the brain, the cells that somehow manage to provide the experiences we call consciousness (mistakenly, but that's beside the point) clearly depend on this social contact with other brain cells in order to do so. So, what "consciousness" might arise on a global scale from the complex social interactions of human beings?
This is a question that Jungian psychologists spend most of their time trying to unravel. Jung himself refered to it as the collective unconscious, and spent almost his entire professional life studying it and attempting to lay a foundation of scientific observations that could be used as a structure upon which further understanding might be built. We have "collectively" learned much ever since, though most of what has been learned is still mired in the intellectual vanities of the presumption that consciousness has no influence on behavior, only stimulus does). Even though the premise of behavioralism has been thoroughly discredited decades ago, it still muddies our collective thinking and keeps us from seeing things as clearly as we otherwise might.
The thing that we are not yet clearly realizing but soon should, is that the collective unconscious is not unconscious at all. It is a living, thinking, feeling (and perhaps even sleeping and dreaming) consciousness that exhibits all the known characteristics of a functioning human brain, only on a vastly enlarged and all encompassing scale. We only experience it "unconsciously" (through our dreams and fantasies) because we can no more experience it directly than any one neuron could experience our human level consciousness directly.
Jung explains that the evidence of this higher consciousness existing is in our dreams, our fantasies, and our mythology; especially our mythology. The "ideas" that pass through the collective mind appear to us as the shadowy ill-defined ideas we call myths and dreams. these collective ideas, or "thoughts", that Jung called archetypes, are all around us, and permeate our every experience. We cannot live without them. They not only define us, they breath life itself into us. Consciousness does not emerge from the bottom up, as most scientists still presumre despite the mounting evidence in nearly every field of study, from quantum physics to biology to psychology and sociology. Consciousness is breathed into us from a higher level. And when we are cut off from it, we die.
Jesus Christ is a Jungian archetype that is commonly known as the "savior archetype", an idea that appears throughout history. Not only in our mythology, but in our literature, music, art, or any other medium typically associated with unconscious influences (e.g. the muses). The savior archetype is clearly expressed in all forms of contemporary media as well. Christ as savior is not a Christian idea and never was (Christians just latched onto it, as religious people do to anything they can "see" but not quite understand). Jung proved this long ago by demonstrating the existence of savior archetypes in cultures that exist in complete isolation from Christian influences (by actually travelig to and living in those cultures in order to study them). Not to mention documentation of the savior archetype in cultures that existed long before the religioin of Christianity was invented. In fact, there is convincing evidence --- or, should I say, a convincing lack of evidence --- that Jesus Christ the Nazarene never really existed as a man at all. Everything we know about Jesus has all the earmarks of a fabricated myth, and no independent evidence at all of his life, or his death, in this world.
But, whether or not Jesus was real, fake, or some mix of both, is not important. What is important is that the Christ exists as a persistent idea in the collective mind of our world. And that idea not only informs writers and artists, but daydreamers like me as well.
My life has paralleled the mythical life of Jesus in so many ways it is frightening! (for me at least). But, it's usually hard for me to express these parallels because they run beneath the surface of our conscious experience. So, no, I am not a carpenter, and I cannot miraculously cure blindness. Nor have I ever overturned tables in a temple, or been beaten and condemned for blaspheming the Jewish idea of God. But I was a professional craftsman (I earned a decent living building good quality computer programs), and I have helped lots of people to "open their eyes" and "see" things they did not before "see". I have also openly attacked people in the modern "tempe" of their home (which is as "holy" to a modern person as temples were in Jesus' day) and, most importantly of all, I have defiled the "sacred innocent" archetype of our modern society; the human child. My crime was in effect the worst form of "blasphemy" possible in our contemporary world. In Jesus' day, the tempe was the house of the most sacred innocent of all (i.e. God). And so when Jesus entered that house and overturned the tables, and attacked the money chargers with a whip, he was committing a crime that in the minds of the people of that day was by far the worst of the worst crime possible. Child rape in thos edays was not even on the crime radar (in fact, in some circumstances it was legally ordained!) Jesus himself could have had sex with children and no one would have cared; it would never have even been commented on by his disciples or anyone else. (But the fact that he recognized children as human beings at all was apparently noteworthy.)
So, where is all this going? I'll tell you where: I am as much "the Christ" as Jesus was. I see this clearly, but I am called crazy (or at least "incompetent") if I speak of it because others cannot "see" the truth of it. Though I'm not exclusively the Christ; and neither was Jesus (which even the Bible admits).
My life has been the expression of an idea in the mind of the world. And I believe that this idea will be continually expressed by "criminals" like me who are "possessed by demons" according to the pharisees (lawmakers and enforcers) of the day, until it ultimately accomplishes what it was originally intended to accomplish (i.e. the "salvation" of the world). So, the next time you hear of someone claiming to be Jesus Christ, it wouldn't hurt to stop and listen to what he's trying to say; I mean REALLY listen.
I'm not saying I am Jesus. All I'm saying is that there are intelligent forces at play in my life that have shaped not just my experiences, but my behavior as well: all unconsciously to me. Unconsciously at least until I "woke up" on the mountain in the Montana wilderness with Shasta (an eight-year-old child) as my unknowing guide. I saw through her eyes what I could not see on my own due to my years and years of crusted over fear and hatred. I was able to let my guard down for her, and she deftly and completely naturally took advantage of the opportunity to love me directly --- to connect with a monster, that she knew in her heart was really just a frightened man in a mask: the archetypical minataur. I was thus "transformed" in the exact same sense that Jesus was transformed, also on a mountain. The whole process is fundamental to the ultimate intentions of life itself, and this "savior" archetypical pattern takes form not only in people's lives as it has in mine, but also, as I have said above, in the form of art (see Picasso's 1935 etching, "Minotauromachy"), movies, songs, and of course myths and legends, not to mention dreams and even ordinary fantasies. So, I am making no bizarre claims here. I am only observing and testifying to the Living Truth as I see it.
[J.D. the Christ 1-12-14]
P.S. Because I am confined in a prison cell I do not have access to resources that would allow me to confirm or expand upon the facts I rely on for the above. So I must rely upon my ability to recall things that I have read or seen in the past, which is not going to be 100% reliable. But the basic concepts above are sound, and I just hope that if there are any discrepancies in the "facts" that they don't detract from the essence of what I am trying to say here. And if the reader is aware of any facts that I have either missed or misrepresented that conflict with the basic premise of this post, then please leave a comment that lets me (and everyone else) know; thank you.
P.S.S. The above P.S. goes for all posts in the Fifth Nail blogs. While I never intentionally report a "fact" that I know not to be true, I do make mistakes on occassion, and always appreciate being corrected.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Boy or Girl?
When it's possible a man to be perceived as a woman, even superficially, it says nothing about how the man perceives himself relative to what it says about how his society perceives women in general.
When a six year old boy cries himself to sleep at night because he honestly feels that he is a girl trapped in the wrong body ("About a Girl", Rolling Stone, Nov. 7. 2013), the real tragedy isn't his "dysphoria"; it's his world's emphasis on sexualized personal identity.
Strangely enough, given how often they are wrong, psychologists seemed to have had the right idea when they changed their official definition for this problem from "transsexual personality disorder" to "transgender dysphoria", hence identifying it at last as a societal disfunction, no longer a personal one.
(J.D. 22-11-13)
When a six year old boy cries himself to sleep at night because he honestly feels that he is a girl trapped in the wrong body ("About a Girl", Rolling Stone, Nov. 7. 2013), the real tragedy isn't his "dysphoria"; it's his world's emphasis on sexualized personal identity.
Strangely enough, given how often they are wrong, psychologists seemed to have had the right idea when they changed their official definition for this problem from "transsexual personality disorder" to "transgender dysphoria", hence identifying it at last as a societal disfunction, no longer a personal one.
(J.D. 22-11-13)
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Dancing For Rain
When our primitive ancestors desperately wanted the rain to come in order to stave off a famine we all know what they did. But what few people realize is how logical their ceremonies and rituals seemed to them. They didn't just dance and hope it would please the gods so they would send the much needed rain. No, they were convinced beyond doubt that their dances, and their sacrifices --- human in many cases --- would bring the rain. They were convinced not just because their priests and other lawmakers told them it was so, but also because they saw it work over and over again..... or, at least that's what they really thought they saw.
Of course we tell ourselves today how foolish these "primatives" were, and think we would never be so easily deceived. We realize that what they fell for was a combination of political razzle-dazzle by their leaders, and unconcious selective memory. They clearly remember all the times that it didn't come. After all, when the rain didn't come it was always for a good reason --- a reason that their priests were always sure to point out to them, usually involving the need for more sacrifices and alms.
It is no different today, but instead of dancing for rain, our leaders and lawmakers dance for peace, or justive, or freedom, in the name of gods no more real or potent than Ixtle, or Thor. Of course our gods today go by other names, uch as Lady Justice, or the American Eagle, and don't forget good ol' Uncle Sam. You might think thee are merely symbols, not gods at all. But, think about what they symbolize and you will be soon forced to admit that the great statues that people once worshipped in temples were just "symbols" to them as well. We commonly assume that these primatives really thought the stone they worshipped was alive, but how stupid do we think those people were. They knew their statues were only symbols for something else --- an idea --- that they never called "gods" themselves; our historians invented that term later in order to describe this inevitably recurring social practise. No, they did not think of these ideas as gods, per se. They were powerful beings, sometimes with human qualities and frailties, but not human at all. And they had the ability to control things in nature that people could not comprehend, such as rain, earthquakes, or infant mortality.
People in those days seldom prayed to these gods themselves. The common practise, across all cultures, was to take their appeals and requests to the lawmakers, and priests (the term "pharisee" fits best here because it means both lawmakers, law enforcer, and priest all in one; only recently have these roles been separated in the mind of social consciousness, but in truth they are still all one and the same thing --- except modern "priests" have been made impotent by the new religious ruling class we call "politicians"). We do the same today, when we are robbed, or our child is raped, we turn to our own pharisees for help, and we in turn expect them to influence their gods in order to invoke justice. And all they ask in return are mere tokens of submission to their authority (i.e. ability to persuade the modern gods for "rain"). But thir power to invoke justice, or even protect our children, is no more real or potent than the primative priest's power to bring rain, or ward off an invasion.
Few people today can see the effective powerlessness that our government officials have to stop terrorism, or prevent crime. Like pharisees and priests of old, their power is all smoke and mirrors. Even if they did have the ability to do half what they claim, why would they? If they stopped crime, or eliminated terrorism, then they'd be out of a job.
And it's not just some disgruntled child-rapist/killer telling you this. Many well established books have been written about it (I've listed a few amongst the other books I've read recently at 5Nbooks.blogspot.com). And I also speak from direct personal experience of the System's impotence to stop someone like me. If not only failed to stop me, but a careful study of my case history clearly establushes an enabling pattern. I don't think anyone in the System ever consciously wanted me to rape and kill jut so they could feel good about their job. But, the System itself has a clear intelligence and motive of its own that has been studied and well established for hundreds, even thousands of years.
It is because of the Pharisees, who bow down to their precious System --- their new god --- that it is given the power to make people like me do the things we do. I'm not blaming them, only observing their role and responsibility for my crimes, just as I have observed and taken responsibility for myself.
The insanity won't end until the pharisees stop worshipping their god. Killing people like me has no more influence on crime than killing captured warriors had on the weather. Of course our modern priests don't want you to know that. They genuinely believe ripping people's hearts out is the only real solution to this world's problems. So they'll never give up their power. It must be taken from them. And, it will be taken from them, hopefully sooner than later; and when that day comes maybe we can all stop dancing for rain and start trying to find real solutions for our problems instead.
[J.D. 31-12-13]
Of course we tell ourselves today how foolish these "primatives" were, and think we would never be so easily deceived. We realize that what they fell for was a combination of political razzle-dazzle by their leaders, and unconcious selective memory. They clearly remember all the times that it didn't come. After all, when the rain didn't come it was always for a good reason --- a reason that their priests were always sure to point out to them, usually involving the need for more sacrifices and alms.
It is no different today, but instead of dancing for rain, our leaders and lawmakers dance for peace, or justive, or freedom, in the name of gods no more real or potent than Ixtle, or Thor. Of course our gods today go by other names, uch as Lady Justice, or the American Eagle, and don't forget good ol' Uncle Sam. You might think thee are merely symbols, not gods at all. But, think about what they symbolize and you will be soon forced to admit that the great statues that people once worshipped in temples were just "symbols" to them as well. We commonly assume that these primatives really thought the stone they worshipped was alive, but how stupid do we think those people were. They knew their statues were only symbols for something else --- an idea --- that they never called "gods" themselves; our historians invented that term later in order to describe this inevitably recurring social practise. No, they did not think of these ideas as gods, per se. They were powerful beings, sometimes with human qualities and frailties, but not human at all. And they had the ability to control things in nature that people could not comprehend, such as rain, earthquakes, or infant mortality.
People in those days seldom prayed to these gods themselves. The common practise, across all cultures, was to take their appeals and requests to the lawmakers, and priests (the term "pharisee" fits best here because it means both lawmakers, law enforcer, and priest all in one; only recently have these roles been separated in the mind of social consciousness, but in truth they are still all one and the same thing --- except modern "priests" have been made impotent by the new religious ruling class we call "politicians"). We do the same today, when we are robbed, or our child is raped, we turn to our own pharisees for help, and we in turn expect them to influence their gods in order to invoke justice. And all they ask in return are mere tokens of submission to their authority (i.e. ability to persuade the modern gods for "rain"). But thir power to invoke justice, or even protect our children, is no more real or potent than the primative priest's power to bring rain, or ward off an invasion.
Few people today can see the effective powerlessness that our government officials have to stop terrorism, or prevent crime. Like pharisees and priests of old, their power is all smoke and mirrors. Even if they did have the ability to do half what they claim, why would they? If they stopped crime, or eliminated terrorism, then they'd be out of a job.
And it's not just some disgruntled child-rapist/killer telling you this. Many well established books have been written about it (I've listed a few amongst the other books I've read recently at 5Nbooks.blogspot.com). And I also speak from direct personal experience of the System's impotence to stop someone like me. If not only failed to stop me, but a careful study of my case history clearly establushes an enabling pattern. I don't think anyone in the System ever consciously wanted me to rape and kill jut so they could feel good about their job. But, the System itself has a clear intelligence and motive of its own that has been studied and well established for hundreds, even thousands of years.
It is because of the Pharisees, who bow down to their precious System --- their new god --- that it is given the power to make people like me do the things we do. I'm not blaming them, only observing their role and responsibility for my crimes, just as I have observed and taken responsibility for myself.
The insanity won't end until the pharisees stop worshipping their god. Killing people like me has no more influence on crime than killing captured warriors had on the weather. Of course our modern priests don't want you to know that. They genuinely believe ripping people's hearts out is the only real solution to this world's problems. So they'll never give up their power. It must be taken from them. And, it will be taken from them, hopefully sooner than later; and when that day comes maybe we can all stop dancing for rain and start trying to find real solutions for our problems instead.
[J.D. 31-12-13]
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
The Meaning And Power Of Unconditional Love
Few people understand the real meaning of unconditional love, not even those Christians who so incessantly preach about it. And why do I so often rail against Christians? Precisely because they don't understand the things they claim to believe, and by not doing so they make themselves hypocrits of the worst sort; the kind that destroy life in the name of love, and deceive our innocents in the name of the truth. The history alone of Christianity should warn us away from any affilication with them, not to mention any honest evaluation of the contemporary Christian modus operandi (i.e. disputing any science that contradicts their beliefs to the point of outright absurdity, and defending their beliegs not with facts and reason, but with fantasies and myths, which they call faith, but isn't faith at all, not even according to their precious "Holy" Bible which repeatedly warns against such false indoctrinations based solely on human perception and limitted understanding). Christians have done, and continue to do, more harm to this world than any other group of organized believers. I would call them evil, but that would only be feeding their delusion of righteous persecution, another self-deception that completely ignores their status in the world as one of the most accepted and honored religioins of all time; which, by the way, is something their Bible warns them vehemently not to be a part of (i.e. the "wide road").
I would challenge any Christian to practice what they preach, but they can't. Because to do so would mean loving even me unconditionally, which if they did then they would be forced to admit that they themselves are not special. Before they could truly love a child rapist they must first know what it means to be one. They must forsake the very concept of "personal salvation" (a term never used in their Bible, but only invented and promoted hundreds of years after Christ gave his life against it) and come to terms with the real "gospel" of Jesus; the gospel of oneness, and salvation through unity with God --- a unity forged in the blood of the son of man, and the son of God, who Jesus himself told us was in all of us, not just him.
Any Christian who accepted the challenge of uncondtional love would soon realize that the very act of calling themelves Christian (i.e. ditinguishing themselves, and in partcularily their relationship with God, as "holier" than others) flies in the face of everything Christ Jesus gave his life for.
Unconditional love means quite literally: to love another as you love yourself. That means completely erasing the boundary between us and others. It means seeing others as extensions of ourselves, and loving them accordingly. When a man traps a bomb to his chest and blows up other people he does not see as part of himself, Jesus tells us to love him and see in him our own ignorance!
That is the power of unconditional love. It is the power that comes with seeing and embracing the living truth. It doesn't matter what you call the Truth, unlesswhat you CALL IT is more important to you than what it IS! Unconditional love gives us the power to move mountains in the same way that it gives termites the ability to build ten foot tall skyscrapers out of mud. No single insect can grasp the means necessary to accomplish such a feat. But when that insect submits its will to the colony (the one body) by seeing its neighbors a extensions of itself, then the skyscraper rises without any conscious effort. The termites don't need a system of beliefs, they don't need a centralized point of control that tells them what to do and when to do it. They just know what they need to do without knowing how they know. And they have faith in this knowledge that comes from somewhere other than their own understanding.
I'm not saying anything here that the sages of the Christian Bible haven't already said many times. What I am saying does however go against everything Christians do. Christians love in a clearly limitted ense, and justify their judgemental and prejudicial love through misquotes and misinterpretations from their beloved Bible, an idolized tome if there ever was one. Christians don't understand the meaning of the power of having faith in unconditional love. If they did they would know that Jesus has already returned a long time ago, and is still waiting for his people to finally recognize him and stop spitting in his face and nailing him to the cross of their limitted and judgemental love.
[J.D. 12-16-13]
P.S. I use the term "Christians" above in a general sense only. Some people who call themselves "Christian" are not "Christians" in the sense that I rail against. In other words, not all Christians act or think in the way Christians in general do.
I would challenge any Christian to practice what they preach, but they can't. Because to do so would mean loving even me unconditionally, which if they did then they would be forced to admit that they themselves are not special. Before they could truly love a child rapist they must first know what it means to be one. They must forsake the very concept of "personal salvation" (a term never used in their Bible, but only invented and promoted hundreds of years after Christ gave his life against it) and come to terms with the real "gospel" of Jesus; the gospel of oneness, and salvation through unity with God --- a unity forged in the blood of the son of man, and the son of God, who Jesus himself told us was in all of us, not just him.
Any Christian who accepted the challenge of uncondtional love would soon realize that the very act of calling themelves Christian (i.e. ditinguishing themselves, and in partcularily their relationship with God, as "holier" than others) flies in the face of everything Christ Jesus gave his life for.
Unconditional love means quite literally: to love another as you love yourself. That means completely erasing the boundary between us and others. It means seeing others as extensions of ourselves, and loving them accordingly. When a man traps a bomb to his chest and blows up other people he does not see as part of himself, Jesus tells us to love him and see in him our own ignorance!
That is the power of unconditional love. It is the power that comes with seeing and embracing the living truth. It doesn't matter what you call the Truth, unlesswhat you CALL IT is more important to you than what it IS! Unconditional love gives us the power to move mountains in the same way that it gives termites the ability to build ten foot tall skyscrapers out of mud. No single insect can grasp the means necessary to accomplish such a feat. But when that insect submits its will to the colony (the one body) by seeing its neighbors a extensions of itself, then the skyscraper rises without any conscious effort. The termites don't need a system of beliefs, they don't need a centralized point of control that tells them what to do and when to do it. They just know what they need to do without knowing how they know. And they have faith in this knowledge that comes from somewhere other than their own understanding.
I'm not saying anything here that the sages of the Christian Bible haven't already said many times. What I am saying does however go against everything Christians do. Christians love in a clearly limitted ense, and justify their judgemental and prejudicial love through misquotes and misinterpretations from their beloved Bible, an idolized tome if there ever was one. Christians don't understand the meaning of the power of having faith in unconditional love. If they did they would know that Jesus has already returned a long time ago, and is still waiting for his people to finally recognize him and stop spitting in his face and nailing him to the cross of their limitted and judgemental love.
[J.D. 12-16-13]
P.S. I use the term "Christians" above in a general sense only. Some people who call themselves "Christian" are not "Christians" in the sense that I rail against. In other words, not all Christians act or think in the way Christians in general do.
If I Only Knew
These are some of the things I wish I had known when...
... I was 13, and ran away from home: How incredibly easy it would have been to get grown men to happily give me their money just by dropping my pants.
... I was 16, and confused about sex: How confused everyone else was too, especially "grown-ups".
... I was 17, and getting "treatment" at the state "Sexual Psychopath Treatment Program": How little the state knew, and what its real motives were (i.e. power and control, not helping me get better).
... I was 19, and getting raped in prison: That there is no reason to be ashamed of having sex with other men, or getting raped.
... I was 25, and coming out as a prison queen: How to enjoy safe clean anal violation for hours on end with no worry about "accidents". I could have had so much more fun!
... I was 32, and getting out of prison for the first time: That I was a survivor, not a victim; then maybe I wouldn't have wanted "justice" (i.e. revenge) so bad.
... I was 38, and getting out of prison for the last time: That I didn't have to live in fear of the law; it was that fear that eventually drove me over the edge of sanity and sent me on my rampage against society (i.e. killing a family in their own home and kidnapping the youngest children for sex).
... when I was 42, and on my rampage against society: That it was me I was afraid of and angry at, not society.
... now, as I write this: I wish I knew what the world will be like when no one is afraid and angry any more. I can imagine it, and that alone is enough to give me hope. But, if only I really knew...
[J.D. 12-26-2013]
... I was 13, and ran away from home: How incredibly easy it would have been to get grown men to happily give me their money just by dropping my pants.
... I was 16, and confused about sex: How confused everyone else was too, especially "grown-ups".
... I was 17, and getting "treatment" at the state "Sexual Psychopath Treatment Program": How little the state knew, and what its real motives were (i.e. power and control, not helping me get better).
... I was 19, and getting raped in prison: That there is no reason to be ashamed of having sex with other men, or getting raped.
... I was 25, and coming out as a prison queen: How to enjoy safe clean anal violation for hours on end with no worry about "accidents". I could have had so much more fun!
... I was 32, and getting out of prison for the first time: That I was a survivor, not a victim; then maybe I wouldn't have wanted "justice" (i.e. revenge) so bad.
... I was 38, and getting out of prison for the last time: That I didn't have to live in fear of the law; it was that fear that eventually drove me over the edge of sanity and sent me on my rampage against society (i.e. killing a family in their own home and kidnapping the youngest children for sex).
... when I was 42, and on my rampage against society: That it was me I was afraid of and angry at, not society.
... now, as I write this: I wish I knew what the world will be like when no one is afraid and angry any more. I can imagine it, and that alone is enough to give me hope. But, if only I really knew...
[J.D. 12-26-2013]
Monday, January 6, 2014
God Doesn't Play Dice
Einstein's famous statement about God not playing dice with the Universe was more than just an ingenious quip by an ingenious man; it was also a well thought out statement of ingenious insight. Most modern physicists presume that Einstein, genious though he was for his theories on relativity, fell short of truly understanding the implications of the very quantum he himself largely defined. They believe, as one physicist retorted, that God does play dice, "but they're loaded". This attitude reflects the well known "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", which assumes (for patently no reason) that certain quantum events are completely random and have no casualty whatsoever. And even though Einstein did fail to imagine the direction his own theories would ultimately lend us, I suspect he understood exactly what he was saying when he asserted that God was no gambler.
As I have said before, everything must have a cause, or source of being. But, I have also said, crucially, that if there is any cause at all, then all cause must be infinite. This is how I attempt to resolve the lingual difficulties that arise in our attempts to discuss the nature of our will. I said that a free choice is in actuality the result of infinite cause, and that every choice has infinite consequence. But the trick to understanding this lies in realizing that something infinite is not the same as a very large amount of something finite; they are not the same at all.
In fact, once the concept of infinity is properly embraced, one should be able to realize that the appearance of randomness is a necessary and innate attribute of infinite cause. Perception, by definition, is a finite experience. So we assume that in order for there to be any perception at all there must be some kind of limitation on infinite experience, or, a reduction of infinite cause. But, this mistakes infinity for something that can be reduced, or limited, which it cannot. Again, infinity is not a quantity, and hence it is not subject to quantifications, such as "limits" or "reductions".
The only way to create the appearance of a limited experience in a world of infinite cause and effect is to hide infinity itself. We must hide the infinite casualty of our experiences from ourselves, and when we do this, and then try to look very very very closely at our supposedly "limited" experience, we perceive the holes (where infinity is hidden) as causeless (i.e. random) events.
In truth, I am struggling here to say something that seems simple and obvious to me when I think about it without words. So let me just say this, someday science will discover that Einstein was right all along, no infinite being would, or even could, play dice, not even if it wanted to.
(J.D. 11-1-13)
As I have said before, everything must have a cause, or source of being. But, I have also said, crucially, that if there is any cause at all, then all cause must be infinite. This is how I attempt to resolve the lingual difficulties that arise in our attempts to discuss the nature of our will. I said that a free choice is in actuality the result of infinite cause, and that every choice has infinite consequence. But the trick to understanding this lies in realizing that something infinite is not the same as a very large amount of something finite; they are not the same at all.
In fact, once the concept of infinity is properly embraced, one should be able to realize that the appearance of randomness is a necessary and innate attribute of infinite cause. Perception, by definition, is a finite experience. So we assume that in order for there to be any perception at all there must be some kind of limitation on infinite experience, or, a reduction of infinite cause. But, this mistakes infinity for something that can be reduced, or limited, which it cannot. Again, infinity is not a quantity, and hence it is not subject to quantifications, such as "limits" or "reductions".
The only way to create the appearance of a limited experience in a world of infinite cause and effect is to hide infinity itself. We must hide the infinite casualty of our experiences from ourselves, and when we do this, and then try to look very very very closely at our supposedly "limited" experience, we perceive the holes (where infinity is hidden) as causeless (i.e. random) events.
In truth, I am struggling here to say something that seems simple and obvious to me when I think about it without words. So let me just say this, someday science will discover that Einstein was right all along, no infinite being would, or even could, play dice, not even if it wanted to.
(J.D. 11-1-13)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)