Elements of the Subconscious Mind Pt. 5 - Lady Gaga Substance In The Ephemeral/Fallacy In Seeking The Optimal

I thought this chapter was simple and obvious as I made my outline, but when

I came to expand this chapter it was like taking a tiger by the tail. It seems a simple proposition; compare the ephemeral with the optimal. Can work done quickly and on a deadline on products sold for small but ready money, compare to careful design work and highest standards of production quality for a high priced object. What can be understood in contrasting these two propositions?

[[[*As I began making outlines and drawing equations to plan my expansion of this thought I was soon shocked at its apparent complexity. Contrasting the aspects of art and design, cost and profits, employment and production, value and disposability devolved into untamed chaos. The ‘working bar’ in my brain froze. I could make no progress in my perception of the problem, and nothing could move forward.  At the library I got books about complexity and chaos theory, but really they pointed away from the direction my instincts told me the answer lays. It is not a mystery that can only be perceived through mathematical precision. What I lacked was a vehicle to drive my perception into my reader’s understanding.

So I worked half-heartedly at later chapters, other projects, took walks and naps, etc., always coming back to the problem. As weeks turned to months my brain was working, working,  working. Late one night I was looking at a recently comic book message board I had regularly read; I found a long new thread about a recent interview given by Comic book writer impresario Alan Moore. As is common on such occasions many persons posted their (mostly negative) opinions of Moore’s reclusive nature and also numerous posts I perceived as mischaracterizations of Moore’s remarks. There were many of these posts and I began answering them one by one, perhaps careless in not reading them all through and making one cogent post addressing them all. However the result of my focusing on one point after another was to reply incompletely or with some antagonism to each members post, and they in turn responded to my isolated answer to their own post without regard to the string of my posts made in response to others. After a couple of hours I realized my manic state. I took a fourfold dose of my antipsychotic before retiring. A window of perception opened in my dreamstate in the days that followed; I had the analogy that I had sought for so long. Ironically she was staring me in the face in the graphic I chose to illustrate this chapter many months ago (see above).]]]

The Thing That Made Us So Happy, Came To Make Us Cry

Reading comic books in my youth was a hit or miss proposition. Comic books were a sideline wherever they were sold. A rack or two at newsstands, candy stores, bus and train stations etc. The distributor dropped off new bundles each week, and picked up the unsold issues that had gone past their date. Here today, gone tomorrow. Comic books were a side line wherever they were sold. A rack or two at newsstands, candy stores, bus and train stations. All places that loads of people walked by every day, and impulse purchases made new readers on a regular basis; the pulse of the industry. Getting each issue of any title was no small feat, and those of us who cared had to work hard, sweet talk the clerks, be there on the magic day and at the right time, without making the fatal mistake of getting underfoot. The thing about back issues was that they were hardly ever to be found. Ask at the stores what happens to the old comics and receive only shrugs and blank stares. Coverless copies of older issues turned up in drugstores bagged up three for 15 cents. Your friends had their own stashes, and maybe an older brother’s treasures, but trading was often a grueling ordeal: and it was often hard to know if you came out on top or not.

A chain of events began to happen in the 1960s. Kids like me were not content to go issue to issue in our consumption of our comic books. We hungered for the back issues we had missed or that had come out before our time. Reprint titles began to come out regularly from Marvel and DC, wetting our appetites for the mythos created by those two universes. Fueled by Stan the Man’s footnotes referring us back to past issues we longed to possess. Certainly this was a sales gimmick to Stan Lee, who was a veteran of two decades of ephemeral storytelling. Keep the action moving, make it exciting and leave them wanting more. The success of Stan’s formula and the talents of Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Don Heck and the rest; left to concoct their stories with relative freedom, was taken to a newer, more satisfying level. With the advent of young talent who loved the medium and who had ideas of elevating it to more satisfying adult levels, and that would kick off a chain of changes.

Beginning with Roy Thomas, the Marvel phenomenon slowly began to evolve from iconic heroes in simple yet manic adventures to more considered storytelling, with ever more careful continuity that readers were quick and loud to demand to be upheld. This was indeed a heady time to be reading comic books. Although a steady stream of reprints were and are still published to the present day, there was still a great hunger to own the original printings of these great old comic books. Many used book stores everywhere resold the volume of issues many still read and discarded for whatever reasons. Used comics were commonly bought at such stores for a penny or two and resold for a nickel, largely regardless of condition or content. The combination of constructing more complex and interesting comic book stories and the rise of dedicated comic book stores came to trigger the law of unintended consequences; and the nature of comic book storytelling and comic book distribution changed forever over the decade of the 1970s. In the process these lead to shattering changes in creator psychology and their employment.

Aside from some eclectic news sellers who maintained a stock of back issues, proper comic book shops only began to pop up in the early 1970s. As prices and grading began to evolve, there came to be a basis for earning substantial profits from selling back issues that could pay the bills and make profits that then could not be practically earned selling only new comics. Cover prices were slowly climbing, but were still only 20 cents, and reached only a dollar by the end of the decade. Shop owners would make large orders with their local distributor, but because these accepted returns the retailer could only realize a few cents off of each comic book sold. The creation of the direct market for sales to comic shops on a nonreturnable basis, but for a large increase in profit per unit sold was a boon to comic book retailers, and locations proliferated throughout the next 15 years or so. There were dozens of direct distributors across the country by 1974, and typically comic book shops would buy from several as well as their local newsstand distributor. Retailers would commonly take books at newsstand terms and then also order the same books from direct market distributors in optimistic numbers months before. Alas nearly universally retailers over ordered expensive nonreturnable comics to a ruinous degree, and predictably began to slip them into their returns to the newsstand distributors. Of course these locals, working on a margin of pennies per unit soon realized that the comic shops were returning more comic books than they had delivered. The results of this practice may be seen by the appearance of color markings on the bottom edge of nearly all Bronze Age comic books beginning roughly in early 1974. These are from distributors marking their product with magic markers, striking colored line codes across comic books by the box and bundle. Publishers recognized this issue and wanted to maintain both of their streams of distribution, the broad based newsstand and more profitable direct to comic shops.  They began experimenting with different markings, logos, covers, even different prices on the same comic book issue. It was many years before UPC codes settled the issue, but by that time newsstand distribution was in serious decline.

Waves of collector speculation were common enough since the early 1960s, but it became a more problematic issue when cash sales came to become more in the nature of advanced orders of increasingly big numbers of copies of multiple titles from sometimes very large numbers of individual customers. Even as they ordered comic books sight unseen and months before they were published, and with the best intentions of buying these gems and reselling them at a good profit, as the cycle repeated week after week they soon had a large volume of comics that cost perhaps more than they had planned to spend when they set out to be speculators. Very often collector/speculators ordered more comic books than they came to pay for, and every comic shop had many unsold books that they were no less required to pay for, and right away if they wanted to receive the next week’s books.

Of course this is only a simplified illustration of distribution/retailer issues of that time. The costs of everything from paper, press time, payroll, fuel and other inflationary trends pushed the price of comic book issues ever upward. This was seen as advantageous to comic book retail shops, in that it increased per unit profit, which was generally a stable and reliable number. However the increased cover prices were problematic for newsstand retailers; the price was higher, but that generally reduced the impulse sales that made comic books profitable, and shrinking profits squeezed comic books out of thousands of valuable point of purchase newsstand locations each year. Local newsstand distribution of comic books as it had existed for nearly forty years was essentially finished by the early 1980s. Although remnants still exist to this day, they are only narrow deals for limited distribution of certain publishers and titles. The full line of any publisher can only really be purchased if pre-ordered at a local comic shop (lcs) or online retailer.

The key to prosperity for the comic book industry has always been tied to the number of readers. It was the strength of many tens of thousands of point of sale locations in places that people of all ages and interests saw on a regular basis that sparked new interests in the heroes and reading their adventures. All else flowed from this. As it has become necessary to enter a dedicated comic book shop to even discover comic books for nearly two decades, generations have grown up knowing only other media representations of comic book character mythos from tv, film, games etc. While these do bring new readers to the market, the nature and broad variety of comic books published makes it difficult and expensive to immerse one’s self in comic books, which is the main avenue of their steady interest.

Even this contraction in the marketplace is not the worst thing that has happened to the industry. There has always existed an inequity in the artistic creation of content published in comic books. From the start a typical writer or artist who became established and could get a steady volume of work could earn a good living by great effort and hard labor. Commonly an artist might work 60-80 hours per week, or even more. Earning enough to raise a family, reach middle class prosperity and perhaps some of the finer things in life. Many thought it was a privilege to earn a living by their artistic talents, and even though they retained no rights to their work, had no health care or retirement benefits these were not really an issue to most creators up until the 1960s. Until then comic books were a treadmill of production, publication, purchase, and discard, then repeat. Aside for an occasional filler issue now and then reprint rights were a small issue. Aside from some of DCs iconic heroes there was little conversation about rights and ownership, the industry standard called ‘work made for hire’ was pretty clearly accepted as creators cashed their paychecks.

However, as the 1960s comic book boom progressed publishers found they could repackage and reprint whole lines of stories very profitably, having paid for the material years ago. Then ancillary products including fan club memorabilia, posters, puzzles, big little books and an explosion of toys, dolls, trading cards, clothing, food products like candy, cereals, snacks, articles in mass market magazines and pro sports programs, paperback reprints and novelizations; almost anything imaginable publishers were profiting from, but aside from a small check for doing the graphics that were the whole attraction, the creators were out of the loop. Most seasoned artists and writers drew back from ‘creating’ new characters for the big companies for fear that their work would turn into a huge money maker for their employers.

Indeed, apart from Jack Kirby, one can hardy point to an iconic hero created for Marvel or DC Comics after 1970, just a lot of rehashed second stringers. So in lieu of originality scripts became more ‘relevant’ and ‘adult.’  The fun and goofy one and done stories we loved so much became less profitable as the lcs frequenting fans grew long in the tooth and the influx of new readers diminished month to month. It is helpful to recognize that for the most part the industry was still focused on the business of printed comic books. By 1985 creators had won some limited rights, the return of artwork, residual payments on issues with sales above a certain level and reprint rights and even some level of ownership in the case of popular and savvy negotiator. Although Warner Communications was the corporate owner of DC Comics and all its properties and characters at that time DC was left largely autonomous.

 Multi-part stories and crossover ‘events’ began to dominate the comic book landscape, and ‘concepts’ became the new currency. Instead of creating new iconic heroes to sell more issues editors choose to very loudly kill their old ones. They realized that no one blinked when Dick Grayson moved on and Jason Todd became Robin, so from then on an iconic character can be ‘killed,’ that is separated from its comic book continuity, and replaced in another ‘great’ event story down the line, with no loss of a costume to sell in some future movie, toy or game.

DC Comics purchased a group of crappy characters published by Charlton Comics in the 1960s and 1970s second and third rate comic books heroes by anyone’s standards. Still they were in hand, and in the climate of the day they had the virtue seeming new to many readers. As it happened, comic book impresario Alan Moore made an unsolicited proposal to DC Editor Dick Giordano involving the reimagining of an existing comic book universe and its heroes. In 1985 there were a number of such properties floating around, and Moore felt that his brave new world epic would resonate with readers if the shocking events he planned happed to familiar characters. The idea of Alan Moore launching the return of the Charlton heroes definitely was appealing as a circulation builder, and it is real evidence that at least DC editors were thinking in terms of print comic books and continuity when they demurred in letting Moore radically change and/or kill their valuable new heroes. In light of the trends that became popular only a few years later this was perhaps a poor decision, but it indicates that the company was still thinking in terms of maintaining continuity and selling periodicals. It became momentous in light of subsequent events. Giordano suggested Moore move forward with the project using original heroes created for the project. A problematic offer, both because Moore felt the story would have less impact with new, untested heroes; and the natural reluctance to create new properties he would not own and control.

Many comic book readers do not appreciate the raw effort and hard labor that is required to write and draw the best comic book stories. It is demanding toil that too many relieve with formula, shortcuts and a good enough mentality that readers can see clearly, groan and complain loudly about; but still continue to buy over and over again. Alan Moore is not completely above these faults himself at all times. Still he has proven himself capable of superior work on a regular basis, and it seems he regards this recognition as a return for his labor equivalent to the paycheck he received, at least in hindsight. It may be folly for any creator to expect to receive much beyond financial compensation for the use of their work in comic books up until this point. I believe Alan Moore understood that there was something at stake for DC Comics at this time, and this was the reason DC was willing to promise that the rights to their creation would revert to Moore and Gibbons after the project was published and collected, and then allowed to go out of print for a year, as was completely the norm in the industry at that time.

Watchmen, the 12 issue series would be a self-contained story exploring what it would be like if superheroes really exist and had since the 1940s war years. It had a beginning,  a middle and a conclusion; and Moore believed he had a contract that assured him the story and characters Moore and Gibbons’ created could not be changed or added to without the participation or permission of the creators. I can only speculate on Alan Moore’s motives, but it seems that he was more concerned about the deal he thought he was making in terms of future control of the property, and indeed it’s eventual return to him and Gibbons the whole ownership of Watchmen; than about the comic book he would create. Surely the pair commanded top rates on the project and they labored to produce their best work to date, but it must be recognized that Watchmen’s publication by DC Comics and the creators support by employment and compensation while creating the book, and corporate promotion and distribution of the comic book series and Warner’s clout in publishing, promoting and distributing the trade far exceeded Moore’s possible creation of and publication of the Watchman concept independently or by another publisher. I believe Alan Moore was shrewd in casting a deal whereby he would create a comic book and a group of new heroes that DC Comics would publish, thereby promoting and adding considerable value too, that would in a few short years contractually return to his own ownership. Little did Moore and Gibbons realize that they were creating the book that would be acclaimed as the best comic book ever published! Watchmen sold and sold more copies every year for the next 25 years, the bestselling graphic novel ever, and selling broadly to non lcs customers who really don’t read comic books. Although DC Comics editors and publisher anticipated a significant success in Watchmen, I do not think they could foresee the turns its publication as a collected work would take, and the direction it would lead the entire industry. Watchman’s influence and huge continuing financial return finally awoke the Dragon. After earning such riches from Moore’s creation it could only grasp for more. Before this time creation held a direct benefit for the creator in terms of continued sales of a modest product, comic books, in a volatile and uncertain market. The Dragon of corporate ownership see selling mere object periodicals as unprofitable except to breed iconic characters, heroes and mythos to be harvested and exploited in other mediums for undreamed of profits.

This consideration of the ephemeral and the optimal began as, in my mind, to be illustrated with Apple Computers in contrast to other technological alternatives. With the untimely death of Steve Jobs I felt I had to choose a new analogy for my thought to be read without being branded iconoclastic by much of the audience most likely to be receptive of my writing. I want to preface these concluding remarks by stating my respect for Steve Jobs personally and for his skill and talent. However I have always rather disliked his vision of design dominance and creation and marketing iculture. Only a fool perhaps would be annoyed with product after product that innovate so thoroughly and are demonstrably so popular and useful to so many people. Clearly the iphone, the ipad and itunes arguably place more useful functionality into Apple customer’s hands than any products in history, but I really do fail to see how this will play out positively for ipeople.

It is certainly commonly seen as a great equalizer in society to have a universal technology that serves its owner with endless streams of data of all description constantly at her beck and call. Jumping into this technology must seem imperative to every young person in the world. The most disturbing aspect of iculture is the extent to which persons become driven by the objects they have purchased. Their mobile devices broadcast their every move and thought so that all their waking life is reduced to a marketing opportunity. The music you buy, your searches on line for information, books, fashions and vacation spots bake cookies that marketers are munching along the path to earning a fortune mining data from you and your friends. Reading Privacy Policies carefully reveals that the policy is you have no privacy; click: accept. Apple’s iterms that you must accept allow them to own your online existence with built in spyware that can even be hacked by anyone hot to give it a try. In the past such assertions would seem paranoid surely, but now it is plainly the truth, but still this is not what bothers me.

I see Apple iculture as a promise of individually by way of strict conformity. I can see many positive aspects to the technology and searching for new ways to fit its functionality into our lives; but I see the optimal design paradigm as inefficient although profitable for the richest corporation on Earth. I can’t help thinking that perhaps somewhat crude in comparison, but more specifically functional devices could be devised for persons who choose to decide their own technological requirements. Devices of this nature could conceivably even be manufactured domestically by people here who need a good job. God forbid the government should ‘subsidize’ an industry here that has been written off as impossible to bring back to our shores. How could our national pride stand that we manufacture cheap functional goods that can undersell the top designed quality products made in China?

It is nearly 33 years since Lowell George's amazing life winked out far from home and for some bad decisions. He was a wonderful artist who touched my young life deeply, and I mourn him still.

How True Is The Truth?

[This expansion of commentary related to the video work Easter Dharma posted above is included in part in an expanded treatment of the subject 'Multiple Perspectives' in the ongoing work of Elements  of the Subconscious Mind.]

This expression of complexity in terms of study of the Bible must be seen as doctrinal, and an issue of debate and dispute, to a greater or less importance to each person it concerns. I do not see this expression as contradicting the things other persons believe in or have faith in, the Bible or other sacred scriptures. That is as may be for each to decide for herself.  For myself, it is clear that the Bible is a useful tool for human intellectual development. It is a source of complexity in print to aid we human beings to understand the complexity of the world around us, as a pole of common data by which human brain chemistry may be developed and brain function sharpened to spearhead the civilization of humankind and make all things possible. To contain this examination of doctrine I will limit its scope to only three perspectives; strict interpretation of scripture, a Jesus Christ’ teachings centered interpretation of the Bible, and the atheistic mistrust of scriptures and religion. 

Beginning in the middle, I shall lay my case for the Bible as a historical tool for human intellectual development. The introductory video examination of the chapter of Matthew 22 is a key passage in which Jesus tells the multitude the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven as our life here on Earth. As a direct result of Jesus’ revelation, and subsequent  talk with the lions of the temple, the iconic events of the story of Easter took place. Until this point human beings were bound to the Temple for all of the spiritual aspects of their lives. To those persons who came to hear Jesus’ teaching and learn of his miraculous works he had a bona fide reality in his words that the temple clergy did not, so when Jesus condemned their practices and pointed out their self-serving ways and hypocritical behavior, the multitude knew that this also was indeed the truth. Then when Jesus told them the parable of the Kingdom of Heaven, they marveled at its message, for it was difficult to see the blessing it contained as it related to their own lives. Life was difficult and often painful and full of deprivation, but at least the Priests offered the solace of paradise in Heaven in exchange for good behavior in the midst of their suffering.

Of course the Bible as such did not exist at this period of time. For most of the two millennium following creation of the scriptures that became our Bible were held to be infallible. There was very good intellectual and anthropological reasons for holding and teaching the doctrine of Biblical infallibility; it amplified the many basically good and useful aspects of their teachings, and gave a reassuring answer to any ambiguities that arose. Most important it steered students of the scriptures to focus on studying them as whole entities that impart complex meanings. Perceiving this complexity has the twin benefit of developing our brain structure; and in turn understanding the complete meanings that the Bible contains.  In this example of Matthew 22, a cursory count gives me 47 separate variables (that is thoughts, statements or ideas) in this account that leads directly to Jesus’ iconic end. Each one of these variables can be understood as correct, incorrect, partially correct or partially incorrect. By accepting infallibility one may accept each verse at face value in order to derive the benefit of the whole teaching. When we solve a simple problem such a 2 + 2 x 2 = 8 it is vital that each variable be true for the answer to be correct. But this is not necessarily true for a complex equation like Matthew 22. There are a number of verses each with an individual meaning that in their aggregate are a complexity that leads to a momentous conclusion.

For a student of the Bible, or any complexity it is very important to trust the material until the end before making a judgment, because if verse 12, 23 and 37 strike chords of contradiction with knowledge we feel we know, we can lose the whole truth and meaning of the chapter. In studying complexity it may not be necessary that all of the variables considered in a proposition be “true” as we understand them, so long as we find truth in the aggregate. In being open to seeing multiple perspectives we come to feel truth in the body, taste it in the tongue and hear it in a speaker’s voice and see it in her face and body. Don’t let the things you know blind you to things you do not yet know. I can’t say if I said that, or Dr. Strange or Yoda or Thoreau, but this is the first truth of perception of complexity.

The books of the Torah are made of a wide range of characters who all share in common that they seek the truth. As the scriptures progress they use the thought, actions and interactions among themselves and with God to express incremental human progress made by available technology, process and ingenuity. If they lacked the benefit of scientific process, they at least perfected transcription and proofreading, so that scriptures could be slowly but accurately disseminated, no mean feat even today. For instance the genealogy of the books of Kings were carefully kept and maintained for their contemporary value of establishing important lineage, but they were much more valuable to later generations of persons as a tool for the development of human brain chemistry and a source of academic credential. Each book of the Bible fills a spiritual, anthropological and intellectual function. It is a work constructed to impart value to contemporary readers in Biblical times and still hold relevant value in present times and also in the future.

So here is the turning of the screw, and it is wholly a doctrinal question for Fundamentalists and strict constructionist persons who hold the value of scriptures is derived from prophets and prophesies false and true, a perfect lamb as Messiah, belief in the way of Salvation steering clear of a hell of punishment for non-belief after a final global tribulation and Final Judgment Day. It is curious that this strict doctrine is so prevalent and persistent, especially considering the number of divisions and schisms that split one denomination from another over the past five hundred years and causes member persons to be unable to accept the doctrinal interpretations of their respective parent church. Objectively the case of the Church v Galileo drove a stake through the heart of a strict constructionist doctrine and Fundamentalism. In fact doctrine itself is only the bare bones of any religion; the meat is in the good works churches do for their members, society and the culture as a whole. This importance is not to be denigrated or dismissed. However as science and technology progress, persons become more capable of benefiting from multiple perspectives which in turn equip us to absorb complexity so that belief may fall away in favor of perception in terms of scriptures. Throughout history from the time of Abraham until today there has been an industry of the Temple. Always people benefited from the religion in their life to a greater or lesser degree; and the hierarchy of priests and preachers of all descriptions filled an important role in teaching and interpreting scriptures in all times, for good or ill.

The lynchpin of all Western scripture is of course Jesus Christ. He fills the shoes of the true messiah for all modern peoples of all faiths because his life and teachings change all the rules for human beings going forward. Jesus’ teachings all bid us to ‘use your head’ to solve the problems that stream through our lives. Be compassionate in our dealings with all persons right up until we have to fight them or run. To see that this lifetime we have here on Earth is for us to live as we are in heaven or in hell as we can understand and follow his teaching. Just as all scripture has value it also has purpose. In believing Jesus’ teaching, one will find dissonance reading the work of St. Paul, but Paul was the bridge anthropologically speaking that kept early Christians in the game. His teachings allowed Jesus’ then seemingly bleak prophesy to be mere pretext to the iconography of his suffering, crucifixion and resurrection. One of Jesus’ teachings from Matthew 22 that has always held true is “many are called, but few are chosen.”

Jesus’ unhappy depiction of the Kingdom of Heaven was felt by John and many others in the early church to be weak and unresponsive to the needs of his present generation. His gospel and especially the book of Revelations reject Christ’s simple teachings and attempt to bring a sort of Old Testament authority to Jesus Christ’s mythos. In careful reading Revelations does not hang together well or communicate in the way other books of the Bible do. Unless the goal is to justify clergy in telling the faithful  what to believe and how to live for murky reasons that cannot be known the book has little purpose. The book of Revelations reads like a series of disconnected dreamlike vignettes that are the less intelligible for the lack of a serviceable narrative. It does have the function of contradicting all of Jesus teachings in service of frightening repentant sinners into toeing the line. Belief in it only allows forgoing heaven in favor of feeling superior or desperately hoping for some paradise hereafter.

I do not claim any universal truth for these assertions, for if they have any truth it must be manifest, and in no way dependent on my authority or any other. The reality I have come to perceive in working with complexity of thought, particularly considering Theology is that the perhaps infinite variables in play make the existence of any one actual truth improbable. Thus the tighter one clings to any perceived doctrinal ‘truth’ the further removed one is from its fruition.

There are millions of persons attending every sort of church, mosque and temple who all are in common searching for the truth, to make sense of the world that is changing so fast all around them. They wonder why they play by the rules and the others who do not seem to get ahead. We turn to religion because the answers life gives us are shifting and unsatisfactory and at least a church offers a firm morality we can understand. Religions sponsor schools, universities, hospitals and charitable missions to foreign lands. They help the poor in many ways and by moving resources from donors to those in need. Clergy visit the sick and those elderly or alone, council those troubled by all manner of concern, fears and regrets. There are uncountable good works performed by churches and persons of all faiths, and this is all too often overlooked by those who condemn and criticize religions. Even Fundamentalism and strict constructionist interpretation has resonance and value to many persons. Blanket condemnation of other person’s belief is not a useful tactic in understanding them or ourselves, but neither is it necessary to accept Fundamentalist belief without putting it to the test. As stated above the concept of Biblical infallibility is a valid one, but only in maintaining the integrity of its construction in its study and interpretation. Its structure is not to be discarded by the practice of pick and choose verses out of context to serve the preacher’s sermon. In respecting the Bibles structure of complexity it is less useful to find reasons to divide and disparage other persons.

Always the negative aspects of any doctrine are rooted in attachment to misunderstanding or misinterpreting the nature of the scriptures. Fundamentalists of all stripes claim their scriptures rule their righteous actions and behavior; yet all houses of worship hold doctrinal differences from the original root of their religion. All would argue that theirs is the one true interpretation of scripture; yet all exist in a modern world of science and technology that prove Fundamentalism to be fanciful at best. This reality is not lost on such believing persons, and its effect is twofold. Subconsciously or in unspoken fashion we experience fear and confusion; feeling determination to cling to our doctrinal faith and way of salvation, thus treating contradictory doctrine as the work of Satan, a useful iconic character that upholds the validity of doctrinal belief without the necessity of affectingly refuting any logical questions or contradictions. Unfortunately these characteristics infuriate both outsiders and similar Fundamentalist factions of veering doctrinal differences. One of the most difficult penetrations of perception is to become able to accept other, contradictory, even seemingly nonsensical or dangerous notions held by other persons or groups of people. We are misled in thinking we are superior to other persons, whether locally or internationally.

 So it is the doctrinal misuse of scripture and the misunderstanding persons have of the value these scriptures contain that cause so many to define themselves as agnostic or atheist. As these designations are not doctrinal or even progressive in nature they serve chiefly to cut short any unwelcome conversation concerting religion. The unfortunate thing for practicing atheists is that they deny themselves of valuable aspects of religion, that benefit many others, and in doing so they make a (generally false) case for religious persons to regard them as being without morals. As a personal cost of declaring atheism one in effect places herself squarely in the center of the universe; and so from that perspective all else revolves around herself. The mere fact of accepting the existence of a god in some form instead sets her in an orbit in relation to all others; a more useful and valuable perspective for all persons.

In general an atheist will deny herself the benefit of prayer, reasoning that prayer is a thing one does to appease God. This is a sad miscalculation, for prayer is not for God but for our self! Prayer acknowledges that there is something we do not comprehend or control. This element is the spark that makes life a constant source of joy and sorrow, as we make them, our prayers serve to clarify our priorities and our intentions. Prayer is a real way to know ourselves and to guide us through difficult times; and give hope when we feel hopeless. The value of prayer to a person cannot be overemphasized, even detached from any religion or doctrine.

The atheist doctrine is upon reflection the weakest of possible beliefs because it is only and entirely “the egress” in Barnum’s Museum; the door out of theological considerations of any sort. Unlike religious beliefs that offer some guidance in material and spiritual questions, atheism demands that all religious consideration must cease in my presence; and asserts that it holds no validity, and this denial trumps all discussion. Although this aspect of atheism is largely seen to be true, it should not be seen as a wholly negative thing. Rather in most cases this is a well-earned defense mechanism many adopt as a shield from the unwelcome imposition of religion upon them by others. Here again it is well to recall; do not let the things we know blind us the things we do not know.

Elements Of The Subconscious Mind Pt. 4 Language of Thought and Perception

There is a direct dichotomy between belief and understanding that is conveyed to us by the use of language. The English language is not solely a group of rules and structures we use to communicate; instead it offers a framework for perception. It does not function because it dictates rigid rules and definitions of words and sentence structures, it's power and brilliance is in that it allows words to mean many things in shifting contexts, and many words have similar definitions, but depending on their use may express opposite meanings. The lessons of grammar and spelling, syntax and speech we teach and learn in class are only the most bare bones beginning of understanding the language's use as communication. Perhaps the rough equivalent to learning how the pieces are moved on a chessboard.

There is a next level of development of mental structure inherent in the use of language in a deep and ongoing fashion, through literature, poetry, comedy, drama, journalism and all sorts of technical applications. Maybe most important is reading above all else, for the eye to mind transfer and reinforcement of meaning. As we reach a point of perception that all things in our world are connected to one another, this does not mean that we know all of the answers, though we may wish that we did. But given to thought and questioning it becomes more difficult to accept simple solutions to complex problems, particularly those of a political nature. In politics we are herded into belief that one party or the other offers a solution because we feel the problems are too complex and intricate to be worth our effort to sort them out for ourselves. Remember that life is composed of an endless string of fine distinctions

Mrs. Kwakk Kwakk   Language of Thought and Perception

Although many people think in different manners; pictorially, auditory, even olfactory: the majority of us think in terms of abstract symbols we call words. For this reason language is so important for making our way through our lives. Because we think in forms of language there is a direct correlation between our thought and our communication. Of course most of us also have pictures stored in our minds; faces, friends, family, pets, cars, houses etc., but it is largely by our faculty with language that we can share these images with others. For many the use of language becomes insufficient and they must turn to the various Arts for expression.

To go from an idea in our mind to an expression of language or another artwork is an abstraction. Any sentence, paragraph, book, song, painting, sculpture, computer program, business plan or perhaps every human expression deviates to some extent from the intentions of the person or persons who created it. The previous sentence is an example. All are abstractions, so therefore when we read, view, hear or use these abstractions we only approach, or possibly exceed the creator’s intentions. Always there is something left out, some deviation (for better or disappointment). This is true of even the most practiced writers, artists, musicians or technicians, and is an absolute of humanity. When we read any sort of text seeking authoritative answers, we find instead only variables that are yet to be affirmed or factored out of your current best understanding.

Around the world languages have many forms and structures. Linguistic structures and vocabulary may usefully be studied as abstracts without taking the trouble to learn them conversationally. There are numerous alphabets of various totals of characters that generally denote sounds.  The Sumerians, Hittites, Minoans and other ancient cultures had rough cuneiform and token systems, largely for government and commercial purposes, but indeed bits of literature and poetry survive from these cultures; and their languages. Egyptians famously had hieroglyphics by which they recorded Royal lineages, history and culture in tombs and on public structures. The form made hieroglyphics only marginally useful on a tactical level, perhaps because scribes were fairly limited in function.

Bless their hearts the Greeks emerged with the first tactically useful alphabet (Phoenicians aside for much the same reasons as the Egyptians) made so by the broad education within Greek society, the utility of the phonetic alphabet, rigid sentence structure and conjugation of verbs that made precise and specific instructions and communications possible both verbally and in writing. All this allowed the Greeks to excel in commerce, governance, literature and war. The ancient Greeks are remembered for many things, and it was the language and structures of language that made it all possible. 

With Latin came a bit more flexibility but still sweet precision, and soon the Romans ran around the Mediterranean Sea. Each succeeding country that arose to conquer, flourish, and eventually fall: did so in large part with the functionality and the utility of its language. Without a wish to pick a fight the author asserts that to date the English language the most versatile and tactically useful language yet to emerge from human thought. This is not to assert that English is culturally superior, or that other languages are in any other way inferior for every purpose of thought, conversation, literature, poetry etc. Only that English language structure allows the ability to express more exactly and precisely one’s intentions, questions, descriptions and instructions both verbally and in written form than any other language. The problem is that expression and comprehension are two different things in any language.

The distortion of abstraction is a key societal problem in the United States. The sweet complexity of the English language is taught so poorly here, and with no pretext or subtext to help students to be interested in it before deconstructing it in their texts to one another. Far too many have no clear understanding of its complex function. Worse, we sow misunderstanding in every miscast sentence, ill chosen vocabulary and shuffled preposition. It is a breakdown in our educational system that English is taught instead of learned. Like every reality it is dependent upon perception.