Young children often ask, "Where did I come from?" They grow up but they forget to keep asking important questions. Has an adult ever asked, "Where does god come from?" I don't think so. There's an explanation why this question is not asked.
Belief in gods started 9000 years ago. How did the belief even start? Gods do not exist materially to be seen. There is no evidence in reality that even one god exists.
How did the belief that some entities have super-natural powers, powers to create the cosmos and all that is in it? Where does belief in such a fantastic super-being come from?
Some answers are in this blog. But not all. Maybe we should be concerned only with the evidence of "his" existence. If we can see with our own minds that god is mere fantasy - to serve a selfish purpose, to grab power, or to control minds - then we have no further need to have other questions answered. Religion is a god-thing, it is a set of ceremonies and conventions about the super-being making belief important in the minds of people so that they will believe in god. But if there is no god, religion is just so much hot air coming out of the mouths of fantasy-loving minds. Belief is believed to be stronger and having more value that knowledge.
I hope an insight into how belief in a super-being was institutionalized helps you to use your own mind.
Friday, 11 October 2013
Thursday, 10 October 2013
Being Sapiens
Eliminating the falsehoods of patriarchy established in language means changing our habits of thinking. We have to see rationality as an effective and efficient way of developing a more moral species and more civilized societies. This does not mean that rationality goes it alone, experience and emotions exist in our evolved state as minded beings. In this blog we consider mostly rationality.
Being sapiens means being speech-makers. To make speech is to create useful information to communicate correct information and to communicate with each other as a speech-using species. The bit of "useful information" is enclosed in a name. As a species, what distinguishes us from sheep, bees, cows, etc., is the fact that we make names: we create speech.
Rationality, based as it is on reasoning is a sensible process. It is about applying logic in relating the facts as seen in reality. It is evidence-based. From an acorn, an oak. The facts are learned from what exists in reality through the names we give to it. Thus it mostly always remains moderate.
Sapiens consist of fem and man. The names are based on facts as seen in reality. Since evolution we have been sapiens, speech-makers and users. Nothing can change this. We can make things right again by accepting the correct information about our species.
Making a man that's not man and naming him wo/man is absurd. It is irrationality carried to the extreme to claim the whole species "mankind." It is the foolish activity of a few men thousands of years ago who made speech items claiming the phallus to be "divine." Such irrational activity cannot reverse evolution. So making the change from phallic fantasy to the real fact is a matter of doing what is best for the common good of all.
We are sapiens. Fem and man are equal speech-makers. Both have to create speech thus creating checks and balances on one another to make sure nonsensical fantasy does not take hold ever again.
Being sapiens means being speech-makers. To make speech is to create useful information to communicate correct information and to communicate with each other as a speech-using species. The bit of "useful information" is enclosed in a name. As a species, what distinguishes us from sheep, bees, cows, etc., is the fact that we make names: we create speech.
Rationality, based as it is on reasoning is a sensible process. It is about applying logic in relating the facts as seen in reality. It is evidence-based. From an acorn, an oak. The facts are learned from what exists in reality through the names we give to it. Thus it mostly always remains moderate.
Sapiens consist of fem and man. The names are based on facts as seen in reality. Since evolution we have been sapiens, speech-makers and users. Nothing can change this. We can make things right again by accepting the correct information about our species.
Making a man that's not man and naming him wo/man is absurd. It is irrationality carried to the extreme to claim the whole species "mankind." It is the foolish activity of a few men thousands of years ago who made speech items claiming the phallus to be "divine." Such irrational activity cannot reverse evolution. So making the change from phallic fantasy to the real fact is a matter of doing what is best for the common good of all.
We are sapiens. Fem and man are equal speech-makers. Both have to create speech thus creating checks and balances on one another to make sure nonsensical fantasy does not take hold ever again.
Friday, 28 June 2013
Phallic Beginnings
The author of "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" John M. Allegro, is a linguistic scientist. He studied the 9000 year-old Sumerian language. In his book he shows us how the Amanita muscaria, a mushroom resembling the erect penis, becomes the basis for naming the phallus as Creator god. The men ingesting the hallucinogenic powder of the mushroom had the sense of having huge and powerful erections, a sign that the penis was life-giving and thus divine.
Allegro shows us how the penis came to be worshiped as god. In meticulous and precise steps he shows the names made for the phallic-looking mushroom embedded in the names of the penis as "Creator god." The mushroom with its hallucinogenic quality was the motivation to describe and glorify the erect penis as God. The names created belief in the sacred penis.
The meticulous and precise steps Allegro shows in how the names of the mushroom were embedded in the names of the divine phallus become a little tiresome if one is not a linguist. But in persisting one learns that most religions are based on the same phallic beginnings. The beginnings of "religion" and consequent religions are firmly planted in the names for the Amanita muscaria, the phallic looking mushroom. What is astounding is that these ideas still hold sway. In the form of belief.
According to Allegro, whoever believes in god believes in a giant penis in the sky raining down its sacred semen through ejaculation at orgasm.
In this blog I show some of the more modern names that bear this out. In language even today, penis, mind and Creator still hold in language, god-like.
My book, Breaking the Patriarchal Code,1996, Knowledge Ideas & Trends, Manchester CT lists thousands of names and symbols embedding male bias, that the male, the penis-possessor, is the mind of the species. A greater division of the species could not have been invented.
See www.louisegoueffic.com
Allegro shows us how the penis came to be worshiped as god. In meticulous and precise steps he shows the names made for the phallic-looking mushroom embedded in the names of the penis as "Creator god." The mushroom with its hallucinogenic quality was the motivation to describe and glorify the erect penis as God. The names created belief in the sacred penis.
The meticulous and precise steps Allegro shows in how the names of the mushroom were embedded in the names of the divine phallus become a little tiresome if one is not a linguist. But in persisting one learns that most religions are based on the same phallic beginnings. The beginnings of "religion" and consequent religions are firmly planted in the names for the Amanita muscaria, the phallic looking mushroom. What is astounding is that these ideas still hold sway. In the form of belief.
According to Allegro, whoever believes in god believes in a giant penis in the sky raining down its sacred semen through ejaculation at orgasm.
In this blog I show some of the more modern names that bear this out. In language even today, penis, mind and Creator still hold in language, god-like.
My book, Breaking the Patriarchal Code,1996, Knowledge Ideas & Trends, Manchester CT lists thousands of names and symbols embedding male bias, that the male, the penis-possessor, is the mind of the species. A greater division of the species could not have been invented.
See www.louisegoueffic.com
Tuesday, 25 June 2013
Feme and fact
Evolution brought about two members in our species with the abilities to make and use speech. This is a fact we have to work with.
'One' developing speech - man - alone has him create a monolithic linear false rail-in-the-sky imposing male divinity due to the high value placed on male genitals established by the Lords of patriarchy eons ago. John Allegro shows us in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross how the names for the male genitals coined 9000 years ago by the Sumerians are embedded in the names of most "gods" worshiped today.
The gender that is 'not male' in our species has the same abilities as the male to make and use names. This is another fact we have to work with.
Long ago then this gender named herself (like we can suppose man named himself.)
She did. She named herself fem and her gender feme.
"Fem" was put into disuse by the patriarchal decreed name (wo) +man. "Feme" was changed in the 13th century by a male poet who wanted his lines to rhyme changed feme to fe +male. Male and female created He (God) him (man) ... belief in the myth of Adam's rib helping to make it stick.
Fact: sapiens consist of fem and man. This fact has not changed since evolution.
'One' developing speech - man - alone has him create a monolithic linear false rail-in-the-sky imposing male divinity due to the high value placed on male genitals established by the Lords of patriarchy eons ago. John Allegro shows us in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross how the names for the male genitals coined 9000 years ago by the Sumerians are embedded in the names of most "gods" worshiped today.
The gender that is 'not male' in our species has the same abilities as the male to make and use names. This is another fact we have to work with.
Long ago then this gender named herself (like we can suppose man named himself.)
She did. She named herself fem and her gender feme.
"Fem" was put into disuse by the patriarchal decreed name (wo) +man. "Feme" was changed in the 13th century by a male poet who wanted his lines to rhyme changed feme to fe +male. Male and female created He (God) him (man) ... belief in the myth of Adam's rib helping to make it stick.
Fact: sapiens consist of fem and man. This fact has not changed since evolution.
Monday, 24 June 2013
The speech-making and speech-using species
The most basic creative act that distinguishes our species from all other animal species is our ability to make 'speech items' to name all the things that make up our reality, from tree, run, see, sky to radar and everything in between. We are a speech-making species like bees are a honey-making species, like sheep are a wool-making species, etc.
It is a FACT that there are two in our species like there are two in most animal species. The two means that BOTH evolved with the same ability to make speech. This means that BOTH must be at the speech-making table to develop language.
Patriarchy did not want this to be the case. To achieve calling the species "mankind" it had to impose that the two genders were men, man and 'wo' +man. FACT: we are not both men.
FACT: we are both speech-makers. This helps us to re-establish what the ancients saw in our "speech-making" distinction. They saw that it made us wise, wise in the sense of knowing what exists in our reality - because we fulfilled the requirements to name the existents in our reality. And the more one knew about reality, the more wise one was.
So they named this 'knowledge-of-reality' sapient, it is linked to the acts: to know, to see, to taste, to feel, to touch, etc. As a species we are sapiens.
Fact: We never stopped being sapiens. All born into the speech-making species are sapiens.
It is a FACT that there are two in our species like there are two in most animal species. The two means that BOTH evolved with the same ability to make speech. This means that BOTH must be at the speech-making table to develop language.
Patriarchy did not want this to be the case. To achieve calling the species "mankind" it had to impose that the two genders were men, man and 'wo' +man. FACT: we are not both men.
FACT: we are both speech-makers. This helps us to re-establish what the ancients saw in our "speech-making" distinction. They saw that it made us wise, wise in the sense of knowing what exists in our reality - because we fulfilled the requirements to name the existents in our reality. And the more one knew about reality, the more wise one was.
So they named this 'knowledge-of-reality' sapient, it is linked to the acts: to know, to see, to taste, to feel, to touch, etc. As a species we are sapiens.
Fact: We never stopped being sapiens. All born into the speech-making species are sapiens.
Wednesday, 19 June 2013
The WORD of God
Patriarchy knew the power of language to guarantee their power and control forever. Who controls the language controls the mind.
"Virschippe" Latin, pays tribute to elite males who took control of the masses for fame, status and wealth. Vir is the name of the male being in Latin.
Vir is pronounced /wir/ - like vine - wine.
There is a finite number of sounds to which meanings can be given. Making speech is/was not an easy task. So formulas make use of root or base morphemes. For example, s_ng, where_ is any vowel, made sing, sang, sung and the noun song.
Vir -> wir -> wer, man, Anglo Saxon, -> wor, -> war. These are extensively used in English today. Werewolves are no longer believed in. But virschippe is very much with us today as worship. When one says, Let us worship God he or she is saying "Let us manship God."
"Thus the lamentation ceremonies were intended to rejuvenate the dormant penis of the fertility deity." John Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross, page 84
Like v -> w, the letter p -> b. "Verpa" Latin, means penis. As we see in blog 4, semen is the word of God. Spermatozoa is heavenly rain. Verpa, Latin -> verbe, French, verb, Eng. "Le verbe de dieux" alludes to the penis/semen/word of God. Wor ->Wor +d.
The formula w_r is widely used in English. Wor - worth, worthy, worship are everyday symbols covertly praising male power. Patriarchy made sure through language that elite males in power would be seen as "the way it is", "normal", due to their genital similarity with god which they themselves established through phallic-based names.
"Virschippe" Latin, pays tribute to elite males who took control of the masses for fame, status and wealth. Vir is the name of the male being in Latin.
Vir is pronounced /wir/ - like vine - wine.
There is a finite number of sounds to which meanings can be given. Making speech is/was not an easy task. So formulas make use of root or base morphemes. For example, s_ng, where_ is any vowel, made sing, sang, sung and the noun song.
Vir -> wir -> wer, man, Anglo Saxon, -> wor, -> war. These are extensively used in English today. Werewolves are no longer believed in. But virschippe is very much with us today as worship. When one says, Let us worship God he or she is saying "Let us manship God."
"Thus the lamentation ceremonies were intended to rejuvenate the dormant penis of the fertility deity." John Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross, page 84
Like v -> w, the letter p -> b. "Verpa" Latin, means penis. As we see in blog 4, semen is the word of God. Spermatozoa is heavenly rain. Verpa, Latin -> verbe, French, verb, Eng. "Le verbe de dieux" alludes to the penis/semen/word of God. Wor ->Wor +d.
The formula w_r is widely used in English. Wor - worth, worthy, worship are everyday symbols covertly praising male power. Patriarchy made sure through language that elite males in power would be seen as "the way it is", "normal", due to their genital similarity with god which they themselves established through phallic-based names.
Monday, 17 June 2013
The Talents in some Genitals
"The god expressed his seed from heaven as a mighty penis ejaculating sperm at orgasm." John Allegro, page 28, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross.
There are symbols we use today stating that the male genitals possess super powers, powers to act as mind.
1 the testicles
Patriarchs wanting power would cradle their testicles in their hands to show they were telling the truth. From this came the symbol "testify." Also "to test". And from these "testament." The bible is made up of two testaments. One could say that this reflects the two testicles.
2 semen
Emissions from the penis are called seminal emissions. One can write 'seminal' books, have 'seminal' thoughts about a subject, and do 'seminal' work. To study god one goes to a seminary, the base morpheme of which is semen.
Older symbols that influenced thinking, philosophy, psychology and sociology;
spermaticos logos, L., spermaticoi logoi, Gr. the sperm as word, (logos - word)
penes - in the possession or power of, penetrate
mentula- L., male sexual organs, vowel variation in mentul - mental
(cf sing, sang, sung is vowel variation in s_ng formula)
cephalic, husband as head
See Chapter 6, The Genitals of Speech in my book, Breaking the Patriarchal Code, 1996, Knowledge Ideas and Trends, Manchester CT, revised in 2010 and published by Sapien Books, Ontario. Visit www.sapienbooks.ca
There are symbols we use today stating that the male genitals possess super powers, powers to act as mind.
1 the testicles
Patriarchs wanting power would cradle their testicles in their hands to show they were telling the truth. From this came the symbol "testify." Also "to test". And from these "testament." The bible is made up of two testaments. One could say that this reflects the two testicles.
2 semen
Emissions from the penis are called seminal emissions. One can write 'seminal' books, have 'seminal' thoughts about a subject, and do 'seminal' work. To study god one goes to a seminary, the base morpheme of which is semen.
Older symbols that influenced thinking, philosophy, psychology and sociology;
spermaticos logos, L., spermaticoi logoi, Gr. the sperm as word, (logos - word)
penes - in the possession or power of, penetrate
mentula- L., male sexual organs, vowel variation in mentul - mental
(cf sing, sang, sung is vowel variation in s_ng formula)
cephalic, husband as head
See Chapter 6, The Genitals of Speech in my book, Breaking the Patriarchal Code, 1996, Knowledge Ideas and Trends, Manchester CT, revised in 2010 and published by Sapien Books, Ontario. Visit www.sapienbooks.ca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)