Book of 2 Corinthians

Lorin Friesen, February 2019

This is the second half of an essay which examines 2 Corinthians from a cognitive perspective. Chapters 7-13 are more personal than chapters 1-6. In chapter 7 Paul talks about causing sorrow to the Corinthians in his letters. In chapters 8-9, Paul discusses bringing a gift for another church. In chapter 10, he explains his demeanor to the Corinthians. And the theme of the rest of the book is Paul defending to the Corinthians his right to be an apostle. One could interpret this personal perspective in one of two ways:

The standard interpretation is to say that Paul is taking a more personal tone because he is emotionally involved in the situation. But that brings Paul and Scripture down to the level of the typical televangelist who is begging for funds and defending his right to be a televangelist. And we have just finished saying that one should not bring the family of God down to the level of normal human interactions.

It is possible that Paul himself was personally frustrated at the Corinthians when penning this letter. And it is also likely that Paul did not understand the full implications of what he was writing. But Paul definitely understood some of the larger implications that we are discussing in this essay because he says in 12:4 that he was “caught up into paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.” Thus, he knew at least some of God’s larger plan and was forbidden to reveal it to others.

Looking at this more generally, every Biblical book that I have analyzed so far contains a cognitive structure that lies beneath the surface text, which becomes apparent if one treats the book as a single, connected, intelligent, carefully written sequence. Therefore, we will be interpreting the rest of the book by bringing what appears to be human squabbles up to the level of divine family.

Saying this as simply as possible, I suggest that the book of 2 Corinthians takes a more personal tone because existence itself has now taken a more personal tone. Chapter 6 has talked about God rebuilding Teacher thought upon people in Mercy thought. And the final two words of chapter 6 are ‘Lord Almighty’, using a description of absolute divine power that is only used here and in the book of Revelation. If God really—really—used absolute divine power to establish a personal interrelationship with a family of ‘sons and daughters’, then everything really—really—would become personal. The laws of nature would cease to exist as an independent entity. A shift would occur from matter-over-mind to mind-over-matter. This does not mean that the entire physical universe would disappear in a poof of smoke. As far as I can tell, matter would continue to exist. Instead, it would mean that whenever people came into contact with physical matter, then people would be able to impose their will upon physical matter. People would be the noun and physical would be the adjective. In other words, everything would ultimately be personal.

One of the byproducts of the more personal tone of the second half of 2 Corinthians is that the timeline of prophecy is not as apparent. Instead of describing the path of future society, 2 Corinthians focuses upon the steps that are being taken by followers of God within future society. Using an analogy, instead of describing the use of new technology by society, the second half of 2 Corinthians focuses upon the labs that are developing this new technology.

However, one can still see definite connections between the book of Revelation and the second half of 2 Corinthians: Revelation 17 describes the fall of the kingdoms of Babylon. 2 Corinthians 7 describes the rise of a new form of government. Revelation 18 discusses the fall of the economic system of Babylon, while 2 Corinthians 8 examines the emergence of a new form of economy. Revelation 19:1-6 contains the ‘Fourfold Hallelujah’, which tells people to forget about fallen Babylon and focus upon what God is starting to do in the present. Similarly, 2 Corinthians 9 talks about transforming the thinking of the past in order to experience benefits in the present, and it ends with the ‘hallelujah’ of “thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!” Revelation 19:7-10 describes the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, while in 2 Corinthians 11:2, Paul says that he is preparing the church as a virgin bride for Christ. Revelation 19:11-20 describes Christ coming and defeating the army of the beast. In a similar vein, 2 Corinthians 11 describes the servants of Satan being unveiled as false apostles. Finally, Satan is bound in Revelation 20 making a new kingdom of God possible. Likewise, 2 Corinthians 13 describes a new kind of society in which sin no longer plays a major role.

Table of Contents

Chapters 1-6

7:1 Perfecting Holiness

7:2-3 Building Understanding upon People

7:4-5 A New Kind of Government

7:6-7 The Coming of Titus

7:8-10 Godly Sorrow

7:11 The Fruit of Godly Sorrow

7:12 Beyond Righteousness to Tested Character

7:13-14 The Titus’ Joy

7:15-16 A Gut-Level Change

8:1-3 The Macedonian Church

8:4-5 A New Form of Academia

8:6 Really Living in Mind-over-Matter

8:7 Building with Faith

8:8 The Danger of Blind Obedience

8:9-10 Riches through Poverty

8:11-12 A New Kind of Consumer

8:13-15 An Egalitarian Society

8:16-17 Properties of a Prototype

8:18-19 The First Brother

8:20-21 Well-Grown Thickness

8:22-24 The Second Brother

9:1 Church of Achaia

9:2-3 Transforming the Suffering Church

9:4-5 Preparing the Suffering Church

9:6-9 Sowing and Reaping

Talents Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-30)

9:10 Future Harvest and Daily Bread

9:10-11 Increasing the Quality of Righteousness

9:12 Liturgical Service

9:13 Glorifying God with Simplicity

9:14-15 Supporting the Priesthood

10:1-2 Gentle Strength

10:3-6 Spiritual Warfare

10:7-8 Submission to Christ

10:9-11 Combining Power and Humility

10:12-13 Technical Thought and Quantification

10:14-18 Extending Technical Domains

11:1-2 Preparing a Bride

11:3 Led Astray Like Eve

11:4 Receiving a Different Message

11:5-6 Meeting Technical Standards

11:7-11 Preaching without Charge

11:12 Dealing with Technical Experts

11:13-14 False Apostles

11:15 Servants of Satan

11:16 Unveiling the Disguises

11:17-18 Living as a Fellow Citizen

11:19-20 Tolerating Foolishness

11:21 Taking a Risk by Responding

11:22 Comparing Identities

11:23 Paul’s Personal Costs

11:24-25 Societal Disruptions Caused by Paul

11:26 Paul’s Dangers

11:27-28 Paul’s Struggles

11:29-31 Paul and the Group

11:32-33 Escaping in a Basket

12:1-6 Paul’s Visions

12:7-9 Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh

12:10 Paul the Masochist?

12:11-13 Living as ‘Clark Kent’

12:14-18 The Principle of Existence

12:19-20 Expanding from Core to Peripheral

12:21 Paul’s Implicit Concept of God

13:1-4 Paul’s Third Visit

Form Paul’s Third Form

13:5 Test Yourselves

13:6-7 Living Spontaneously in the Third Form

13:8-10 Projecting an Aura of Submission to Truth

13:11-14 Final Instructions

Chapters 1-6

Perfecting Holiness 7:1

Chapter 7 begins by describing the general attitude that one should have: “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (v.1). Notice that the end of chapter 6 is being referred to as ‘these promises’, which tells us that their fulfillment is still in the future. Consistent with this, most of 6:16-18 also uses the future tense: ‘I will dwell and will walk’, ‘I will be their God and they shall be my people’, ‘I will welcome you’, ‘I will be a father’, ‘you shall be sons and daughters’. In contrast, God’s words and the coming out are in the present: ‘says the Lord’, ‘says the Lord Almighty’, ‘come out from their midst and be separate’.

This is consistent with the interpretation that the end of chapter 6 indicates a watershed change that will take some time to work out in practice. The Lord Almighty is making a statement, and people are coming out. But the new relationship will take time to fully develop. The existence of a new personal relationship is indicated by the adjective beloved, which is based upon the verb agape. This is the first time that this adjective is used in 2 Corinthians, and it will be used once more in 12:19.

Verse 17 of the previous chapter instructed ‘do not touch what is unclean’, and that is the only use of the word ‘unclean’ in 2 Corinthians. Verse 1 restates this in the positive: ‘Let us cleanse ourselves’, and this is the only use of the word cleanse in 2 Corinthians, which means ‘make pure or clean by removing all admixture’. (The adjectival form of clean does not appear in 2 Corinthians.) This means that purification is a significant part of preparing for this new relationship between God and people. It begins with the negative of avoiding what is unclean. This is an easy starting point when one is surrounded with impurity. But this can only go so far because the method itself is impure; one is focusing upon a lack of purity and then separating purity from the impurity. The end result is an implicit mindset of impurity, because one has to think about impurity in order to eliminate it from the purity, which means thinking about both impurity and purity, which is by definition impure. Thus, total purity can only be achieved by thinking in a positive manner upon purity.

The word defilement in verse 1 is only used once as a noun in the New Testament. The verb form means ‘literally besmear with mud’. Mud has the property of being neither solid nor liquid. It is also sticky and difficult to remove. Cognitively speaking, mud describes Mercy experiences that insinuate Perceiver facts without containing any definite, solid, Perceiver information. Propaganda and advertising tend to be cognitive mud. They make insinuations that stick without having shape; they imply without making any definite statements. They are designed to ‘muddy the waters’. The ambiguity of cognitive mud makes mental purity impossible, because one can only become of one substance if one is capable of distinguishing that one substance from other substances.

This defilement is described as being ‘of flesh and spirit’. This is a strange combination because Paul clearly differentiates between flesh and spirit (using the same two Greek words) in Romans 7-8, describing the process by which one learns to follow the spirit rather than the flesh. In contrast, verse 1 describes both flesh and spirit as possible sources of defilement. The implication is that the primary division now is no longer between internal and external, because flesh refers to the mental content that is acquired from living in the physical body while spirit describes imaginary Platonic forms that emerge as an indirect result of Teacher understanding. Instead, the distinction is now between purity and mud. This makes cognitive sense because building understanding upon a foundation of people leads naturally to an ambiguous environment in which everything is implied but nothing is stated directly. Japanese culture provides an example of this type of ambiguity. The challenge is to create clarity in such a culture. Saying this another way, abstract technical thought is built upon a foundation of precise definitions. Similarly, concrete technical thought requires solid connections of cause-and-effect. Cognitive mud makes it impossible to use technical thought.

Verse 1 finishes by providing the positive option of “perfecting holiness in the fear of God”. The word perfecting means ‘to complete, accomplish, perfect’, while holiness means ‘a holy or sanctified state’ and is derived from holy which ‘has the technical meaning different from the world because like the Lord’. Thus, the goal of verse 1 is to complete a process of purification that has been started in the previous verses. This perfecting of holiness is ‘in the fear of God’, In means ‘in the realm of’ and fear means ‘withdrawal, fleeing because feeling inadequate and without sufficient resources’.

Words such as holiness and defilement have become caked with religious mud over the centuries. One can gain a clearer picture of what they mean by looking at the production of integrated circuits. Electronic chips are produced in multi-billion-dollar fabrication plants. These plants follow cleanliness to an absurd level and the raw material for integrated circuits is single crystals of silicon with mind-boggling purity. These boules of ultra-pure silicon are sliced into wafers, and then each electronic circuit is etched onto a tiny fragment of a wafer with extreme precision. Each electronic circuit is then tested to ensure that it works. In the words of Wikipedia, “The proportion of devices on the wafer found to perform properly is referred to as the yield. Manufacturers are typically secretive about their yields, but it can be as low as 30%.” Thus, the fanatical devotion to purity and precision is motivated by the fear that the yield might go down. But if one can manage to successfully produce enough integrated circuits, then this leads to the benefit of the modern computer society, a form of interpersonal interaction in which people in Mercy thought are embedded within a global Teacher structure of integrated communications.

I suggest that verse 1 is describing something similar. A new form of integrated personal interaction between God and humans is opening up, but participating in this new relationship requires purity and precision, and one pursues this purity and precision ‘in the realm of’ the fear that ‘the yield may go down’. Looking at this further, the rituals of purification that are practiced by the semiconductor industry are far more detailed than any religious rituals of purification. Thus, biblical concepts of holiness and cleanliness may have started back in the Torah as formulae of ritual purity, but if Christianity were ever to progress to the point of comprehending and implementing spiritual technology, then any Old Testament concept of ritual purity would be utterly overshadowed by the real purity required to enter into the deeper benefits of spiritual technology.

When we were looking at the first six chapters, we used science and technology as partial illustrations of personal transformation. The fundamental assumption of science is that one lives within matter-over-mind. Spiritual technology would extend this into the subjective realm, but one would still be living within a universe of matter-over-mind. If matter-over-mind were to be replaced by mind-over-matter, then science and technology would no longer provide the primary example to follow. Instead, one has to look at the legislator and the citizen for partial illustrations of what it would be like to live within mind-over-matter. We will also use the analogy of an inventor and a prototype.

Building Understanding upon People 7:2-3

Verse 2 describes a fundamental limitation that emerges when Teacher thought becomes built solely upon people in Mercy thought. This limitation was discussed earlier when looking at being an apostle. Looking at this briefly, the physical universe currently functions independently of human thought. Therefore, it is easy for the discoverer of some natural law to experience the personal benefits of knowing that natural law, because the functioning of that natural law is independent of knowing that law. For instance, the law of gravity worked before people knew about the law of gravity, and the law of gravity continued to function in exactly the same manner when Newton discovered the law of gravity.

This is not the case when Teacher structure is built upon people in Mercy thought. One can already see this to some extent with the laws of a country. If mind were to start ruling over matter, then the laws of reality themselves would become legislated by ‘apostles’. An apostle would develop a new ‘law of nature’ by becoming the sort of person that embodied that law of nature. However, in order to experience the personal benefits of that new law, other people would first have to apply this law, making it then possible for the ‘apostle’ to become a member of the crowd of people that is applying the law.

A legislator faces a similar dilemma. A legislator cannot experience the benefits of some new law simply by legislating this law into existence. Instead, this law has to be applied by government officials, people have to take advantage of this law, and then the legislator can experience the benefits of the law as one of the people who are taking advantage of this law. Saying this another way, legislators can presently think that they are above legislated law because everyone lives in a physical universe governed by natural law which functions independently of people, making it possible to receive physical benefits outside of legislated law. But if the Teacher structure of existence were built upon people in Mercy thought, then there would be no personal benefits outside of legislated law because human legislation would override natural law. In order to experience physical benefits, a legislator would have to become subject to legislated law.

This is similar to the situation that existed under communism. Countries that have followed pure communism have had poor economies, characterized by shoddy consumer goods that are in short supply. This did not bother party officials, because they could purchase what they wanted at special stores that were stocked with foreign merchandise. In the Soviet Union, these were known as beryozka stores. In other words, the legislators had access to an independent source of solid goods that came from outside the communist realm. If mind were to rule over matter, then there would no longer be any special stores for party officials because no ‘outside countries’ would exist, forcing party officials to get everything by standing in line with their fellow comrades.

Verse 2 begins by describing Paul’s desire to become part of the crowd: “Make room for us [in your hearts]” The phrase ‘in your hearts’ is in italics because it is not in the original Greek. This phrase was probably added because the translators are assuming that Paul is referring to concepts of people that reside as MMNs within Mercy thought. But the original phrase contains simply two words: ‘make room for’ and ‘us’. Make room for means ‘to make space, place, room’, and this is the only time it is used in 2 Corinthians. This does not refer to personal Mercy feelings but rather to Perceiver facts, because Perceiver thought thinks in terms of space and place. Thus, Paul the apostle is asking his followers to include him within their Perceiver facts. Using the analogy of the legislator, he is asking to be considered as a fellow citizen rather than as a legislator.

Paul continues by pointing out that he has not used his position as a legislator to take advantage of the citizens: “We wronged no one, we corrupted no one, we took advantage of no one” (v.2). Each one of these three verbs is preceded in the Greek by the same no one, which means ‘not one; no one, nothing’. Wronged means ‘unrighteousness – properly, doing wrong’. Using legislative language, Paul has always followed process and has never acted in a manner that is above the law. Saying this cognitively, he has always submitted MMNs of personal identity to the TMN of a concept of God. Corrupted means ‘waste away or degenerate, moving down from a higher level to a lower form’. Using the language of a few paragraphs earlier, he has never brought the family of God down to the human level of squabbling MMNs. Using legislative language, he has never ruined the legislative process by playing politics. Finally, took advantage of ‘shows inordinate desire, especially lusting for what belongs to someone else’. This relates to what I call ‘First World corruption’. ‘Third World corruption’ ignores the rules by making personal exceptions and accepting bribes. ‘First World corruption’ phrases the legislation in a manner that favors some groups while disadvantaging or excluding other groups. Paul is saying that he has never practiced First World corruption; he has never shaped the law in such a manner to favor himself personally. Saying this cognitively, he has not made Teacher thought the servant of Mercy identity.

In present day society, these three qualities are seen as ideals to which a legislator occasionally aspires. In a future society in which Teacher order was built upon Mercy people, a legislator would have to practice these qualities in order to experience the personal benefits of his legislation. First, one can only submit to law if one has a character of submitting to law. Second, one can only submit to law if one treats law as something that is higher than personal identity. And third, one can only submit to law if one does not make law submit to personal identity.

Paul describes this motivation in verse 3. He clarifies that ‘I do not speak to condemn you’. In the English this sounds quite personal, giving the impression that Paul is thinking in terms of offending his audience, but the original Greek is much more impersonal: ‘towards condemnation not speak’. The word condemnation means ‘the sentence of condemnation handed down after someone is found decidedly guilty’. In other words, Paul is not heading in the direction of applying the law in order to come up with conclusions of right versus wrong. Paul is not trying to become legalistic.

Instead, “I have said before that you are in our hearts to die together and to live together” (v.3). The verb die together is a single Greek word that means ‘die together with’. Similarly, live together is also a single Greek word that means ‘live together with’. These two words are preceded by a preposition that means ‘to or into, indicating the point reached or entered’. Thus, a more literal rendition would be ‘you are in our hearts to reach the die-together and live-together’. (The ‘the’ is in the original Greek.) Saying this cognitively, Paul is identifying in Mercy thought with the cause-and-effect of corporate death followed by corporate resurrection. Both he and his followers are going through the same process of submitting to a new law in order to experience the benefits of submitting to this new law. Using legislative language, both the legislator and the citizens are subject to the same legislative process of dying to existing law in order to become alive to a new set of laws. This may sound like an overdramatization of the legislative process, but when people get personally involved in getting laws passed, then it can become a very personal process. Similarly, if all Teacher order were based in people in Mercy thought, then every legislative process would have significant personal overtones.

Verse 4 describes Paul adopting an attitude of placing confidence in the group, so that he can emotionally become a member of that group: “Great is my confidence toward you; great is my boasting on your behalf.” (This uses the literal meaning in a footnote.) In verse 3 the pronouns were implied and not explicit: ‘toward condemnation not speak’. In verse 4, the pronouns are explicit: ‘great my boldness toward you; great my boasting on behalf of you’.

The word confidence means ‘a proverb or statement quoted with resolve’. Toward means ‘motion towards to interface with’. Today’s scientist can make ‘statements with resolve’ because these statements are backed up by the structure of the universe. Such statements are made in order to ‘move towards’ the universe and ‘interface with’ the universe. But what would happen if minds started to rule over matter and the structure of the universe became malleable? Every ‘statement made with resolve’ about the physical universe could be overturned by some other statement made by another person, at another time, or in another location. That is why I am using the illustration of the legislator rather than the scientist. A legislator can make ‘statements with resolve’ if his words are backed up by the structure of some group of people. Thus, he makes his statements in order to move towards the citizens and interface with government structure.

Looking at the second phrase, boasting means ‘boasting from a particular vantage point by having the right base of operation to deal successfully with a matter’. Similarly, when a legislator is backed up by some group of citizens, then the legislator has ‘a base of operation to deal successfully with matters’.

A New Kind of Government 7:4-5

I should emphasize that we are not looking here at the kind of government that exists today. Current government has a monopoly on physical force; government rules are ultimately backed up by the application of physical force. This only works when matter is over mind. Today’s governments can use force to control the population because human minds are trapped within vulnerable physical bodies constructed of physical matter. Governments also provide for the physical needs of their citizens, and maintain armies to protect their citizens from other groups of people. These various government services would no longer be necessary if mind started to rule over matter. Thus, a government of the future would be vastly different than the government of today. In the future, chaos would be the primary enemy of the people. People would cooperate to achieve more together than what they could as individuals. Instead of being driven by the stick of physical force to submit to government, citizens would be attracted by the carrot of physical benefit to submit to government. In fact, a government of the future might be so different from present government that the word government itself might be inappropriate.

This idea of being driven by the carrot of future benefits rather than by the stick of present suffering is conveyed by the next phrase: “I am filled with comfort; I am overflowing with joy in all our affliction” (v.4). The word comfort means ‘a personal exhortation that delivers the evidence that stands up in God’s court’. And it is closely related to the word comforter that is used to describe the Holy Spirit in John 15-16. This word ‘comfort’ will be used several times in various forms in the next few verses. The word ‘comforter’ has legal overtones. Thus, it is appropriate to use the analogy of a legislator. But ‘comforter’ also has a strong positive emotional component, which implies being attracted by some emotional carrot rather than a stick. Finally, the connection between ‘comforter’ and the Holy Spirit suggests that this emotional carrot is being provided by Platonic forms of the spirit.

This is backed up by the second phrase which refers to joy. The word joy is related to ‘grace’ and appears to describe Teacher emotion. Verse 4 talks about ‘overflowing with joy’. The word overflowing means ‘to abound more exceedingly’ and is only used twice in the New Testament. Thus, Paul is not just experiencing some comfort of the Holy Spirit but being filled with comfort. He is not just experiencing some joy, but hyper-abounding with Teacher feelings of joy. These are related, because Platonic forms of the spirit emerge as an indirect result of Teacher understanding. Thus, one can see that Paul is being motivated by a very potent emotional carrot.

The word affliction gives the impression that believers are experiencing either persecution or suffering, but this word means squeezing and is ‘used of a narrow place that hems someone in’. When one is looking forward to something positive in the future, then the present feels very restrictive. That is because the facts of the present are preventing the mind from focusing upon the goal of the future. For instance, there is a tendency for high school students who are in the last few months of school to get what some call ‘senioritis’. The looming prospect of graduating from school is internally so blinding that students find it difficult to focus upon their classes. As a result, many colleges will admit students conditionally, reserving the right to cancel the acceptance if a student does not maintain sufficiently high marks during the last few months of high school. Looking at this cognitively, the stress of living in the present while looking forward to the future builds the Perceiver and Server confidence that is required to hold both minds and society together. This explains why Paul is hyper-abounding with joy at the squeezing of everyone. Similarly, I get joy when people tell me that following mental symmetry is leading to narrowness in their lives, because this means that mental symmetry is starting to have a lasting impact upon their minds.

Verse 5 mentions Macedonia. This term was last seen in 2:13, and the word Macedonia means tall or slim. In addition, Macedonia is a part of Greece, and Greece represents rational technical thought. Looking at this reference literally, Paul is referring again to moving from Asia to Macedonia. However, Asia is not mentioned this time. Instead, Paul only mentioned Asia in 1:8 and does not refer to this location again. Thus, this reference to Macedonia may refer physically to the same trip as the previous references at the beginning of the book, but symbolically it is being mentioned within a different context.

In addition, what Paul said in 2:13 is a little different than what he says in 7:5. In 2:13 Paul found no rest for his spirit in Troas, which is still in Asia, and so he went on to Macedonia. In verse 5, Paul says that “even when we came into Macedonia our flesh had no rest, but we were afflicted on every side”. These two statements do not contradict one another, but they are not exactly the same. Previously, Paul found no rest for his spirit in Asia and so moved on to Macedonia. Here he finds no rest for his flesh in Macedonia. In both cases, the same phrase ‘having rest’ is being used. But in 2:13 he is having no rest in the spirit of him (singular), while in 7:5 no one had (singular) rest in the flesh of us (plural).

2:13 talked about moving beyond absolute truth to universal truth. This is a personal struggle which will generate spiritual unrest because one is trying to determine internally how to define truth. In 7:5 one is moving beyond the legislator to the citizens—beyond the apostle to the believers.

If Macedonia means ‘tall or slim’ and one interprets this as social status, then this means that achieving social status with some new program will not bring satisfaction. For instance, I used to want to give seminars on mental symmetry, but that is no longer my primary desire. That is because I know that giving seminars will not change the underlying situation. Stated bluntly, words are not enough. Talking about salvation is not sufficient. Even if I do acquire social status, my flesh will find no rest, because my physical body is starting to get old. Saying this more generally, theories and Platonic forms provide great comfort and motivation, but ultimately reality has to change.

Verse 5 finishes by describing what it feels like before one reaches the final step of altering physical reality: “We were afflicted on every side: conflicts without, fears within”. The word afflicted again means ‘pressed together’. Externally, there are conflicts, which means ‘battle, conflict, strife, contention’. Internally, there is fear, which describes ‘withdrawal, fleeing because feeling inadequate’. The conflict comes from walking a path that is different than other people. The fear comes from wondering if the internal Platonic forms are powerful enough to change physical reality.

For instance, suppose that I did give many seminars on mental symmetry. Externally, this would lead to direct conflict with other people, because I would be making statements that others find unpalatable. Internally, this would lead to fear, because I would be afraid that merely talking about mental symmetry would be insufficient to change the course of society.

The Coming of Titus 7:6-7

Verse 6 describes the coming of Titus: “But God, who comforts the humble, comforted us by the coming of Titus” (This uses the alternate translation given in a footnote.) Looking at this literally, Paul finally found his friend Titus after traveling to Macedonia. Symbolically, a positive personal benefit has finally emerged, because the name Titus means ‘pleasing’. The word ‘comfort’ is used twice in this verse and twice in the next verse. The word translated humble means ‘low-lying, lowly, lowly in spirit’. The word coming is a fairly common Greek word but it is also used when describing the ‘second coming’ of Jesus, and it ‘is a technical term with reference to the visit of a king or some other official, a royal visit’. This noun is used three times in 2 Corinthians: in this verse, in the next verse, and in 10:10. Thus, this implies a personal appearing of something pleasant which has major significance. This connection of the coming of ‘pleasing’ with ‘a royal visit’ can be seen in the reference to ‘the God’. A more literal rendition of verse 6 would be ‘But the one comforting the humble comforted us—the God, by the coming of Titus’. This gives the impression that the coming of Titus is being seen not just as a comforting of the lowly, but actually as a royal visit from God.

Putting these various pieces together cognitively, the requirement for being comforted is to be humble. This does not describe some religious attitude of self-abasement, but rather refers simply to an attitude of being under the law rather than being a source of the law. When one submits to the law, then it is possible to start experiencing the physical benefits of this law. In verse 4, Paul was filled with comfort, giving the impression of a static feeling of Platonic perfection in Mercy thought. In verse 6, comfort turns from a noun into a verb: ‘The one comforting the humble comforted us’. This extension of comfort in Mercy thought leads to a larger concept of ‘the God’ in Teacher thought. This extension of comfort is expressed through the ‘coming of Titus’.

For instance, giving seminars on mental symmetry could lead to feelings of comfort as people became cognitively transformed. But if following the theory of mental symmetry made it possible to make a spiritual breakthrough, then this comfort would turn from a static feeling into an active verb, and it would lead to the concept of a monotheistic God who rules over all of existence, as opposed to a concept of God who rules over the mind and extends theoretically to the realm of physical existence.

Verse 7 elaborates on the nature of this ‘coming of Titus’: “And not only by his coming, but also by the comfort with which he was comforted in you”. The first phrase says that part of the comfort came from ‘the coming of him’, and the word coming is the same word with ‘royal visit’ overtones. The second phrase describes an additional comfort which he received from them, and the word ‘comfort’ is used twice, once as a noun and once as a verb. Looking at this cognitively, when a legislator submits in lowliness to the law that he has legislated, then it becomes possible for him to receive personal benefits from the law and it also becomes possible for others to submit to this law as well. This is not totally the case with current legislation because today’s legislators only pass laws. In contrast, a future legislator would activate a law by breaking through in some new way to the spiritual realm, thus acting more like an apostle than a legislator. Therefore, submitting personally to this law would be a major aspect of making this law available to oneself and others.

Verse 7 finishes by describing what Titus reports to Paul about the believers: “He reported to us your longing, your mourning, your zeal for me; so that I rejoiced even more.” The noun longing is only used twice in the New Testament: here, and four verses later. It means ‘eager longing or desire, strong affection’. The word mourning is also used only twice in the New Testament, and means ‘loud, grievous lamentation, typically accompanied by physical manifestations’. The other occurrence is in Matthew 2:18, which describes the mourning when King Herod killed the infants in Bethlehem. And zeal ‘literally means hot enough to boil. It is metaphorically used of burning anger, love, zeal’. These are all strong emotional terms. Longing looks forward to some future goal, mourning feels bad about the present, while zeal implies that the feelings are almost too strong for Mercy thought to contain.

Looking at this cognitively, the strongest possible drive to move beyond the present to the future has been created in the followers of Paul. This may sound trivial because it is easy to create strong feelings when the mind is trapped in a physical body that bombards the mind with experiences of physical pain and pleasure. But how does one create a drive for change when mind rules over matter? How does one motivate individuals who no longer have physical necessities? Even in today’s society, wealth seldom lasts more than three generations, because those who inherit wealth are not driven by the same desire to succeed that motivated the original generation which struggled to acquire the wealth.

This causes Paul to ‘rejoice even more’ because his personal breakthrough in Teacher thought is being extended to a social transformation.

Godly Sorrow 7:8-10

The next few verses talk about ‘the letter’. Looking at this literally, in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul had to deal with a case of incest in the church. In response, he wrote a strong letter to the Corinthians. They responded to this letter with mourning and repentance, and Paul says in the next few verses that he is glad that he sent this letter.

However, there is also a deeper cognitive meaning (which is discussed in Hebrews 12). In the current system of matter-over-mind, hardship can be separated from help. For instance, I can experience some physical trauma from the physical world and then receive comfort or help from people. This makes it possible to mentally separate the problem from the solution. The situation may lead to some form of death, but God provides salvation through Jesus. This kind of separation would no longer be possible with mind-over-matter, because everything would have a personal source; there would no longer be any independent physical existence. (This does not necessarily mean that the physical universe would cease to exist, but rather that human minds would have the ability to shape physical reality whenever they came into contact with physical reality. In other words, mind-over-matter would only become evident when minds came into contact with matter. Matter would continue to function as before apart from minds.) This means that a person could only go through the process of death-and-rebirth if some source of truth temporarily withheld approval and then later gave approval. Saying this more simply, if everything I have comes from some person, then I will only experience rebirth if that person temporarily withholds benefits from me. But if that person withholds approval, then it will be natural for me to conclude that that person no longer loves me. A similar conflict between enemy and friend can be seen in the interrogation technique known as good cop bad cop.

For instance, I have consistently felt over the years that divine providence has stepped in to close the doors on spreading mental symmetry. I know that the untransformed mind finds the message of mental symmetry inherently repulsive; the average person does not really want to know how his mind works. But the consistent rejection that I have received seems to go beyond normal human obstinacy. When one experiences this for decades, then the natural conclusion is that ‘God hates me’. It is difficult to move beyond that to ‘God is disciplining me in the present in order to bless me in the future’. That transformation in attitude is discussed in Hebrews 12. And it also explains what Paul is saying regarding his letter in verses 8-13.

Verse 8 summarizes this process of temporarily withholding approval: “For though I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it—for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while.” The word sorrow means ‘to experience a deeper, emotional pain’. It ‘is very intense and hence even used of the pain of childbirth’. This word is used six times in the next four verses. And Paul explicitly admits that his words were the source of this painful emotion; he has committed the deeply politically-incorrect crime of saying things that make his audience feel very bad.

The word regret means ‘to experience a change of concern’. It describes the second thoughts that one has when thinking back about a situation. Paul says that he initially had second thoughts about his letter but not anymore. In other words, when one thinks back about dispensing temporary disapproval, one will initially regret what one has done, but not later on. The opposite is usually the case: One uses strong words and then regrets having used such strong words. This also happened in the case of Paul, but something additional happened after the initial regret.

The next phrase describes the additional that is happening. The verb see means ‘to see something physical with spiritual results’. Thus, Paul is seeing physical results and he is thinking about what he has seen. What he sees first is temporary sorrow. Using cognitive language, his words made his audience feel bad in Mercy thought.

Verse 9 describes the second result that happened after the temporary sorrow: “I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you are made sorrowful to [the point of] repentance.” Joy describes Teacher emotions. It is possible for Teacher thought to find pleasure in a general theory that involves Mercy pain. This happens, for instance, when I cling to the general theory that ‘I am unlovable’.

The word repentance means ‘a change of mind’. It is a reasonably common word in the New Testament, but it is only used twice in 2 Corinthians: in this verse, and in the next verse. Both ‘repentance’ and ‘regret’ are combination Greek words which start with ‘meta’, which means ‘change after being with’. Repentance combines ‘meta’ with a verb that means using ‘the mind, the reason, the reasoning faculty, intellect’; regret combines ‘meta’ with a verb that means ‘care, be concerned with’. Using cognitive language, repentance involves primarily a transformation in technical thought—one is thinking differently, while regret involves primarily a transformation in mental networks—one is feeling differently.

Putting this all together, Paul initially felt bad about writing his words because he experienced a change in his mental networks. But this emotional regret did not last. That is because Paul saw that his words led to a change in the thinking of his audience. When Paul saw this change in thinking, he gained pleasure in Teacher thought. In other words, Teacher thought is not building a masochistic theory out of Mercy pain, or building a politically correct theory out of Mercy pleasure. Instead, Teacher thought is building a theory out of the process of temporary pain in Mercy thought leading to greater rational understanding. Using theological language, a name is a Teacher theory that summarizes the essence of some person. The essence of the name of Jesus is the process of death followed by rebirth. Paul is finding Teacher pleasure in the name of Jesus.

Going further, Paul concludes that God was the ultimate source of this grieving and not Paul himself: “For you were made sorrowful according to [the will of] God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything from us” (v.8). (‘The will of’ is not in the original Greek, and I am using the literal translation given in a footnote.) Philippians 2:9-10 says that God gave Jesus a name that is above every other name. Thus, if one finds Teacher pleasure in the process of ‘death followed by rebirth’, one is cognitively recognizing in Teacher thought that God has put the name of Jesus above other names. Therefore, Paul can conclude that ‘you are made sorrowful according to God’.

The verb suffer loss is used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘to cause or experience loss, especially carrying a penalty or significant detriment’. In other words, Paul has not damaged them with his politically incorrect speech, because he has caused them to become connected with God in a greater manner. For instance, students often experience displeasure from teachers in school, and teachers sometimes even fail students. However, the teacher is not hurting the student if this disapproval ultimately causes the student to gain a better education. This does not mean that a teacher has a right to inflict physical punishment upon rotten students. The verses that we are examining refer exclusively to making a person feel bad. Paul is not physically beating the believers and then justifying his abusive behavior. But he is using words to make them feel bad.

Verse 10 clarifies exactly what makes sorrow godly: “For the sorrow that is according to [the will of] God produces a repentance leading to a salvation without regret, but the sorrow of the world produces death.” (This is the alternate translation from a footnote. ‘The will of’ is not in the original Greek.) The word sorrow is the noun form of the verb ‘sorrow’ that has been used several times in these verses. Two kinds of sorrow are being compared in this verse. The feelings in Mercy thought are the same, because the same word ‘sorrow’ is being used in both cases. Godly sorrow ‘produces a repentance leading to a salvation without regret’. Repentance means a change in thinking. Salvation means ‘to save, rescue’. Looking at the Greek literally, there is ‘repentance toward salvation’. The ‘change in thinking’ leads in the direction of ‘saving, rescuing’.

Saying this more simply, the change in thinking ends up fixing the problem. One changes the way that one thinks in order to solve the problem and not just to adopt a new paradigm. When one changes one’s thinking, it becomes possible to solve the problem. Saying this more personally, when there seems to be no answer to a problem, I have found that this is usually because one is being motivated by inadequate assumptions to ask the wrong questions. Addressing these assumptions makes it possible to ask the right questions, which then reveals the solution.

Verse 10 adds that this solving of the problem is without regret, a negative form of the word ‘regret’ used twice in verse 8. In other words, once the situation is finished one does not look back and feel bad. Notice the order, which is reflected in the original Greek. First there is sorrow; one feels bad in Mercy thought. This is followed by a change in thinking. This change in thinking makes it possible to solve the problem and one does not look back and feel bad.

The other option is ‘sorrow of the world’. The word world is ‘cosmos’, which means ‘an ordered system like the universe, creation; the world’. This describes the TMN that comes from living within the structure of the physical universe. This word is quite common in the New Testament, but this is the third and last time that it will be used in 2 Corinthians. A concept of ‘the world’ will naturally emerge when matter rules over mind. But when mind starts to rule over matter, then the very idea of ‘the world’ will eventually disappear. However, ‘the world’ will not vanish instantly. That is because when mind starts to rule over matter, then people will still be driven mentally for a while by the memory of matter-over-mind, similar to the way that post-Christian society was still guided for several years by the memory of Christian ethics.

Verse 10 says that ‘the sorrow of the world produces death’. Looking at this cognitively, the problem that is causing Mercy thought to feel bad does not go away. When a mental network continues to receive inconsistent and unpleasant information, then it will eventually fall apart and die. This explains the reasoning behind an attitude of political correctness. If words make a person feel bad and this painful feeling remains without the problem being solved—to the extent of causing MMNs to fall apart and die, then it makes sense to try to avoid any words that make people feel bad.

Verse 10 uses two different verbs which are both translated as ‘produces’ in English. The verb used for ‘godly sorrow produces’ means ‘to work, accomplish’. The verb used for ‘sorrow of the world produces’ is a strengthened version which means ‘work down to the end point, i.e. to an exact, definite conclusion’. In other words, ‘sorrow of the world’ is functioning in its natural element. Sorrow, the world, and death all belong together. In contrast, God may use sorrow, but sorrow and God are not inextricably combined; they do not naturally belong together.

This can be seen in the different prepositions. On the one hand, there is ‘sorrow of the world’, and the word ‘of the’ is explicitly added and not just implied by the genitive case of ‘world’. On the other hand, godly sorrow is actually described as ‘sorrow according to God’. The NASB translates this as ‘according to the will of God’, which gives the impression that God is choosing to impose sorrow. ‘According to God’ means that it is consistent with the TMN of a concept of God. In other words, one notices that the sorrow is not random but rather falls into a general pattern in Teacher thought—there is an underlying universal principle hidden within the problem. Discovering this universal principle leads to a change in thinking guided by the Teacher emotion of understanding, and because a universal principle is universal, applying this principle will actually solve the problem. The sorrow in Mercy thought will then be viewed retroactively as the personal gateway to discovering and applying this universal principle: ‘That was a horrible situation, but I never would have discovered this major principle without that situation’.

Within today’s system of matter-over-mind, that is usually as far as the process can go. One can look back at the horrible situation and be thankful for the cognitive transformation that it produced. But because mind does not rule over matter, the physical problem that caused this sorrow often remains. For instance, ‘I am thankful for my car accident, because it turned my life around and I have become a different person inside. Unfortunately, I am still in a wheelchair because of the accident’. Thus, some of the regret still remains. However, if mind started to rule over matter, then it would be possible to remove all of the regret—but only to the extent that mind ruled over matter.

One can see what this means by looking at the example of communist deer. During the Cold War, West Germany and Czechoslovakia were separated by an electrified fence system that made it impossible for deer to cross from one area into the other. These electric fences were torn down over 25 years ago. 300 red deer were recently equipped with GPS collars, and researchers discovered that these deer still do not cross the border, even though it no longer physically exists. This is true despite the deer having an average life expectancy of 15 years. Thus, these deer are avoiding an imaginary boundary because they are following the example of their parents who were avoiding the memory of a real boundary. Similarly, if mind started to rule over matter, then for several generations people would still be driven mentally by the memory and culture of living under matter-over-mind. And this memory and culture within people’s minds would make it seem as if matter still ruled over mind. But matter would be actually ruled by a mindset of the memory of matter-over-mind, just like the deer are being ruled by a mindset of the memory of the Iron Curtain.

In such an environment, godly sorrow would truly open the door to a new way of thinking that would make it possible to solve problems without regret within the new system of mind-over-matter. In contrast, clinging to a mindset of matter-over-mind within a physical environment now ruled by mind-over-matter would lead to a dead end. That is because one would have to cling to this mindset with increasing dogmatism and inflexibility as it became more apparent that matter no longer ruled over mind. A similar sort of growing dogmatism and inflexibility can be seen in today’s religious fundamentalism as it becomes increasingly apparent that we live in a modern society that really is post-Christian. This sort of mental rigidity stifles life and lashes out at enemies.

The Fruit of Godly Sorrow 7:11

Verse 11 begins “For behold what earnestness this very thing, this sorrow according to God has produced in you”. (This is the literal translation from a footnote.) The word ‘produces’ here is the strengthened form of produces. Thus, this verse is describing what naturally emerges as a result of ‘sorrow according to God’. In the same way that sorrow, world, and death are naturally connected, so this verse will describe a list of traits that are naturally connected with ‘sorrow according to God’. In the English, ‘earnestness’ is near the beginning of this sentence. In the Greek, it is the last word of the phrase. Thus, the Greek is emphasizing ‘sorrow according to God’ while ‘earnestness’ is the first in a list of traits being produced by this ‘sorrow according to God’. This sentence begins with the word behold which is then followed by a logical connective. In other words, ‘sorrow according to God’ will cause a new set of physical characteristics to emerge; the external environment will become transformed in a manner that causes people to say ‘Behold!’ And the Greek verb ‘produced’ is preceded by how much, which means that there will be a lot to behold.

This is then followed by seven nouns. The first noun ‘earnestness’ is not preceded by any conjunction. The other six nouns are all preceded by a ‘but’. Thus, the list is actually ‘earnestness, but vindication, but indignation, but fear…’ In other words, the earnestness is a direct result of ‘the sorrow according to God’, which is consistent with the idea of having sorrow. In contrast, the succeeding six traits have nothing to do with sorrow, even though they are emerging as a result of the sorrow.

All except one of these nouns describe behavior that is being motivated by strong emotions. Looking at this more generally, when one lives within matter-over-mind, it is important to remain rational. That is because one must use technical thought to understand the laws of physics, and personal emotions will get in the way of discovering these laws of nature. In contrast, when mind rules over matter, then nothing will change until core mental networks change, because the mind is ruled by its core mental networks. Therefore, if one wishes to change the environment then one must go through an emotional process in which new strong emotions emerge to motivate behavior. This is already true to some extent when one wishes to transform the mind. A person only becomes fully transformed inside when core mental networks change. But the person who is mentally transformed must still recognize that people live in physical bodies that are governed by the laws of nature which are determined by technical thought. With mind-over-matter personal transformation would automatically extend to affect the physical environment.

In addition, these nouns do not fit into the attitude of religious self-denial that naturally accompanies absolute truth. People who are following God by denying self do not ‘vindicate themselves’, ‘show indignation’ or ‘avenge wrong’.

Looking at this list of words in more detail, the word earnestness means ‘swiftness to show zealous diligence’. In other words, the sorrow is acting as a ‘kick in the pants’ to get people moving; the sorrow is adding a sense of urgency to the situation so that people respond with haste. This haste is a natural outcome of the sorrow, which explains why the word ‘sorrow’ is not preceded by a ‘but’.

The next noun is translated vindication of yourselves, and ‘is the term for making a legal defense in an ancient court’. It is the source of the English word apologetics and describes ‘a well-reasoned reply; a thought-out response to adequately address the issue that is raised’. This is not a natural expression of sorrow, but rather is a different kind of response being triggered by the sorrow, which explains the presence of a ‘but’ before the noun. Chapter 7 began by explaining the dilemma of the legislator: how can a person who is the source of law enjoy the benefits of that law as a fellow citizen? The word ‘vindication’ describes the first step in that process. People are responding to personal sorrow by appealing to law. They are not just talking about the theory or fantasizing about living within the theory. Instead, they are using rational thought and logic to address the issue.

This is the one noun that is not strongly emotional. It is also the noun that shifts the attention from the negative emotion of sorrow to the positive emotion of pursuing a solution. Saying this another way, the technical thinking of incarnation still plays a key role even in an environment that is ruled by mental networks. Jesus Christ is still the savior who saves people out of their sorrows by transforming their responses.

The next noun is indignation, which is only used once in noun form in the New Testament. It means ‘feeling of anger, indignation, vexation’. People are not just passively accepting the sorrow as ‘the will of God’. Instead, they are feeling at an emotional level that they do not want to live with the painful situation. But notice the order. The indignation does not occur first. Instead, the appealing to law happens first and then the indignation follows. Starting with indignation focuses upon the person who is saying the things that make me feel bad and then tells that person to stop talking: ‘How dare you say that to me...’ This is the typical response in today’s politically correct environment. Much of today’s appealing to law is also inadequate because it is rationalization rather than rational thought; it makes law the servant of personal identity. But it is also possible to use law in a lawful way by appealing to the TMN of a rational framework of integrated law. Using religious language, this is a sorrow that is according to God.

This is followed by fear, which means ‘fleeing because feeling inadequate without sufficient resources.’ Indignation responds emotionally to some unpleasant situation. This creates a separation between the situation and personal identity; I am responding with indignation to the situation. This emotional separation makes it possible to flee the situation. This is an important distinction because mental networks function at two different levels: The memories contained within a mental network can feel unpleasant, but the existence of a mental network itself provides stability and familiarity. For instance, I may say many bad things about my native country, but this is still my native country which defines my personal existence. If one truly wishes to flee from an unpleasant situation, one must become free from the mental network that represents that unpleasant situation. This is only possible if one constructs an alternative mental network and holds on to that alternative network. That was done through the step of ‘vindication’, which holds emotionally to the TMN of God by appealing to the law in a rational manner. When one appeals to a TMN of God, it is then possible to become emotionally distant from the MMN of sorrow through indignation. This emotional distancing then makes it possible to separate oneself from the undesired situation through fear.

This fear is often misplaced in today’s society. One may fear the authorities because they have the power to impose physical punishment. However, if mind were to rule over matter, then the authorities would no longer have the power of physical punishment; authorities would no longer be able to use matter to control minds. Going further, in today’s environment of high-priced lawyers, one often does not have sufficient resources to appeal to the law. But we are looking here at a future environment in which lawmakers are desperate to find people who will apply their laws. Thus, the situation would be more like today’s typical social experiment, in which researchers pay people to be subjects. Finally, in today’s environment appealing to law is often seen as a last resort. The average person tries to solve situations in the real world rather than going to the effort and expense of engaging legal services. But if mind were to rule over matter, then there would be no independent real world to which one could go. Instead, one would have to appeal to law. This would be somewhat like the case with modern electronics. An individual person can design an integrated circuit, but a multi-billion dollar factory is required to translate that idea of an integrated circuit into an actual chip. Similarly, the courts of the future would be more like semiconductor foundries which are capable of translating ideas into reality.

The next noun is longing, a strengthened form of the verb ‘longing’ which means ‘eager longing or desire, strong affection’. This noun is only used twice in the New Testament: here, and four verses earlier. In verse 7, Titus reported to Paul the ‘eager longing’ of the believers. Verse 11 describes the process by which this eager longing emerges. This is when the stick becomes replaced by the carrot. Instead of fleeing the unpleasant, one is longing after the pleasant. In order to long for something, one must have an internal concept within Mercy thought of what one is longing for. Saying this another way, the ‘what is’ in Mercy thought that one is fleeing from has to be replaced by a ‘what could be’ in Mercy thought after which one longs.

For instance, revolution often occurs in a society not when things are horrible but rather when things start to get better, because people then start to get an idea of how things could be and they revolt because change is not happening quickly enough. Revolution assumes an environment of matter-over-mind. Those who revolt are using physical force to take a shortcut to personal prosperity, and physical force only works when matter rules over mind. With mind-over-matter, there would be no physical shortcuts, and the only way to succeed would be to see the law-abiding process through to the finish. The semiconductor foundry provides a partial illustration of this principle. Fabricating a computer chip requires incredible standards of cleanliness and precision. Any kind of physical revolt within such a factory would inevitably ruin the cleanliness and precision that is required to create devices, making the very idea of a physical revolution meaningless.

Longing is followed by zeal, which was also mentioned in verse 7. Zeal describes ‘inner feeling boiling over’. The order is again important. Zeal must follow longing. Longing comes from Platonic forms of the spirit, which naturally emerge when one submits a situation to Teacher-guided rational thought. Zeal pursues this longing with full emotions to the extent of emotionally bubbling over. For instance, Perceiver persons have problems dealing with anger, and I am no exception. Anger is a prime example of ‘inner feeling boiling over’. Anger is usually followed by more anger, just as a small hole in a dam usually leads to a larger hole. However, I have discovered—thankfully—over the years that Perceiver anger has a different result when it occurs within the framework of the TMN of mental symmetry. I have consistently found that anger leads to greater internal integrity rather than less. This does not mean that anger is good, and I am not trying to justify the tendency of Perceiver persons to lose their temper. But it does illustrate what happens when zeal occurs within a context of longing that results from appealing to the law. In essence, the zeal blows away the scaffolding of self-control that has been used to cope with the unpleasant situation, revealing the framework of a system of law that is capable of solving the unpleasant situation. Using an analogy, if I am in a spaceship and some wall of the spaceship fails because of the pressure, then the air will escape and I will die. But if I am in a spaceship resting on a habitable planet and some wall of the spaceship fails, then I will become exposed to the outside air which will be healthier than the artificial air within the spaceship.

The final noun is translated avenging of wrong and means ‘judgement which fully executes the core values or standards of the particular judge’. This is the only time that it occurs as a noun in 2 Corinthians. (It also occurs once as a verb in 10:6.) This final term returns to the analogy of a courtroom. But there is also a personal element which illustrates perfectly the theme of this chapter. We have been examining how a lawmaker can live within an environment that practices his law. Exactly this is happening with ‘avenging of wrong’, because the words of a specific lawmaker are being implemented as laws to solve problems. When people start doing this, then the lawmaker himself can become a fellow citizen implementing the laws to solve problems.

Verse 11 finishes by concluding, “In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter.” The word demonstrated has been translated as ‘commend’ earlier in 2 Corinthians, and it means to ‘stand up together, referring to facts lining up with each other to support or commend something’. This describes Teacher feelings of order-within-complexity rather than Mercy emotions of personal status. People are not emerging victorious from court feeling that they have been lifted up in Mercy thought while the opponent has been squashed. Instead, what is being demonstrated is Teacher structure. People are emerging victorious from court because they are thinking and behaving in a manner that reflects Teacher structure.

The word innocent means ‘pure inside and out; holy because uncontaminated… not mixed with guilt or anything condemnable’. Teacher thought generates order-within-complexity by finding simple statements that can summarize many situations—without exception. ‘Innocent’ means that no exceptions exist to the general Teacher statements. Such innocence has nothing to do with Mercy status, but rather is demonstrated by Teacher structure. Mercy status by its very nature is ‘mixed with guilt’ because it compares ‘me’ with what is condemnable. ‘Innocence’ does not even think in terms of guilt and condemnation, but instead is motivated by Teacher feelings such as order, simplicity, elegance, purity, beauty, and integrity. Mercy status is a zero-sum game in which I am lifted up by stepping on others. ‘Innocence’ follows goodness for its own sake. (I am putting the word ‘innocence’ in quotes because the English word innocence implies an attitude of naivety that is corrupted when it comes into contact with reality, like a clean white cloth being contaminated by mud. The ‘innocence’ that is described here is being ‘demonstrated’ by the TMN of order and structure, leading to a self-cleaning cloth which restores its whiteness even when exposed to mud.)

The word translated matter is only used once in 2 Corinthians. It is the source of the English word pragmatics, and actually means ‘the habit needed to accomplish what is necessary in a practical, reliable way’. ‘Matter’ conveys the concept of some static situation in Mercy thought defined by Perceiver facts. Pragmatics, in contrast, are an expression of Server thought and Server actions. We saw earlier in the essay that if one really wishes to transform Teacher understanding then one must function at the level of Server sequences rather than Perceiver facts.

Putting this together, people are ‘demonstrating’ their ‘innocence’ through the way that they behave. They are showing that they are guided by Teacher thought by ‘the way that they do things’. Saying this another way, they are demonstrating habits of righteousness. With matter-over-mind, one can learn about righteousness by studying natural processes and then changing ‘how we do things’ to be consistent with ‘how the physical world works’. If mind started to rule over matter, then this method would no longer work because the physical world would no longer always behave in a predictable manner. Instead, one would have to demonstrate habits of righteousness by changing ‘how we do things’ to be consistent with ‘the rule of law’.

For instance, one can see a caricature of this in modern processes of accreditation. Accreditation uses technical thought to define and guide ‘how we do things’. When some specialization becomes accredited, then it submits itself to the standards of technical thought. Fields become accredited because science and technology has taught us that one must use technical thought to understand and apply the laws of nature. Saying this another way, accreditation changes ‘how we do things’ to be consistent with ‘how the physical universe functions’. But accreditation is a caricature because the current physical universe is impersonal, which means that accreditation often removes the human element from a field, turning people into technicians and bureaucrats. The list that we have just examined describes a process that is similar to the process of accreditation but far more organic, because the accreditation of the future would include MMNs of personal identity and be guided by the TMN of a concept of God.

Beyond Righteousness to Tested Character 7:12

Verse 12 describes the larger motives. Paul is not focusing upon people within the specific situation: “So although I wrote to you, [it was] not for the sake of the offender nor for the sake of the one offended...” The two words translated ‘offender’ and ‘offended’ are the active and passive forms of a verb that means ‘unrighteousness’. Most sins today are made possible because matter rules over mind. For instance, one can have sex outside of marriage because people live within physical bodies that are capable of copulating even when there is no mental basis for the physical relationship. Similarly, one can steal items because objects exist within the physical world independently of the minds that own these objects. In verse 12, the underlying crime is a lack of righteousness. Righteousness means action that is guided by the TMN of a concept of God. Thus, people who have an inadequate concept of God are behaving in ways that brings harm to others.

Today’s technological society provides a partial example of what this means, because one has to be technologically competent to survive in modern society. In many cases, one has to prove that one is capable of using certain technology before one is legally permitted to use that technology. Thus, suffering unrighteousness as a result of unrighteousness would be like someone without a pilot’s license flying an airplane and hurting people in a plane crash.

But even though righteousness is a higher form of morality, Paul still says that rectifying unrighteousness is not his primary goal. He did not write to them in order to protect people by establishing standards of righteousness. Using the illustration of a pilot, Paul is not writing legislation in order to ensure that all pilots are certified.

Instead, he wrote “that your earnestness on our behalf might be known to you in the sight of God.” The Greek grammar of this phrase is somewhat complicated, and as far as I can tell, the NASB accurately translates this grammar. The word translated known actually means ‘to make visible, make clear’. Thus, this is not a situation of knowing something in Perceiver thought but rather of seeing it in Mercy thought. The word earnestness is the same noun that occurred at the beginning of the list in verse 11 that we just examined. This ‘swiftness to show zealous diligence’ was not in some random direction. Instead, it was on Paul’s behalf.

Mental networks typically reveal themselves under pressure. As long as a mental network experiences compatible input, it will continue to function silently under the surface, and one will often not even be aware that this mental network exists. But when a mental network is challenged, then its character becomes revealed. That is when people discover what they are really like. The followers of Paul are discovering under pressure what they are really like. It is becoming visible to them that they want to behave swiftly on Paul’s behalf. For instance, if I were to pursue mental symmetry within some comfortable academic setting, then I would not know what I really want. But developing this theory in an uncomfortable situation is revealing to me that what I really want is to live within the theory of mental symmetry—as quickly as possible. I do not want to just talk about mental symmetry. I do not want to set up standards of righteousness that certify following mental symmetry. Instead, I want to live within the reality that mental symmetry makes possible.

Verse 12 includes one more phrase, which is ‘in the sight of God’. A more literal rendition would be ‘in the eye of the God’, or ‘before the face of the God’. Thus, all of this is happening in close emotional contact with the TMN of a concept of God. Paul does not just want them to discover what they really want in isolation. Instead, he wants them to discover what they really want in the sight of God.

Illustrating what this means with an example from physics, a biographer of Richard Feynman the famous physicist wrote that “Feynman once said, ‘Science is imagination in a straitjacket.’ It is ironic that in the case of quantum mechanics, the people without the straitjackets are generally the nuts.” In other words, science uses imagination but this imagination is within the straitjacket of a concept of God, and this restriction of placing imagination within the TMN of a concept of God protects the mind from wishful thinking.

Looking at this personally, this essay is discussing content that one would normally find within fantasy and science fiction. But this fantastical fictional content is being discussed within the mental straitjacket of the TMN of the theory of mental symmetry. A Perceiver person likes to escape from reality into fantasy and science fiction, and I used to enjoy such literature. However, I now find that imagining within the mental straitjacket of mental symmetry leads to fantasy that is far more compelling and attractive than what I used to read in escapist literature. Others propose imaginary worlds that could never exist because they contradict how the mind works. In contrast, I am trying to explore imaginary worlds that are consistent with the structure of the mind as well as consistent in depth with the holy book of the dominant world religion. Saying this more simply, my imagination may be in a straitjacket, but I keep finding that it is the people without the straitjackets who are generally the nuts.

In verse 13, Paul concludes “For this reason we have been comforted.” As was mentioned before, the word ‘comforter’ is used to describe the Holy Spirit in John 14-16. Verses 6-7 talked about Paul being comforted. Paul has now explained the reason for his comfort. In summary, Paul has described the process by which people respond to the words of a legislator and transform these words into laws that are applied. This comforts Paul not by giving him warm fuzzy feelings but rather by giving him a hope that he himself will also be able to experience the personal benefits of living within the law that he has legislated. In the same way that the Holy Spirit is described as a down payment of a future reward, so this comfort is a down payment that ensures that Paul will experience the personal benefits of blazing the way as an apostle.

Did Paul himself fully understand what he was writing? I do not know. But one can state with certainty that Paul was very aware of his role as an apostle to the Gentiles, he knew in depth what it meant to be an apostle, and he came up with the very idea of basing a religion in the rule of law. (Judaism is based in carrying out the actions of Torah and is not rooted in the rule of law.) Thus, Paul did understand, at least within his cultural context, what it means to be a legislator who comes up with new law and wants to experience the benefits of living within that law, because Paul lived this role as fully as was possible within his civilization.

The Titus’ Joy 7:13-14

Paul then goes beyond comfort to pleasure: “And besides our comfort, we rejoiced even much more for the joy of Titus” (v.13). Looking at this literally, Paul was happy to see positive emotions in his friend Titus. But looking at this symbolically, the name Titus means ‘pleasing’. Paul has talked about comfort. He will now discuss something in addition, which is ‘the joy of Titus’. The noun joy describes Teacher pleasure, because it is closely related in Greek to the word for grace. The verb rejoiced is part of the same family of words. It means ‘glad for grace’ and ‘has a direct etymological connection with grace’.

The end of chapter 6 described a new intimate relationship between God in Teacher thought and humanity in Mercy thought. The phrase ‘joy of Titus’, which is actually written in the original Greek as ‘the Titus’ joy’, gives the impression that some new form of Teacher-plus-Mercy emotion is being experienced, because what is ‘pleasing’ is also bringing joy. Paul says that he is ‘rejoicing’ at ‘the Titus’ joy’. If Paul represents the legislator who wants to live within the law that he has legislated, then ‘the Titus’ joy’ implies that the legislator is finally experiencing emotionally the first glimmer of the possibility of living within his legislation. This is a major breakthrough because verse 13 says that Paul ‘rejoiced even much more’. In the Greek, more is a comparative which says that ‘the Titus’ joy’ is more than the comfort, while even much is an adverb that means ‘beyond expectation; further than the upper limit, going past what is anticipated’.

The second half of verse 13 describes ‘the Titus’ joy’ in more detail: “because his spirit has been refreshed by you all”. The verb translated refreshed is only used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘to give or experience rest after the needed task is completed’. What is being refreshed is ‘his spirit’, referring to the spirit of Titus, and what is doing the refreshing is ‘you all’. We have just examined the long task of transforming legislation into laws within which one can live. This task is now completed, leading to a spirit of rest. This task has been completed by all of the believers who have followed the process described in verse 11. This spirit of rest implies that people are not yet living within the benefits of the new law but they can now see clearly within Mercy thought what this means.

Using technology as a partial example, all of the design work has now been completed. The idea of a new product has been transformed into some sort of prototype. It is now possible to rest from all of the research and development that was necessary to turn the idea into a prototype.

Verse 14 is somewhat tricky cognitively. It begins, “For if in anything I have boasted to him about you, I was not put to shame”. The word boasted means ‘boasting from a particular vantage point by having the right base of operation to deal successfully with a matter’. Paul is boasting to Titus about the believers. This describes a personal shift from legislator to citizen. Paul is no longer boasting in the laws that he has passed as a legislator; he is not trying to talk about his message to some audience. Instead, he now has confidence that he will be able to experience personally the benefits of his legislation. He has confidence because many people are now trying to apply this legislation. And he is mentally connecting this confidence with ‘the Titus’ joy’. Using the example of technology, an inventor is no longer trying to sell his idea to others. Instead, he is connecting a group of potential customers with his prototype.

This entire process may seem rather convoluted and unnecessary, but that is because we currently live in a realm of matter-over-mind, in which physical objects exist independently of human thought. If mind were to rule over matter, then one would have to mentally create independent existence before it would be possible to experience lasting physical benefits, because mind would be over matter. I know to some extent from personal experience what this means, because it is a huge mental shift to go from teaching mental symmetry as a verbal theory to regarding mental symmetry as a home within which one could actually live as a person.

Paul adds that “I was not put to shame”. The verb translated I was put to shame is a single word in the Greek. Using the analogy of the inventor, the prototype does not let the inventor down.

The second half of verse 14 described why that is the case: “But as we spoke all things to you in truth, so also our boasting before Titus proved to be the truth”. The word truth is ‘not merely truth as spoken’ but rather is ‘synonymous for reality as the opposite of illusion’. The last time it was used was in 4:2 when discussing spiritual technology. A lot has happened since then. The word ‘truth’ is actually used twice in this phrase, suggesting that it is accurate to use the analogy of a prototype, because a prototype is ‘truth’; it exists as a Perceiver fact within reality.

Paul is comparing two sequences of behavior, because he uses the comparatives ‘as’ and ‘so’. As means ‘as, like as, even as’, while so means ‘in this manner, in this way or fashion’. The first sequence of behavior is ‘we spoke all things to you in truth’. This is being compared with ‘our boasting before Titus proved to be truth’. The first sequence describes something abstract, similar to an inventor pitching a new product or a legislator describing a new law. The second sequence describes something concrete, involving confidence in a prototype. That is because the verb translated proved to be means ‘to come into being’.

I have mentioned several times that incarnation combines abstract technical thought with concrete technical thought. The reason that these two are separate within the human mind is because people can talk and people can do. Abstract technical thought emerges when precise definitions are given to talking, while concrete technical thought emerges when cause-and-effect is used to analyze doing. There is no natural reason for humans to connect these two with one another. Instead a person can—and the average person does—say one thing while doing something quite different. These two sides to Contributor thought become connected through Perceiver truth. The Perceiver person is sensitive to hypocrisy, in which a person says one thing and does another. This hypocrisy becomes eliminated as Perceiver thought builds solid connections between the meanings of words and the facts of reality. In verse 14 the abstract discussion of the law is being connected with the concrete creation of the prototype. Using incarnational language, the word is becoming flesh.

A Gut-Level Change 7:15-16

When this kind of connecting happens then one’s feeling about reality finally starts to change at a gut level. Verse 15 talks about a gut-level response: “His inward parts abounds all the more toward you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, how you received him with fear and trembling.” (As a footnote indicates, the word translated ‘affection’ is literally ‘inward parts’.) This word inward parts, which means ‘figuratively gut-level compassion or visceral feelings’, is used twice in 2 Corinthians. It was used previously in 6:12 where Paul told the Corinthians that they were being restrained from applying their knowledge of a new society by their gut-level emotions.

Looking at this neurologically, there is actually a mini-brain in the gut, known as the enteric nervous system, which contains 1/200th the number of neurons as in the brain. This means that the human digestive system contains about 2/3 as many neurons as the entire nervous system of a cat. It is now well-known that there is a major interaction between the brain and the gut. Researchers such as Damasio have suggested that emotions are based ultimately in physical body states. I think that this is largely true but that Damasio goes too far, because he also suggests that it is possible to explain the mind using only the physical processing of the brain. While there is a strong relationship between mind and brain, and between the brain and the gut, the theory of mental symmetry—and this essay—are based upon the premise that there is more to the mind than just the brain. However, it does appear that when one tries to change the emotions of the mind and brain, then the gut is the last to follow. Saying this another way, when one goes through a process of personal transformation, one will experience an unsettled gut.

Verse 15 appears to be describing a reprogramming of gut-level emotions, which can happen when transformation reaches the physical level of some sort of ‘Titus’. The verse begins by saying that ‘his inward parts abounds all the more toward you’. The verb translated abounds all the more means ‘beyond expectation’ and was encountered in verse 13 when talking about ‘the Titus’ joy’ being ‘beyond expectation’. Using cognitive language, the gut-level of emotions of ‘Titus’ are now being redirected towards the believers. Instead of having one’s stomach in a knot when thinking about developing a prototype, one’s gut level emotions are being redirected towards potential consumers.

Verse 15 continues by describing why this is happening: “as he remembers the obedience of you all”. The verb translated remembers means ‘to recollect by going through a process, i.e. to journey where the remembrance leads’ and is only used once in 2 Corinthians. In other words, one is not just remembering the facts and then stopping there. Instead, recalling the facts leads somewhere; it brings certain mental networks to mind which are triggering a gut-level response. The word obedience means ‘literally, submission to what is heard’. In other words, the legislator is dealing with his gut-level anxiety by bringing to mind the fact that there are potential followers who actually submit to words; people exist who do not just talk about laws but actually put them into practice.

The final phrase describes the attitude of the followers or consumers in more detail: “you received him with fear and trembling” (v.15). The verb received means ‘to receive in a welcoming, receptive way’. This brings to mind the fanboi who will wait hours in line in order to be the first to buy a new technological gadget. (Yes, ‘fanboi’ is spelled that way.) But this goes beyond standing in line for some new gadget.

This connecting between abstract and concrete thought is happening within verse 14, because ‘Titus’ is being welcomed by the consumer with ‘fear and trembling’. Fear means ‘fleeing because feeling inadequate without sufficient resources’. Trembling means ‘shaking caused by great fear’ and this is the only time that this word is used in 2 Corinthians. Trembling is also an autonomic response, similar to gut-level emotions. Thus, Paul the inventor/legislator/apostle is being comforted by the ‘prototype’ of ‘Titus’ at a gut level because of all the potential consumers/followers/believers who are applying words through actions with a physical intensity of quaking in their boots.

Thus, a more accurate illustration might be UFO enthusiasts waiting and hoping for a UFO to show up. They also are standing in line for a new gadget, but they are waiting with fear and trembling, guided by the fear/hope of living in a post-disclosure world. (I am not suggesting that we should all wait for UFOs, because I am very leery of interacting with supernatural beings whom one contacts through mysticism. However, I suggest that the UFO enthusiast more accurately portrays the feelings of this situation than the fanboi.)

Verse 16 concludes, “I rejoice that in everything I have confidence in you.” Rejoice is the same ‘glad for grace’ verb that Paul used in verse 13 to describe ‘the Titus’ joy’. The word confidence means ‘to be of good courage’ and was used in 5:6 and 5:8 to talk about pursuing personal long-term stability. The preposition in actually means ‘in the realm of’, and everything ‘focuses on the parts making up the whole’. Putting this together, Paul the apostle/legislator is finding Teacher joy in being part of the group. He is no longer a legislator who is the source of law who lives above the law. He has become a fellow citizen who lives in the realm of consumers—a fanboi who is also waiting in line for the new product with other fanbois.

The Macedonian Church 8:1-3

Chapter 8 begins by discussing the generosity of the churches of Macedonia. Looking at this literally, Paul is providing an example of Christian generosity to his Corinthian audience. One can glean some universal principles from a literal interpretation, but there is some unusual language in this passage that has to be twisted to fit this literal interpretation. If one examines these verses from a cognitive perspective, one notices that Paul is discussing principles of cognitive ownership. In brief, he describes how a group can acquire a higher form of wealth when functioning within mind-over-matter.

Verse 1 says, “Now, brethren, we [wish to] make known to you the grace of God which has been given in the churches of Macedonia.” The word brethren, which literally means ‘from the same womb’, is quite common in the New Testament. It will be used four times in chapter 8, but the last time it was used in 2 Corinthians was back in 2:13. If Paul is referring to the believers as ‘brethren’, then this tells us that Paul the legislator has succeeded in becoming Paul the fellow-citizen. The verb make known refers to experiential knowledge. Paul wants the believers to have an experiential knowledge of ‘the grace of the God’. (‘The’ is in the original Greek.) In other words, a universal concept of God in Teacher thought is acting as a source of grace for people in Mercy thought. Paul wants his audience to know experientially what this means.

This grace of God has been ‘given in the churches of Macedonia’. Looking at this literally, Macedonia was a semi-barbaric province that was not considered to be properly Greek, and so Paul is providing the Corinthians with an example from people they would not normally look up to. Looking at this symbolically, Macedonia probably means ‘tall or thin’. We have been interpreting this as social status. Thus, Paul appears to be describing how people with social status can acquire grace from God. When mind rules over matter, then the only way to acquire wealth is through cognitive mechanisms of ownership. Giving money or physical property would become meaningless. That is because objects would no longer have physical permanence. Instead, any physical objects that were given would become influenced by the mindset of the group to which one is giving these objects. This is already true to some extent because wealth that is given to a person or group that does not know how to handle this wealth usually ends up being squandered or wasted. (That is why it is unspiritual to interpret scriptural passages about giving purely in terms of money. More generally, I suggest that prosperity doctrine is deeply unspiritual because it ignores the fact that ownership is primarily cognitive. If one learns how to acquire cognitive and spiritual wealth, then material prosperity will ultimately follow.)

Verse 2 describes the attitude of the Macedonian church: “In a great ordeal of affliction their abundance of joy and their deep poverty overflowed in the wealth of their liberality.” This is not a good translation. The word ordeal means ‘proof of genuineness, approval through testing’. It is used eight times in the New Testament and this is the only time that the NASB translates it as ‘ordeal’. The word affliction means primarily squeezing and not suffering. The phrase a great implies a single ordeal, but this adjective actually means ‘much in number and emphasizes the quantity involved’. Thus, a more literal translation would be ‘in much testing of narrowness’. ‘A great ordeal of affliction’ describes some traumatic Mercy experience that emotionally overwhelms Perceiver into ‘believing’ some form of emotional ‘truth’. ‘Much testing of narrowness’, in contrast, is a sense of being boxed in that grows gradually as Perceiver and Server thought gain confidence in facts and sequences.

‘Their abundance of joy’ is an accurate translation and refers to Teacher emotion. In other words, people are responding to personal feelings of being boxed in by using Teacher thought. Looking at this cognitively, Exhorter combines Teacher and Mercy. Exhorter thought will move in one of these in the light of some fixed memory in the other. Exhorter thought normally moves through Mercy experiences guided by some slogan or paradigm in Teacher thought. However, if personal identity becomes boxed in, then Exhorter thought will flip modes and start to move through Teacher thought guided by the unchanging experiences in Mercy thought. This flipping of modes is illustrated by the parent who tells the disobedient child to ‘sit in the corner and think about what you have done’. Thus, when the Macedonians felt boxed in, they did not respond by trying to break through the boxes but rather responded by seeking the joy of Teacher understanding.

The next phrase is ‘in their deep poverty’. The word translated in means in this context ‘reaching down into’. Deep means ‘depth; deep water’. Poverty means ‘beggary, destitution’. This is an extreme noun that is only used three times in the New Testament: here, seven verses later, and in Revelation 2:9. (It occurs fairly commonly as an adjective.) One could interpret this as being in extreme physical poverty, and it is possible that this describes the situation of the historical Macedonian church at that time. But Jesus made it clear in the story of the widow’s two mites that wealth needs to be measured relatively. What matters is not how much one gives but rather how much one gives compared to how much one has: “This poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put all she owned, all she had to live on” (Mark 12:43-44). Looking at this more generally, wealth and poverty are always determined relatively. For instance, the average Western ‘poor’ person has more wealth than most Africans, and has access to goods and services that would have been considered incredible luxuries several hundred years ago. But the Western ‘poor’ person is considered to be poor because he owns less than the average Westerner.

Applying this to verse 2, when one is personally boxed in over a period of time, then one will probably have less wealth than one’s neighbors. Going further, if one focuses upon gaining understanding rather than upon breaking through personal walls, then, like the typical ‘starving student’, one will probably be in poverty. Finally, acquiring understanding in Teacher thought will indirectly cause Platonic forms of perfection to emerge within Mercy thought, and these internal images of perfection will cause existing Mercy experiences to feel poor by comparison. The adjectives in verse 2 suggest that these three factors are present in a major way. There is much narrowness, telling us that personal identity is feeling very boxed in. There is an abundance of joy, indicating that Teacher thought is being used extensively. And there is deep poverty, suggesting that feelings of personal inadequacy extend to the core of personal identity.

Verse 2 finishes by saying that they “overflowed in the wealth of their liberality”. This is not a good translation. Overflowed does mean to ‘go beyond the expected measure’. But in is actually ‘to or into’. Thus, the three factors of the previous paragraph will naturally overflow into something that is being described in this phrase. Wealth does mean ‘riches, wealth, abundance, materially or spiritually’. But the word translated liberality does not mean liberality. Instead it actually means ‘singleness, without folds, like a piece of cloth unfolded, i.e. not compounded or overcomplicated’. Only one English Bible version translates this word correctly as ‘simplicity’. Such simplicity is an expression of Teacher thought, because Teacher thought looks for simple explanations that explain many situations. A cloth that is folded is complicated, and Teacher thought hates complications. (Teacher thought is not well understood in most fields. This may explain the mistranslation of ‘simplicity’.) Thus, a more accurate translation would be ‘overflowed into the wealth of their simplicity’. Saying this cognitively, they are acquiring a personal identity that is characterized by Teacher order-within-complexity. The squeezing, joy, and relative poverty are producing lives that overflow with simplicity.

Verse 3 continues: “For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, [they gave] of their own accord.” (The words ‘they gave’ are in italics and are not in the original Greek.) The word testify comes from a noun which means ‘a witness; an eye- or ear- witness’. This verb is used often in the Gospels but only once in 2 Corinthians (and also twice as a noun). This personal testimony emphasizes that Paul is not just regarding himself theoretically as a fellow-citizen. Instead, he is experiencing what it means to be a fellow citizen and is describing his experiences of being a fellow citizen.

The word ability means ‘physical power, force, might, ability’. ‘According to their ability’ implies using one’s natural knowledge and skills. In other words, one does not seek spiritual wealth by abandoning natural skills. One begins by using one’s natural abilities. Going further, the preposition translated beyond actually means ‘alongside of’ (when followed by the accusative). This means that an additional form of power is being added to natural ability which functions alongside of natural ability. This additional power is being acquired by seeking Teacher understanding.

Power brakes provide an illustration of what this means. Power-assisted car brakes do not brake by themselves. Instead, hydraulic power multiplies the physical pressure that is being exerted when putting ones’ foot on the brakes. One still uses the natural power of pushing on the brake with one’s foot. But this natural power is being supplemented by an additional power that works ‘alongside of’.

Looking at the final phrase, ‘they gave’ is not in the original Greek but has been added by the translators to fit the literal interpretation of giving money. Instead, this phrase consists of a single Greek word that means ‘self-chosen, of one’s own accord’. This word is only used twice in the New Testament: here, and later on in verse 17. This word conveys a fundamental principle of cognitive ownership. Stated most generally, a mental network will take ownership of any behavior that it motivates. For instance, if one performs some act motivated solely by the TMN of a concept of God and not by any MMNs of societal approval or personal gain, then the TMN that represents God will take ownership of this behavior, leading to the character quality of being righteous. Similarly, if one performs some act motivated solely by MMNs of personal identity, then this behavior will become an aspect of ‘who I am’. This is a fundamental concept within most systems of law, because law distinguishes between crimes that are premeditated and those that are motivated by external forces. A premeditated crime is one that is self-chosen, of one’s own accord, and not a result of social pressure or an opportunistic environment.

A New Form of Academia 8:4-5

Verse 4 continues by saying that the Macedonian church was “begging us with much urging for the favor and participation in the service to the saints.” (This is the literal translation from the footnotes.) The word urging is a version of the word ‘comforter’ which describes ‘a personal exhortation that delivers the evidence that stands up in God’s court’. The English word ‘urging’ conveys the emotional side of this but not the legal side, because one is actually making an emotional appeal within a system of law. In terms of the larger theme, an emotional request is being made within the system of law that has been set up by the legislator. And this is not just an isolated request because there is ‘much urging’. The verb begging means ‘to make urgent appeal; to have deep personal need causing one to beseech’. Putting this together cognitively, the citizens are being driven by deep personal needs to ask for help from the legislators, and they are asking for this help by going through proper legal channels. This may sound rather impersonal, but remember that we are talking about a future time in which physical reality itself acquires stability through personal rule of law. And this principle is already partially true within a democracy, because democratic rule of law will only survive as long as favors are dispensed and needs are met by going through official channels.

The Macedonians are specifically asking for ‘the favor and participation in the service to the saints’. This does not really say much in English, but it makes sense if one interprets it cognitively. The word translated ‘favor’ is actually grace. This means ‘leaning towards to share benefit’, and is one of a family of Greek words starting with ‘xar-’ which all indicate something coming from God in Teacher thought. The word participation is ‘koinonia’, which means ‘what is shared in common as the basis of fellowship’. Service is the source of the English word deacon and means ‘active service, done with a willing, voluntary attitude’; this describes Server thought and Server actions. The preposition to means ‘to or into’. And saints means ‘set apart by or for God, holy, sacred’.

Thus, this phrase is more literally ‘the grace and the fellowship of the service into the set-apart-for-God’. One can illustrate what this means by looking at academia. The purpose of academia is to gain grace by getting help from a general Teacher understanding. Those who are doing research do not usually study by themselves but rather function as an academic group. But academia is not a normal group based upon common MMNs of culture. (We are looking here at how academia ideally works.) Instead, it is guided by a common set of procedures known as the scientific method. In other words, it is a ‘fellowship of the service’, bound together by a common methodology. The goal of this common methodology is to build Teacher understanding, in contrast to the average person who is pursuing Mercy experiences. Thus, the Macedonian church (of the future) is forming a new kind of academia that can function within mind-over-matter. The previous verses of Chapter 7 described how one becomes the sort of person who is capable of being part of this spiritual academia. (The repeated mangling of these verses by the translators implies that we currently do not really understand what it means to be part of a spiritual academia.)

Verse 5 continues: “And this, not as we had hoped, but they first gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God.” This translation accurately reflects the original Greek. The word as means ‘according to the manner in which’, and hoped means ‘to expect, to hope for’. Looking at this cognitively, Paul expected the Macedonians to behave in a certain manner, guided by his internal concept of what he expected. But they did not behave in that manner. (The NIV translates this phrase as “they exceeded our expectations”, which is significantly different than the original Greek. In general, I have found that the NIV is less accurate than the NASB, which is why I continue using the NASB.)

The next phrase describes the behavior that did not meet the expected pattern: “They gave themselves”. It does not say that they gave of themselves, or that they gave from their heart. Instead it says that ‘they gave themselves’.

I suggest that this ‘giving themselves’ is different than the way that a soldier gives himself to his country by dying in conflict. (The 100^th anniversary of the end of World War I was last week.) I am not trying to minimize the sacrifice of the soldier. Instead, I suggest that it is critical to understand this topic with clarity so that human beings are not treated as cannon fodder, as epitomized by the 303 day long battle of Verdun: One French lieutenant in that battle, who was later killed by a shell, wrote in his diary, “Humanity is mad. It must be mad to do what it is doing. What a massacre! What scenes of horror and carnage! I cannot find words to translate my impressions. Hell cannot be so terrible. Men are mad!” One does not honor such a soldier by clothing this madness in patriotic or religious language. But if one analyzes this madness, then is less likely to reoccur.

First, the average soldier who ‘gives himself’ does not really have a self to give. Instead, his personal actions are being motivated by a hodgepodge of cultural and personal MMNs, combined with various TMNs of technical expertise. For instance, a significant portion of the French Army refused to fight in 1917. They demanded an end to being treated like cannon fodder and wanted the government to recognize that they had personal human needs. This is quite different than verse 3, which finished by saying that the Macedonians behaved ‘entirely on their own’: They themselves chose how they would behave. In contrast, World War I soldiers were ordered over the top by officers and threatened with a firing squad if they dared to disobey. In order to really choose for myself I have to have a self that is capable of choosing.

Second, the soldier who ‘gives himself’ faces physical annihilation. His body may be destroyed. For the atheist, this means total annihilation, the end of personal existence. As someone who has pursued mental wholeness for decades, I find it unfathomable why an atheist would join the Army. And as someone who has struggled with tendinitis for decades, I also find it unfathomable why someone would choose to perfect the skill of destroying human bodies. Verse 7 does not say that the people sacrificed themselves. Instead, they gave themselves. Something that is given remains intact. Cannon fodder is blown up, gifts are not. (In contrast, an attitude of absolute truth has no inherent problem with being ordered by officers to face personal annihilation, because absolute truth is based in Mercy status and leads naturally to self-denial.)

Third, the giving of self is occurring within a context of lasting life. The beginning of chapter 7 described the Macedonians building an alternative existence for self within Teacher thought. They are now completing this process by giving themselves so that they can live within the heavenly realm that they have constructed at great personal cost. In contrast, the soldier is giving himself in an environment for which there is no better place for self. For instance, what is the point of having the privileges of being a military veteran if one’s legs are blown off and they will not grow back?

These points are described in verse 5: “They gave themselves first of all to the Lord, and then by the will of God also to us”. This ‘Lord’ is not some human political leader who claims to have a divine right to rule and who claims to speak in the name of God. Instead, ‘the Lord’ refers to incarnation who actually does have a divine right to rule and who actually does speak in the name of God. (Using religious language, this means that human leaders who claim to rule and speak on behalf of God are actually antichrists.) The preceding verses of chapter 8 appear to be describing the rise of a new kind of academic thought, and this new form of technical thinking would make it possible to distinguish between an antichrist and a legitimate concept of incarnation—between a false lord and The Lord.

This personal submission to incarnation as The Lord then sets the context for submission to human authority: “and then by the will of God also to us”. One is not submitting blindly to a human authority who claims to be the voice of a mystical God who is incapable of speaking. Instead, submission to human authority is happening within the context of the TMN of a rational concept of God—one that was developed through the use of rational academic thought.

That brings us to the final question. Why would ‘giving themselves’ not follow the pattern within Paul’s mind? I know that it does not follow the pattern within my mind. Instead, I experience gut-level revulsion at the very thought of giving myself to some human dictator or physical country—as shown by the previous paragraphs. Looking first at the current physical situation, a political leader seldom ‘gives himself’. Instead, political leaders usually play political games while common citizens fight and die.

Looking now at the cognitive situation, a legislator fights a different battle than a citizen. The challenge for the legislator is to descend from words in Teacher thought to living as a citizen within Mercy thought. A legislator who wishes himself to become a fellow citizen will not treat citizens as cannon fodder. This is not true today, because matter-over-mind makes it possible for legislators to continue living a life of ease and luxury above the law while they are passing laws that apply to others and not to themselves. This would not be possible with mind-over-matter. Instead, legislators would only be able to experience personal benefits by becoming citizens under their own laws. Summarizing, the challenge for the legislator would be to become a citizen under the law.

Looking at the other side, the citizen already lives within Mercy experiences. The challenge for the citizen is to submit personal identity in Mercy thought fully to Teacher understanding in order to experience totally the benefits of legislation. This also is not true today, because one can experience many personal benefits within Mercy thought by ignoring legislation and living in the physical world guided by natural law. But if mind were to rule over matter, independent physical existence would no longer exist. (As I have mentioned before, I think that the current physical universe would continue to exist, but it would no longer function independently whenever it came into contact with human minds. Even if humans managed at this point to inhabit an entire galaxy, the universe would still contain billions of galaxies that would continue to function as before under natural law.) Therefore, the only way to experience long-term, stable, physical benefits would be by setting up a long-term, stable, system of legislated law. And this system of law would only extend its benefits to personal identity in Mercy thought if people ‘gave themselves’ to the system of law. Summarizing, the challenge for the citizen would to be to become a citizen under the law.

Really Living in Mind-over-Matter 8:6

I should emphasize that we are not just fantasizing here about what it would be like to live under mind-over-matter, while actually living within matter-over-mind. That sort of ‘pretending to want what you do not really want’ leads to the kind of dystopic mind-over-matter portrayed by the Matrix trilogy of movies. Instead, we are trying to examine as clearly as possible what it would really mean to live fully over the long-term in an environment of mind-over-matter. And we are also trying to avoid the attitude of the typical Christian who interprets prophecy as ‘God steps in and blows everything up. Christians go to heaven and live happily ever after. The end.’ One can largely ignore the mind when living within matter-over-mind, because matter continues to hold everything together. But one cannot ignore the mind when thinking about mind-over-matter, because inadequate minds would create inadequate physical environments.

This goal of really living in mind-over-matter is brought out in verse 6: “So we urged Titus, just as he had earlier made a beginning, to bring also to completion this act of grace on your part.” The word urged is the verb form of the noun ‘comfort’ that was translated as ‘urgently’ in verse 4. This verb expresses Mercy emotions within a structure of the rule of law. Titus, which means ‘pleasing’, is being urged by Paul the apostle. In other words, Paul is not like the human military leader who uses the threat of a firing squad to force followers to ‘give themselves’. Instead, Paul is appealing to ‘Titus’—the positive personal benefits that are starting to emerge in prototype form in Mercy thought.

Looking at this from another perspective, Paul is not promising some vague reward of 72 virgins; he is not saying like the suicide bomber that one reaches paradise with innocent beings in heaven by creating hell for innocent beings on earth. Instead, he is pointing to the prototype of a coming reward which can be achieved by following a method that is consistent with how one lives when one enjoys the reward. (Saying this as clearly as possible, the principle of righteousness means that human physical actions on earth should be consistent with how things are done in heaven. As Jesus said in the Lord’s prayer, “Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). Blowing up innocent people on earth is not consistent with enjoying innocent virgins in heaven.)

Looking now at what Paul is asking of Titus, the phrase begins with the comparative as, which means that one is using normal thought to compare one situation with another. This may sound trivial, but it describes a form of thinking that most current academic and religious individuals are unwilling to take. On the one hand, academia insists upon using the specialized thinking of technical thought, and feels that it is insufficiently rigorous to use analogies to connect one specialization with another. On the other hand, religion uses analogies in the non-rigorous form of myth, and thinks that there is no need to study analogies in a more rigorous manner.

The word translated previously made a beginning is only used twice in the New Testament: here, and four verses later. It means ‘to make a beginning before’, which the NASB accurately translates.

This previous beginning is being compared with ‘complete in you this gracious work’. Complete means ‘to fulfill further or completely’. ‘Work’ is not in the original Greek. Instead, what is being completely fulfilled is ‘this grace’. Finally, notice that the beginning and completing is not being done by God in this verse but rather by Titus. Paul is asking Titus to finish what he has started.

Putting this all together, 7:13 described Paul and believers being attracted by ‘the Titus’ joy’. Using cognitive language, some pleasing prototype has finally emerged in Mercy thought. This is probably the ‘beginning that was previously made’. Paul is comparing that previous attraction of Titus with his present hope that Titus will totally complete the grace. Saying this more clearly, a person cannot commit themselves fully in Mercy thought to some abstract theory in Teacher thought. One can make significant progress when guided by Platonic forms of perfection within Mercy thought. But eventually these Platonic forms of the Holy Spirit have to realize themselves in some sort of actual ‘Titus’. Saying this another way, one can travel most of the journey of personal transformation in the grace that comes from following a concept of God in Teacher thought. But ‘totally completing the grace’ requires a Titus—an actual real prototype within which one could actually really live.

Building with Faith 8:7

Verse 7 is another comparative: “But just as you abound in everything, in faith and utterance and knowledge and in all earnestness and the love from us in you, see that you abound in this gracious work also.” Just as is a strong form of comparison that is only used once in 2 Corinthians, which means ‘indeed just as, just exactly like’.

The first part of the comparison describes what the believers already ‘abound in’. Faith, which means ‘persuaded’, is a common New Testament word, but it has not been used since 5:7, which talked about walking by faith and not by sight. This reappearance of the word faith after being absent for three chapters may be significant. In simple terms, one can only be persuaded of something if persuasion exists.

For the average Christian today, Christianity is not a matter of persuasion but rather a matter of blind faith. Thus, even though the word faith means ‘persuasion’, it is seldom translated as persuasion. For instance, the Bible dictionary explains away the actual meaning of persuasion by saying that ‘Faith is always a gift from God, and never something that can be produced by people. In short, ‘faith’ for the believer is ‘God’s divine persuasion’ – and therefore distinct from human belief (confidence), yet involving it.’ This idea that faith is distinct from human reason and cannot be generated by human reason is a natural byproduct of a mindset of absolute truth, which concludes that my thinking processes are nothing compared to God’s omniscience.

Faith does have a nonhuman source in the sense that it comes from the TMN of a concept of God rather than being based in MMNs of personal status or authority. And the content that is required to form a concept of God needs to be initially revealed to humanity by a real God. Among other things, this means that a mindset of absolute truth is actually incapable of being persuaded because it thinks in terms of MMNs of personal authority rather than in terms of the TMN of a universal understanding.

I should add that this mindset of absolute truth is in the process of changing, because Christian apologetics will now use persuasion to go most of the way before taking the final ‘leap of faith’ into a blind acceptance of core Christian doctrines. However, the theory of mental symmetry makes it possible to use persuasion to go all the way. This does not eliminate faith, because one is still being persuaded by the TMN of an understanding rather than being driven by MMNs of authority or personal experience. As it said in 5:7, one still needs to walk by faith and not by sight.

I suggest that a similar situation would exist in chapters 7-8 after God instituted a new intimate relationship between Teacher thought and Mercy thought. It would take time for rational thought to reemerge, and the beginning of chapter 8 appears to be describing this reemergence of rational thought. Verse 7 emphasizes this starting point of ‘being persuaded’, as opposed to the starting point of ‘having an emotional encounter with God’. This does not mean that it is wrong to have emotional encounters with God, but that should not be the basis for faith in the present, and I suggest that it would not be a sufficient basis for faith in the future as well.

The next word ‘utterance’ is actually logos, which we are interpreting as ‘the living word’ of abstract incarnation. This word was last used two chapters ago in 6:7. This word also implies that abstract technical thought is being used to understand this new relationship between God and humanity in a more rigorous manner. In a similar manner, going through the book of Hebrews and now 2 Corinthians have made it clear to me that living in an eternal, intimate relationship with God is not merely a vague matter of ‘and they lived happily ever after, the end’. Instead, it is both possible and necessary to use technical thought to analyze and understand this relationship. This does not mean that one uses technical thought to explain away the relationship with God, the way that science currently uses technical thought to explain away religious experience. (This too is starting to change, because religious experience is now a valid topic for scientific study.) Instead, it means that the intimate relationship between God and humanity becomes fully developed through a system of law, as discussed in chapters 7-8.

The next word is knowledge, which in this case means experiential knowledge. Thus, one does not stop with technical thought. Instead, technical thought leads to experiential knowledge, similar to the way that science leads to technology. This is true in the present, and I suggest that it would need to be true in the future as well.

This is followed by ‘all earnestness’. All means ‘each part of a totality’. Earnestness means ‘speedy diligence’. It was seen in 7:11 and 7:12 when describing the response to ‘godly sorrow’. And it will appear three times in chapter 8: in this verse, the next verse, and verse 16. In chapter 7 the ‘speedy diligence’ was being motivated by the emotional ‘stick’ of sorrow. Here in chapter 8, it is being motivated by the ‘carrot’ of growing understanding and personal experience. Both of these motivations have played a role in my research. On the one hand, I am emotionally attracted to the way that mental symmetry continues to grow as a theory as well as create internal visions of a new and better world. But on the other hand, when the attractive force of mental symmetry fades, then I find myself still being motivated by an emotional repulsion to current society. I cannot live with the current world. It must change, and this must happen as quickly as possible.

The NASB translates the next phrase in a footnote as ‘the love from us in you’, and this accurately reflects the original Greek. The word translated ‘love’ is agape, ‘which centers in moral preference’. Looking at this cognitively, Paul the apostle/legislator is trying to transform his words into a system of laws within which he and the believers can live. This describes ‘the love from us’. This same attitude of ‘going beyond words to living within the words’ has become implemented within the minds of the believers. They are not just talking but also applying their words. They are not just coming up with abstract theories but also trying to live within these theories.

All of these qualities are already in abundance in the minds of the believers. What remains is one more feature, one more quality that should also abound in a similar manner: “Abound in this gracious work also” (v.7). The word ‘work’ is not in the original Greek. Instead, a more literal rendering would be ‘also in this the grace you should abound’. This is probably referring to the end of verse 6, which also refers to ‘the grace this’. Thus, the focus is upon living within grace and not merely upon performing some set of actions.

Summarizing, verse 7 describes the process by which the ‘pleasing’ of ‘Titus’ completes the grace: Persuasion leads to abstract technical thought, which is expressed in experiential knowledge. This creates an emotional urgency leading to a love within Mercy thought of applying understanding. Saying this another way, becoming a fanboi of some new prototype does not mean abandoning rational thought. Instead, one continues to use the same kind of reasoned thinking that was involved when developing the product in the first place.

The Danger of Blind Obedience 8:8

Verse 8 describes a possible danger that arises when words in Teacher thought become combined with actions in Server thought: “I am not speaking [this] as a command, but as proving through the earnestness of others the sincerity of your love also.” ‘This’ is in italics and is not in the original Greek. Thus, the emphasis is not upon some specific command that Paul is giving regarding donations but rather upon the general mindset of giving and receiving commands.

Looking at this cognitively, I have mentioned several times that Mercy emotions can overwhelm Perceiver thought into believing ‘truth’. In a similar manner, Teacher words can overwhelm Server thought into doing actions. This happens when following a command, or when obeying verbal instructions. For humans, this is usually a secondary effect because the human body imposes Mercy feelings upon the mind but not Teacher emotions. For instance, military orders are backed up by physical force. If the Teacher words of an order do not result in Server actions, then the disobedient soldier will experience strong Mercy emotions that impose truth upon Perceiver thought.

This situation would change if mind started to rule over matter, because words in Teacher thought would acquire the power to alter physical reality. Therefore, it would be vital not to fall into the emotional trap of blind obedience, in which Teacher words from legislators are transformed directly into Server actions by the citizens. Saying this another way, it would be important not to build a military form of social structure.

The word translated command means ‘a structured command which also stresses the authoritativeness of the command’. This word is only used once in 2 Corinthians either as a noun or a verb. Thus, verse 8 is not talking about leaders giving random instructions. Instead, there is the Teacher order-within-complexity of ‘a structured command’, similar to the Teacher structure that can be found in a professional army. This structure is being created authoritatively by imposing Teacher words upon Server actions.

Paul emphasizes that he is not giving commands. Instead he is speaking “as proving through the earnestness of others the sincerity of your love also” (v.8). The word proving means to ‘put to the test to reveal what is good or genuine’. Sincerity means ‘lawfully begotten, genuine’ and originally ‘referred to children born from a legitimate marriage’. This word is used four times in the New Testament and in the other three times Paul uses this term to refer to believers that he has led to Christianity.

The implication is that a command structure leads to the TMN of an illegitimate social structure. This accurately applies to a military command structure because it is an artificial human-imposed TMN that ultimately overrides any TMN based upon natural law. When push comes to shove, then the soldier is supposed to obey orders, even if this means performing almost impossible actions, destroying physical structures, or blowing up human bodies. (This does not mean that the military totally ignores natural law, because a professional army expects soldiers to develop skills that are based in natural law. But these natural skills are still being placed within an artificial human-imposed TMN of command structure.) Going further, I suggest that the idea of an illegitimate birth is also applicable to command structure, because building a career upon a military command structure brings human minds together with a long-term intimacy that should be reserved for marriage. It is appropriate to give and follow orders in a physical crisis, and the brain is wired in such a way that this type of thinking takes over in a physical crisis. But that is quite different than pursuing a career in the military.

The test of legitimacy that Paul gives is interesting: ‘through the earnestness of others’. The word earnestness has been encountered several times, and means ‘speedy diligence’. The word others means ‘another of a different kind’. (There is also a Greek word which means ‘another of the same kind’.) In other words, one can tell if a Teacher structure is legitimate or illegitimate by examining how people outside of this structure regard this structure. Are they also possessed by ‘speedy diligence’? Do they cooperate eagerly and willingly?

One can see exactly what this means by looking at the current situation of the United States. America projects two kinds of global power. There is the soft power of the American dream. Citizens of other countries that are different than America find ‘speedy diligence’ in this soft power. Everyone wants to participate in the Teacher structure of the American dream; refugees from regimes ‘of a different kind’ are clamoring and begging to be part of the American dream. This type of Teacher structure is legitimate because it is based in an international network of trade, telecommunications, democracy, and travel that is open to everyone. But there is also the hard power of military might. American citizens may find ‘speedy diligence’ in a strong American military, and allied nations who were ‘another of the same kind’ willingly cooperated with American military strength during the Cold War. But countries that are ‘another of a different kind’ did—and do—not find themselves driven to cooperate speedily with the American military. And as President Trump tries to ‘make America great again’ by removing the United States from international organizations, the allies of the United States are starting to view America as ‘another of a different kind’, causing them to hesitate cooperating fully with the United States.

Riches through Poverty 8:9-10

Verse 9 describes what it means to live like a Christian: “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.” The word know here means ‘experiential knowledge’. The full title ‘Lord Jesus Christ’ is being used. This full title was last seen in 4:5. This tells us that a full concept of incarnation has now emerged. Incarnation combines abstract technical thought with concrete technical thought. But incarnation goes beyond mere technical thought by using abstract technical thought guided by the TMN of a concept of God, and by using concrete technical thought to save MMNs of personal identity. Saying this more simply, incarnation is based in technical thought but it does not specialize and it is not objective.

These extra dimensions of incarnation can be seen in verse 9. Incarnation provides grace which comes from God in Teacher thought. And incarnation behaves ‘for your sake’ rather than for the sake of some objective bottom line.

Incarnation also follows a method that is starkly different than the military. The military pursues power that can impoverish others. Similarly, a dictatorial ruling class becomes rich by making others poor. (Deconstructionism teaches that all ruling classes gain riches through exploitation. This is often true but it is not a universal principle.) In contrast, Jesus ‘became poor so that you through his poverty might become rich’. The verb became poor is only used once in the New Testament and means ‘to become utterly poor or destitute’. The noun poverty, which has the same meaning of being destitute, is also used only three times in the New Testament: here, seven verses earlier, and in Revelation 2:9. The word rich means ‘fully resourced; rich or filled’.

This verse does not teach that it is a virtue to be poor, because Jesus is becoming poor in order to make others rich, and Jesus the Savior would not lead people to a goal that lacks virtue. In addition, what matters in this verse is not some absolute standard of poverty or riches but rather relative poverty or riches. Jesus Christ is rich and is becoming poor. Believers are gaining riches through that poverty. Verses such as these are sometimes misinterpreted as applying purely to physical wealth: ‘Give money to the Lord and you will receive much more in return’. One problem with such an interpretation is that giving money to the Lord is usually interpreted as giving money to the preacher who claims to speak on behalf of God. Thus, such a preacher is actually exploiting his listeners, getting rich at their expense.

Instead, I suggest that the general principle is that one can only emerge into a higher strategy when an existing strategy becomes closed. The word poverty originally meant ‘to crouch or cower like a beggar’. This conveys the idea that MMNs of personal identity are being bombarded by the environment and have no means of expressing themselves. Such a person feels that he has no right to exist, and such a person has no resources to provide for personal existence. In contrast, a rich person can hold his head up high because he has enough resources to meet any situation. When Jesus lived on earth, he lived a perfect life and should have experienced personal success. But God orchestrated events to ensure that everything that Jesus legitimately did would fail. Eventually Jesus ended up in the literal dead-end of being nailed to a cross. Christians typically emphasize the Mercy horror of such a fate. But that interprets incarnation from the human sinful viewpoint of MMNs of pain and suffering. Verse 8 does not talk about Jesus suffering for others, or mention him dying on a cross. It also does not describe substitutionary punishment in which he is becoming sin for us. (The death and resurrection of Jesus are examined from a cognitive perspective in another essay.)

Instead, what is being emphasized is following the path of reaching a dead end in the present regime to the extent of being impoverished—to the extent of feeling bowed down as an individual with no way of escape. For instance, I do not know what it is like to be monetarily impoverished, but I do know what it is like to walk around into society feeling like a total failure even though I am following a path which both rational thought and Scripture tell me should be successful.

For Jesus, the purpose of this reaching a dead-end was to transform the relationship between God and humanity from a tribal relationship with the Jewish people to a universal relationship that potentially includes all humans. Similarly, I am hoping that my lack of resources will open a door to the wealth of spiritual technology.

Jesus was ultimately given a name that is above every other name. Similarly, verse 10 mentions the ultimate personal benefit of following the example of Jesus. “I give [my] opinion in this matter, for this is to your advantage, who were the first to begin a year ago not only to do [this], but also to desire [to do it].” (The words in square brackets are all in italics and are not in the original Greek.) The word translated opinion means ‘a personal opinion or judgment formed by an active relationship, the result of direct, first-hand knowledge’. This is not quite the same as an opinion. ‘My opinion’ gives the impression that Paul is deciding arbitrarily to make some statement based upon personal feelings. In contrast, the word translated ‘opinion’ describes a judgment based upon personal experience. For instance, it is my opinion that strawberries taste better than turnips. But it is my personal experience that one should not drive too fast in icy conditions. In other words, Paul is describing a principle that he has learned to be true through personal experience.

What is Paul’s judgment? ‘This is to your advantage’. The word advantage means ‘combine in a way that brings a profit, especially by a concurrence of circumstances’. When things work together, then that is a sign of Teacher thought, because Teacher thought appreciates order-within-complexity. We have just discussed the illegitimate Teacher order of a command structure. A command structure often does not bring personal profit, but instead forces individuals to give their lives in service to the organizational machine. Verse 10 describes a Teacher order that brings personal profit. This type of order is described in Romans 8:28, which says that “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to [His] purpose.”

The rest of verse 10 describes how the believers gain this advantage: “Who were the first to begin a year ago not only to do [this], but also to desire [to do it]”. The NASB adds the words in square brackets guided by the assumption that the text is focusing upon a specific financial donation. Instead, the text is emphasizing the general attitudes of ‘doing’ and ‘desiring’. Doing refers to Server thought and physical action. Desire means ‘wanting what is best because someone is ready and willing to act’.

Using consumer language, the believers are early adopters, fanbois who start using the new product before anyone else does. They ‘want’ the product before others do, and they start ‘doing’ with the product before others do. The verb translated to begin means ‘to begin before’ and is only used twice in the New Testament: here, and previously in verse 6. Verse 6 talked about the previous appearance of ‘Titus’, which we interpreted as the unveiling of a prototype. This implies that these believers really are a form of early adopters, who are applying the new legislation introduced by the legislator before others are. Using another consumer term, they are on the bleeding edge, a term that combines ‘leading-edge’ with ‘cutting-edge’ to describe the personal hazards of being an early adopter. This idea of being an early adopter is emphasized by the phrase ‘a year ago’. I am not sure what a year represents symbolically but it definitely describes doing something before the average person does.

A New Kind of Consumer 8:11-12

In verse 11, Paul tells the believers to finish the process of being beta testers. (A beta tester is someone who tries out a brand-new product that is in the process of being released.) “But now finish the doing also, so that just as [there was] the readiness to desire it, so [there may be] also the completion of it by your ability.” (The words in square brackets are in italics and not in the original Greek, and I have used the literal meaning from a footnote.) ‘Doing’ refers to Server actions. Righteousness combines abstract understanding in Teacher thought with actions in Server thought. Doing gives stability to understanding. For instance, this is why teachers give homework. Doing the homework gives mental stability to the Teacher words and theories that were taught in class. Doing also takes time because actions must be done one step at a time. These principles may seem obvious, but that is because human minds are trapped within physical bodies that are only capable of altering physical reality through physical action. This limitation would start to be lifted with mind-over-matter. If people are already tempted to try to avoid physical action within current matter-over-mind, one can guess that this temptation would be even stronger within future mind-over-matter.

Looking at this cognitively, concrete thought combines Mercy thought with Server thought; Mercy thought comes up with goals and Server thought performs actions to reach these goals. There are no direct connections between Server thought and Mercy thought. Instead, these two are indirectly connected through Perceiver and Contributor: Mercy → Perceiver → Contributor → Server. Perceiver thought constructs a map by organizing Mercy experiences into connected categories. Contributor thought then links Server actions with Perceiver facts through connections of cause-and-effect. This all develops automatically within matter-over-mind: the physical body imposes desires and needs upon Mercy thought; the physical world is arranged into objects with physical locations; and the physical universe is ruled by principles of natural cause-and-effect. But all of this would have to be rebuilt within mind-over-matter. The previous verses have described the re-emergence of technical thought as well as the transition from theory to application to prototype. Concrete thought is now being added to this structure.

Looking at verse 11 more closely, Paul says ‘just as the readiness to desire it, so also the completion of it by your ability’. The word readiness means ‘before-passion… an eager disposition which is pre-inclined’. Looking at this cognitively, desires are present within Mercy thought; the motivation for action exists. The word desire means ‘desire, wish’. Paul seems to be saying that desire does not emerge out of nowhere. Instead, desire in Mercy thought emerges out of the mental structure that was created earlier in the chapter. Just as and so also tell us that this emergence of Mercy desire is being compared with ‘the completion of it by your ability’. This is not the best translation because it gives the impression that some specific act—namely giving a financial donation—is being completed. The original Greek is more generic: ‘the to-complete out of that which you have’. The verb have means ‘have, hold, possess. This is not talking about using physical abilities to finish some specific action. Instead, it is talking about the generic trait of finishing-a-job. And this trait is emerging out of what one owns, both mentally and physically.

One can gain a partial understanding of what this passage means by looking at the transformation that has occurred as a result of technology. Before the advent of modern machines, tasks had to be accomplished through manual labor. The introduction of machines overturned existing traditional culture, but eventually a new set of personal desires emerged. The modern consumer still wants things in Mercy thought, but what the modern consumer wants is in most cases vastly different than what the average person wanted several hundred years ago. However, wanting is not enough. Doing is still necessary even in an age of machines. But the average person no longer performs manual labor. Instead, a new form of doing has emerged based upon all the knowledge and possessions of technology. For instance, instead of walking to the store, I get in a car and drive there.

I am not suggesting that today’s consumer society is paradise. But it does provide a partial illustration of what it means to totally re-build concrete thought from scratch, and it does provide the average person with physical wealth that would have been unimaginable several hundred years ago. When technology provides for so many physical needs, it is tempting for the average person to become passive. But a person who does not act gradually loses the ability to think. If it is important for people in current society to remain active and not turn into couch potatoes, then it would also be important for people in the future to remain active and not regress into being disembodied minds.

Verse 12 expands upon the ‘before-passion’: “For if the readiness is present, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have.” The word readiness is the same word meaning ‘before-passion’ that was used in the previous verse. The word present means ‘to be set before, to be set forth’ and is only used once in 2 Corinthians. According to means ‘according to which, in so far as’, and this particular adverb is only used twice in 2 Corinthians, both times in this verse. The words ‘have’ and ‘not have’ are both the same as the ‘have’ used in the previous verse. Finally, the word acceptable means ‘well-received, acceptable, welcome, pleasing’.

Looking at this literally, verse 12 appears to be saying that what matters when giving a financial donation is the underlying motivation, and not how much one gives, and this is a valid cognitive interpretation. But there may be a more general interpretation that appears when rebuilding concrete thought. One might think initially that ownership would no longer be present in some future paradise. For instance, Star Trek (The Original Series, and The Next Generation) portrays a future society in which money no longer has any meaning. But Paul is saying that desire is acceptable when it becomes expressed through what I own. Humans are finite creatures. Being finite is a limitation but it is also a strength. A finite creature does not have to change the entire universe in order to be happy. Instead, a finite creature can find happiness by changing the tiny little corner of the world in which that creature lives. But this finding of personal happiness requires ownership. People must be given the permission and freedom to transform some small portion of reality. Communism thought that paradise could be achieved by abolishing private property, but people will naturally improve what they own.

With today’s matter-over-mind, ownership is a way of claiming some fragment of independent physical matter. But there is only so much physical stuff to go around. Therefore, people can control each other by owning more stuff and land. People can also find their identities in owning stuff, and they can prove that they are superior to others by owning more stuff. Mind-over-matter would eliminate these aberrations but private property itself would still remain. However, instead of finding mental identity and status in the ownership of physical matter, people would express their mental identities through physical matter that they owned. Instead of defining me, what I own would become a way of expressing me. Ownership would give people the freedom to express themselves without outside interference. Micah 4:4 seems to be describing this sort of society. Verse 3 talks about ‘hammering swords into plowshares’. Verse 4 says that “Each of them will sit under his vine and under his fig tree, with no one to make them afraid, for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken.”

An Egalitarian Society 8:13-15

Verse 9 contrasted poverty with riches. Poverty is a strong word that means ‘destitute’. Going the other way, riches means ‘fully resourced’. ‘Destitute’ implies that one has no resources to meet personal needs, while ‘fully resourced’ implies that one can meet all personal needs without any help from others. In both cases, no interaction is happening. The poor person cannot get help and the rich person does not need help. Verses 14-15 compare abundance with need. Abundance means ‘all-around excess … greater than expected’. Need means ‘what is lacking or insufficient’. These are less extreme than poverty and riches. They also imply interaction, because someone who has need can receive from someone who has abundance. And verse 14 specifically describes needs being met from abundance.

Looking at this cognitively, ‘poverty versus riches’ describes the imbalance that provokes a revolutionary paradigm shift. When those who are poor have no way out and those who are rich hoard resources then there will eventually be some kind of revolution. In fact, some historians suggest that economic inequality can only be eliminated through physical disruptions such as warfare, revolution, state collapse, or plague. Chapter 8 is describing a revolution, but it is a spiritual and cognitive revolution in which a group of believers break through to a new form of wealth.

Verses 13-15 describe the sort of society that emerges from this revolution. It is an egalitarian society, in which social inequality naturally tends to diminish. The word equality is used three times in the New Testament: in verse 13, in verse 14, and in Col. 4:1. It means ‘equality; equality of treatment, fairness’, and it comes from a noun that means ‘having the same level or value’.

Verse 13 explicitly states that the goal is equality: “For this is not for the ease of others and for your affliction, but by way of equality.” The contrast here is not between poverty and riches, or between abundance and need, but rather between ease and affliction. Ease means ‘a loosening, relaxation’. Affliction is the familiar word which means ‘internal pressure that causes someone to feel confined’. Looking at this cognitively, life is loose and relaxed when mental networks are free to express themselves in many ways. This is how one is supposed to feel when going on vacation. In contrast, one feels confined when mental networks cannot express themselves freely but rather are forced to behave in specific ways. This is often the case when one is at work. Verse 13 says that the goal is not for some people to be on perpetual vacation and for others to be always at work. Instead, the goal is equality.

Verse 14 describes how this equality works: “At this present time your abundance [being a supply] for their need, so that their abundance also may become [a supply] for your need, that there may be equality.” The two words ‘supply’ are in italics and are not in the original Greek. Thus, the emphasis is more upon contrasting abundance versus need than upon meeting specific needs. This is an important distinction. Social programs try to minimize inequality by redistributing wealth—taxing the rich and giving to the poor. The focus is upon meeting specific needs. In contrast, chapter 8 describes a form of society in which inequality is naturally minimized. At some point in time the abundance of one group is toward the need of another group. This is ‘so that’ at some later time the abundance of the other group might become for the need of the first group. This is in order that that there might become equality.

If this equalization of wealth is to happen, then there must be a natural reason for those who have abundance to give to those who lack, and there must also be a natural reason why those who lack will end up having an abundance. What is being described here is not a kind of communist egalitarianism in which everyone always has exactly the same. There are wealthy people and there are poor people. The goal is not that there will be equality but rather that there will become equality; those who are wealthy will not stay wealthy but rather will become poor, while those who are currently poor will not stay poor but rather will become wealthy. Using technical language, there is dynamic equilibrium rather than static equilibrium.

This already exists to some extent. A person who is on vacation all the time will use up personal wealth, while a person who works all the time will earn wealth. Going further, those who grow up in a wide world without pressure will not feel the drive to improve their situation, while those who become rich usually grew up a narrow world that taught them to be thrifty and hard-working. One sees this with families. The average wealthy family will usually lose its wealth after one or two generations, because the children who grow up in wealth do not feel the squeezing that was felt by their parents who acquired this wealth. Similarly, countries also tend to go through periods of acquiring wealth and squandering wealth. Likewise, small countries can often become quite wealthy because being squeezed by a lack of physical territory forces citizens to find other ways of acquiring wealth.

Such natural redistribution can be stymied in two primary ways: First, matter-over-mind makes it possible for those who are wealthy to use their physical wealth to buy power and privilege. Second, those who are squeezed may lack the cognitive tools that are needed to escape their poverty. Often, this is because a person who is really poor has to focus upon meeting immediate physical needs, such as getting the next meal. Mind-over-matter would make dynamic equality possible, because the rich would no longer be able to use physical power to control the poor, and the poor would no longer be fixated upon providing for physical needs. This would be necessary, but not sufficient. People would also need to have minds that think in terms of sharing in abundance and learning in need.

Chapters 7-8 have been addressing this second issue. When a legislator makes the transition from being a source of law to being a citizen who enjoys the benefits of the law, then this does not just give wealth and power to that legislator. It also opens up a new way of gaining personal wealth and power that can make citizens wealthier. Eventually, one will no longer think in terms of wealth versus poverty but rather in terms of squeezing versus relaxation. Squeezing provides the motivation to gain future wealth through some form of cognitive death-and-resurrection. But one can only enjoy this wealth personally by spreading it to others in order to enjoy it as a fellow citizen. This spreading leads to wideness and relaxation, removing the squeezing that is required to go through cognitive rebirth. Going the other way, as a consumer learns what it means to use some new product, then this also opens up new ways of enjoying personal wealth and power: Instead of merely acquiring possessions, one uses ownership as a way of expressing personal desire.

One can see both of these attributes to some extent in today’s consumer society. When a high-tech company begins, it is in startup mode, in which employees work diligently in order to develop some new product. A company that becomes successful will eventually grow to the stage where it no longer functions as a startup but rather as a mature company with a company culture. It will then find itself replaced by new startup companies, and eventually go bankrupt or remake itself in order to survive. Going the other way, there are regular consumers and there are hackers. (This distinction is discussed in Natural Cognitive Theology.) A regular consumer uses a product passively and ‘knows what buttons to press’. A hacker understands the product and uses this understanding to modify the product. He does not just buy a gadget but rather uses it and works with it. A consumer is typically motivated by what he does not have: he wants the latest product that is being developed by someone else. In contrast, a hacker is typically motivated by what he does have: he analyzes and improves existing gadgets in order to make them function better. Technology is as close as one can get in the present to mind-over-matter, because one creates high-tech gadgets by using one’s mind to understand and rearrange matter. Therefore, I suggest that something similar but more pervasive would exist in a future society of mind-over-matter.

Verse 15 summarizes: “As it is written, ‘He who [gathered] much did not have too much, and he who [gathered] little had no lack.’” This sounds somewhat like the communist slogan ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’. Both Marx and Engels lived in London during the period of time when the Industrial Revolution had made the United Kingdom the richest nation on earth. Thus, they experienced the physical transformation that—for the first time ever—made it possible for everyone to have enough physical wealth. But what is missing from communism is the motivation. Why would a person work in order to make others rich? In practice, communism has used physical force to provide this motivation: A communist revolution uses physical force to take from the rich and give to the poor; a communist government uses physical force to make people work so others can become rich. If mind were to rule over matter, then physical force would no longer be possible and physical necessity would no longer exist, allowing cognitive mechanisms of wealth redistribution to become dominant. But these cognitive mechanisms would only become active within society if some people demonstrated to the population at large how one gains true wealth and what it means to be a real consumer.

Looking at verse 15 in more detail, the NASB adds the verbs ‘gathered’ in order to be consistent with the original quote in Exodus 16:16-18, which refers to the Jews gathering manna in the wilderness. However, the original Greek is more generic. On the one hand, ‘the much did not abound’. Much means ‘much in number and emphasizes the quantity involved’, while abound means ‘greater in number’. On the other hand, ‘the little did not lack’. Little usually means ‘small or puny’ when it is in the singular. The verb lack means ‘to be less’ and is only used once in the New Testament. (It is used four times as an adjective that means ‘less, smaller; poor, inferior’.)

These two phrases summarize the two cognitive principles that we have been discussing. On the one hand, a large organization or corporation with many employees will not continue growing, because by becoming large it loses the culture that is required for growth and development. On the other hand, being puny does not mean being ‘less, smaller, poorer, inferior’. One can see this second principle illustrated by tiny countries such as Hong Kong, Luxembourg, or Singapore. They may be puny but that does not make them inferior. Similarly, a small high-tech company is often capable of coming up with better gadgets than a large multinational corporation.

Properties of a Prototype 8:16-17

The commentators are helpful if one wishes to interpret the final section of chapter 8 literally as the description of a financial donation. It was Jewish custom that the distribution of alms should be administered by three people in order to ensure honesty. Three individuals are mentioned in this passage: Titus, a person elected by the churches, and a person appointed by Paul. This may be the literal meaning, but the language is rather pretentious if it is only describing the distribution of alms.

For instance, verse 23 refers to Titus and his two partners as apostles. The NASB translates this as ‘messengers’ but acknowledges in a footnote that the actual Greek word is apostle. The word apostle is used eighty times in the New Testament. Most of these references are to Paul and the twelve apostles. But two other individuals are also explicitly mentioned. Acts 14:14 refers to Paul and Barnabas as apostles, which the NASB translates as apostle. However, Phil. 2:25 mentions Epaphroditus as being an apostle, and here again the NASB uses the word ‘messenger’ while also admitting in a footnote that the word is really apostle. Apostleship has been discussed fairly extensively in this essay, and it is also discussed in 1 Corinthians 9. An apostle can be defined as someone who introduces something radically within religion. Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles who instituted the radically new step of following God through theology independent of the Jewish race. Similarly, I suggest that one can define an apostle more generically within matter-over-mind as someone who comes up with a new breakthrough regarding the relationship between God and man.

One of the qualifications for being an apostle is to have seen Jesus. This is mentioned in 1 Cor. 9:1-2. This can be interpreted literally as having seen the physical Jesus or it can be interpreted cognitively as having a sufficiently well-developed internal concept of incarnation. With mind-over-matter, an apostle would be defined slightly differently. As this essay has suggested, an apostle could be viewed as a legislator who introduces some new law and then lives within this law. With matter-over-mind, apostles can only discover some new aspect of law, while with mind-over-matter apostles would actually create new general laws. In both cases, a sufficiently adequate concept of incarnation would be essential. With matter-over-mind, ‘seeing’ incarnation would ensure that what one discovers actually lines up with the character of incarnation and is not some form of false doctrine that leads to some kind of antichrist. Similarly, with mind-over-matter, a legislator would only be successful at enacting and applying some new legislation if this was legislation was consistent with the character of incarnation. Otherwise, the new legislation would eventually fail because it would contradict both ‘how the mind works’ and ‘the character of God’.

Returning now to 2 Corinthians 8, a symbolic interpretation implies that Titus and the two unnamed gentlemen are apostles because they are instituting a new form of thought that has not yet been seen.

Verse 16 begins: “But thanks be to God who puts the same earnestness on your behalf in the heart of Titus.” The word earnestness has been seen several times in chapter 8 and means ‘speedy diligence’ or ‘swiftness to show zealous diligence’. When one is trying to see long processes through to a conclusion, then speedy diligence would be a necessary trait. But one also does not want to become obsessed by some false hope that has no chance of becoming real. That is why Paul gives thanks to ‘the God’ for putting earnestness into the heart of Titus. The word translated ‘thanks’ is actually grace. The word ‘grace’ implicitly recognizes God as the source, and ‘the God’ is also explicitly mentioned. We have been interpreting ‘Titus’ as a kind of prototype.

With normal technology a prototype is not alive. But it is easy for a prototype to become mentally represented by a mental network and that mental network will make it feel as if the prototype has acquired a life of its own. If mind were to rule over matter, then these mental networks would represent themselves externally as some form of living being. I am not exactly sure what that means, but I do know that as computers become increasingly mind-like in current society, it takes less of a mental jump for Mercy thought to treat some new prototype as a living being. (I have also read in UFO literature descriptions of UFO technology being in some way alive.) Whatever Titus is exactly, the God is putting earnestness into the heart of Titus. This implies that Titus has a heart, which means that Titus is being mentally represented by some MMN, because ‘heart’ refers to a Mercy mental network of personal identity.

Going further, a concept of God in Teacher thought looks for universal theories. With matter-over-mind, one uses Teacher thought to come up with general theories that explain the behavior of the universe. This would no longer be possible with mind-over-matter because the physical universe would no longer always behave in exactly the same way. But it would still be possible to form general theories by universalizing from prototypes. In fact, a prototype is a kind of potential theory because it will be followed by many similar items, leading to Teacher feelings of order-within-complexity. Cognitively speaking, Teacher understanding does put earnestness for the consumer into the MMN that represents a prototype. Teacher thought looks at the MMN that represents the prototype and then generates a drive to follow this single prototype with millions of similar products in the hands of consumers.

For instance, when the Apple Macintosh computer was being developed, a prototype was shown to Steve Jobs, who observed that the computer was taking too long to start up. Jobs responded “‘If it could save a person’s life, would you find a way to shave ten seconds off the boot time?’ [Jobs] asked. Jobs went to a whiteboard and showed that if there were five million people using the Mac, and it took ten seconds extra to turn it on every day, that added up to 300 million or so hours per year that people would save, which was the equivalent of at least 100 lifetimes saved per year. ‘[Engineer, Larry Kenyon] was suitably impressed, and a few weeks later he came back and it booted up twenty-eight seconds faster,’ [Bill] Atkinson recalled. ‘Steve had a way of motivating by looking at the bigger picture.’” Notice what is happening cognitively. Jobs had a mental concept of how a Macintosh computer should behave. This mental concept was associated with ‘speedy diligence’. Job also viewed the prototype as the first of 5,000,000 similar computers being used by consumers. That is because Job was guided by Teacher thought to ‘look at the bigger picture’. These two cognitive aspects interacted when Job used the argument of a prototype being multiplied to convince the engineers to increase the speedy diligence of the prototype. And Job presented this argument in terms of saving life. Thus, one sees in this quote the three factors that we have been discussing regarding a prototype: a prototype has a heart; a prototype is the first of many; and a prototype can motivate speedy diligence.

Verses 17 adds that ‘Titus’ has acquired an independent identity: “For he not only accepted our appeal, but being himself very earnest, he has gone to you of his own accord.” The word accepted means ‘to receive in a welcoming way’. Appeal is the familiar ‘comfort’ word that has both legal and emotional overtones, which is used to describe the work of the Holy Spirit. Earnest is the adjectival form of ‘speedy diligence’, which is described as ‘living wide-open, full-throttle’. Finally, of his own accord describes self-initiated action. This word is only used twice in the New Testament: here, and back in verse 3, where it talked about the Macedonians participating of their own accord.

Putting this all together cognitively, when one reaches the prototype stage in some field, then three qualities will emerge: First, a prototype will welcome the Platonic forms of the spirit. That is because a prototype is not a copy of some other object, but rather an application of general understanding in Teacher thought. This is similar to the way that Platonic forms emerge as an expression of Teacher understanding. Saying this another way, one builds a true prototype by going back to basic principles in order to come up with a new physical expression.

For instance, Elon Musk uses first principles thinking. According to these articles, first principles thinking is more basic than the analogies used by normal thought. That is because first principles thinking starts with general Server sequences guided by Teacher understanding, which means breaking some desired object down into its fundamental components guided by general principles of ‘how things work’. As a result, Elon Musk is in the process of transforming both the rocket industry and the car industry. Applying this to the theory of mental symmetry, as a Perceiver person I naturally use analogical thinking, and I have found that one can use analogies to escape the boxes of technical thought. But mental symmetry uses a very high level of analogical thinking that is guided by the Server sequences of ‘how the mind works’. This is a form of analogical thinking that is based in first principles.

Applying this to verse 17, a prototype that emerges from first principles thinking will welcome the Platonic forms of the spirit. That is because such a prototype is a direct expression of general theories in Teacher thought, and Platonic forms portray—in image form—the ideal expression of Teacher thought. For instance, SpaceX is continually refining and improving its rockets. The Falcon 9 version that exists today in 2018 has twice the capacity of the original Falcon 9 flown in 2010. In contrast, the Space Launch System is not being developed from first principles. Instead, Congress has mandated that the SLS must reuse components from the space shuttle and continue to provide jobs for existing space companies. Thus, the SLS is not really a prototype but rather a copy, and it does not welcome the Platonic forms of ideal perfection. Instead, it leads to boondoggles such as taking eight years and one billion dollars to reconstruct a launch tower that may only be used once. (I should emphasize that I am not trying to be an Elon Musk fanboi. However, both SpaceX and Tesla provide good examples of the benefits of first principles thinking.)

The second quality is that a prototype naturally leads to ‘living wide-open, full-throttle’. One can see this literally in the case of SpaceX and Tesla, because rockets and racing cars epitomize the feeling of full-throttle. However, there is also an underlying cognitive mechanism—which is expressing itself in a desire to create rockets and racing cars. The cognitive principle is that the mind itself will function full-throttle when all the parts of the mind are pushing in the same direction. When a prototype is based upon first principles, then both abstract and concrete thought are being guided internally and externally by Teacher understanding. The prototype is a physical object that expresses invisible Platonic forms. The prototype is an illustration of fundamental laws in Teacher thought, and it will lead to Teacher pleasure as it is mass-produced and used by the general population. In contrast, think of the mindset that has to be adopted by the engineers constructing the SLS. They know that there are more optimal ways of building a rocket, but they cannot follow their thinking fully because existing rocket components and existing rocket companies must continue to be included. Instead of designing from a clean slate one is building a kludge. And as an engineer, I can assure you that engineers hate kludges, because they are inelegant. (A kludge can be elegant if it solves some complicated problem in a simple way, but maintaining entire industries and decades-old designs does not lead to simple kludges.)

Engineering from first principles constructs physical prototypes guided at a fundamental level by the laws of nature. This leads naturally to the full-throttle thinking of working hundred-hour weeks—at the cost of ruining one’s personal life. If mind started to rule over matter, then one could live full-throttle with one’s entire mind within an environment that was an expression of this entire mind. Using religious language, one could live fully within the wholeness of shalom.

That brings us to the third quality which is that the prototype will develop a life of its own. More specifically, it will want of its own accord to go to the consumer. Obviously, current prototypes are not alive, and they do not do anything of their own accord. Future prototypes might have some form of life. However, present prototypes do create mental networks which acquire a life of their own. In other words, one will feel as if one is no longer trying to reach the goal but rather as if one is being emotionally dragged along by the mental concept of the prototype. This internal motivation is partially responsible for the hundred-hour weeks. Verse 17 says that this internal motivation will head in the specific direction of ‘to you’, ‘you’ being the believers to whom Paul is writing. As was mentioned previously, Teacher thought provides a natural drive to turn a prototype into the first of many mass-produced items used by the many consumers. The cognitive reason for this is simple: If some object in Mercy thought is a direct expression of Teacher thought, then Teacher thought will naturally want this object to exhibit more Teacher generality. Saying this another way, Teacher thought forms a general theory by taking some ‘citizen’ off the street, crowning this citizen as monarch, and then seeing how well this citizen performs as a monarch. Teacher thought will naturally pick a citizen whose character reflects Teacher thought, and a prototype that is designed from first principles has a character that reflects Teacher thought at a fundamental level. Therefore, not only will a prototype mentally acquire a life of its own, but there will also be an associated desire to mass-produce this prototype.

The First Brother 8:18-19

Verse 18 talks about the first of two ‘brothers’. Looking at this literally, three people are supposed to administer the handing out of alms. Titus is the first person. Verse 18 describes the second person: “We have sent along with him the brother whose fame in [the things of] the gospel [has spread] through all the churches.”

The word sent along is actually a composite word that means ‘to send together with’. It is only used twice in the New Testament: here, and in verse 22 when talking about the second brother. Thus, Paul wants to emphasize that these three people will be traveling together. Looking at this literally, the three gentlemen need to stick together to ensure that one of them does not abscond with the funds. Looking at this symbolically, when one reaches the stage of having a prototype, then one needs to make sure that two additional cognitive strategies are also included.

The first cognitive strategy involves abstract thought, because this first brother has ‘fame in the gospel’. Gospel means ‘good news’. Good news is spoken using words and theories in Teacher thought, but these words say that good things will happen to personal identity in Mercy thought. The word fame means ‘accurate acknowledgment, appropriate commendation and recognition’ and this is the only time that it is found in 2 Corinthians. Thus, this first brother is being given emotional status in Mercy thought, but this status is earned. For instance, the Bible is regarded by Christians as a holy book with great emotional status in Mercy thought. However, much of this emotional status comes from the religious experiences, words, and rituals that surround the Bible. Such emotional status has nothing to do with what the Bible actually says, and it is possible for other religions to give equal emotional status to their holy books. The theory of mental symmetry has actually caused my respect for the Bible to go up. But the reason for my respect has radically changed. I now respect the Bible because it is far too clever to have been written by humans, especially by pre-scientific humans from the Roman era who knew very little about how the mind works. The word ‘fame’ in this verse describes this second kind of respect because it is ‘appropriate commendation and recognition’.

The word church means ‘people called out from the world and to God’. This is only the third time that this common word has been used in 2 Corinthians. It was used in the first verse of the book and in the first verse of chapter 8 when talking about the churches of Macedonia.

The fact that the word ‘church’ is not used between 1:1 and 8:1 implies that the concept of church will probably become uncertain during these intervening chapters. For instance, singing songs and hearing words about God in a special building at special times only makes sense if one is locked within matter-over-mind unable to use one’s mind to influence matter. The advent of spiritual technology would question the very raison d’être for the traditional church service. That is why I have been taking most of my examples from academia, science, and technology. I do not see current church continuing to exist, especially if mind started to rule over matter. However, the word ‘church’ is mentioned five times in chapter 8, which suggests that a new form of church is emerging within mind-over-matter.

In order to determine the nature of this new church one has to go back to first principles and look at what the word ‘church’ means. A church is a group of people who are called out from society to follow God. A new intimate relationship between God and people was described at the end of chapter 6. Presumably, the church would be the various groups who are leading the way in exploring the implications of this new inter-relationship between God in Teacher thought and people in Mercy thought.

Looking at this in more detail, this could mean some form of academic community, it could describe research and development, it could refer to a group of fanbois applying some new technology, or it might describe some kind of social work for the betterment of society. Within current society, some of these alternatives are regarded as more religious than others. Within a future society of mind-over-matter, all of these would have a religious component. All five references to the church in chapter 8 talk about ‘churches’ in the plural. This strongly implies that there will be no single official church, but rather many churches which each focus upon different aspects of interconnecting Teacher thought with Mercy thought. That is why I give four totally different examples of what future church might be like.

The first brother has ‘fame in the gospel through all of the churches’. Thus, the focus is upon teaching a general message of good news that applies to all facets of the church.

This first brother is actually elected by the churches: “and not only [this], but he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work” (v.19). The word appointed is only used twice in the New Testament and means ‘to vote by stretching out the hand, to appoint’. Thus, Paul is not choosing this first brother. Instead, the first brother is being elected by the churches. Going further, the word travel with is a compound Greek word used only twice in the New Testament which means ‘a fellow traveler’. Putting this together in general terms, the legislator is being accompanied by a representative elected by the citizens. This representative of the people is a fellow traveler ‘with this grace’. (The word ‘work’ is not explicitly mentioned in the original Greek.) Grace describes God in Teacher thought helping people in Mercy thought. The goal of Paul the apostle/legislator is to reach down from the realm of Teacher thought in order to enjoy personal benefits in Mercy thought. Paul is being accompanied by a representative elected by the people specifically for his fame in good news; his job is to ensure that whatever Paul the legislator develops will be good for the citizens in Mercy thought.

The rest of verse 19 describes ‘this grace’ in more detail: “which is being administered by us for the glory of the Lord himself, and [to show] our readiness”. The word administered is the verb form of the word ‘deacon’, which means ‘to serve, minister’. The word for actually means ‘toward’. And Lord usually refers to Incarnation rather than to God the Father. Putting this together cognitively, Server actions are being done that lead to a visible expression of the technical thinking of incarnation. This description may sound rather theoretical, but it also applies to current technology. A technological gadget is a physical object that expresses the universal laws of God in Teacher thought. But it expresses these universal laws through the technical thinking of incarnation. One builds technology by ‘deaconing’—doing Server actions that are consistent with how the natural world functions. Verse 19 is describing the re-emergence of technology within mind-over-matter. This focus upon Server actions is also emphasized by the beginning of verse 19 which describes the first brother as a ‘fellow traveler’.

Verse 19 finishes by saying that it is also being administered by ‘our readiness’. The word readiness was seen earlier in verses 11 and 12 and means ‘before-passion… an eager disposition which is pre-inclined. Current technology is based upon objective science. Future technology would have a strong subjective component. This personal emotional aspect can be seen in the phrase ‘our readiness’. Technology is not just being developed as a job, but rather is being motivated by a before-passion that drives people in Mercy thought to apply Teacher understanding. Similarly, the phrase ‘glory of the Lord himself’ tells us that technical thinking is not being used in some specialized manner as it is today, but rather is an expression of God in Teacher thought.

Well-Grown Thickness 8:20-21

Verse 20 continues, “Avoiding this so that no one will discredit us in our administration of this generous gift” (‘Avoiding this’ is the literal translation in a footnote.) Administration is the familiar word ‘deaconing’. The word discredit is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘to find fault with’. The word translated avoiding is also used twice in the New Testament and does not really mean ‘avoiding’. Instead, it means ‘to arrange, prepare, gather up, to restrain’. In other words, one is dealing with a potential problem not by avoiding that problem but rather by setting up the appropriate structure. ‘Avoiding’ views a problem as some mental network that must not be triggered. ‘Arranging’ sets up a mental network that will inherently ensure that the problem does not arise. The ‘this’ indicates that what is being set up is what was just described in verse 19: The first brother that was elected by the churches is traveling along with Paul in order to ensure honesty. Looking at this literally, Paul wants to administer the gift in a transparent manner that no one can find fault with. He is doing this by inviting along a reputable brother.

However the word translated generous gift is only used once in the New Testament and comes from a word that means ‘thick, well-grown’. That is a strange word to apply to a gift—and the word ‘gift’ is not even mentioned in this verse. But it does make sense if one examines it cognitively. We currently live within a universe of matter-over-mind that is ruled by many technical details. The challenge is to find the simple universal laws in Teacher thought that lie behind these complexities. If mind were to rule over matter, then the opposite problem would arise. Teacher thought would come up with simple universal statements. The challenge would be to find sufficient technical details within these simple statements to make life interesting. One can see what this means when playing computer games. Many computer games are simplistic; there is nothing more to do after having played the game for several hours because all of the various possibilities have been explored. The challenge is to create a computer game that has enough variability and openness to remain interesting even after it has been played for months or years. The word ‘thick, well-grown’ conveys this idea of many interweaving strands growing from a single mental network.

For instance, the theory of mental symmetry can be described as thick and well-grown. It is ultimately based in a simple diagram of mental symmetry. But this simple theoretical foundation is capable of explaining a vast array of diverse topics and behaviors. If mind were to rule over matter, then this sort of ‘well-grown thickness’ would define wealth, because it would lead to a rich collection of possibilities. Going the other way, poverty-of-thought would lead to physical poverty. If one encountered such ‘well-grown thickness’ in the future, one would want to ensure that this potential wealth of experience was not squandered but rather used fully to provide good news for the people.

Verse 21 summarizes, “For we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.” The word translated have regard for is used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘take thought for beforehand’. This is consistent with the idea of setting up some sort of system beforehand to ensure that the potential wealth is not squandered.

The word honorable actually means ‘attractively good; good that inspires and motivates others to embrace what is lovely’. This describes something that is emotionally desirable in the best sense of the word. In other words, the goal of future technology will not be to provide thrills for consumers through a flood of cheap trinkets. Instead, technology will be used to create items that are attractive, useful, and desirable, items which have both form and function. Careful thought will be used beforehand to ensure that this happens. One occasionally sees this sort of product today, but what typically happens is that the quality product acquires a good reputation and then some new management takes advantage of this good reputation and reduces the quality in order to maximize profits. The underlying assumption is that wealth exists independently of quality and human enjoyment, because wealth is being optimized by reducing quality and human enjoyment. The very idea of optimizing wealth by reducing long-term human enjoyment would become ludicrous within mind-over-matter. Similarly, it would no longer be possible to evaluate wealth by using some simplistic, numerical bottom line, because wealth would be related to ‘well-grown thickness’. The very act of mentally reducing a thick bundle to the single strand of some monetary figure would destroy wealth. Similarly, I suggest that reducing chapter 8 to the description of a financial contribution indicates a poverty of thought that would not flourish within mind-over-matter.

Saying this more generally, I suggest that prosperity theology actually contradicts itself. If one views prosperity as fullness and thickness of possibility, then a prosperous mind will lead naturally to a prosperous environment. But interpreting prosperity as monetary riches actually indicates poverty of thought; claiming physical riches in some formulaic manner demonstrates a mind that only possesses the mental riches of a few fragmented slogans. Saying this more clearly, prosperity theology is usually preached by a Contributor person who lives within concrete technical thought and is being guided by poorly developed abstract technical thought. Such an individual is mentally impoverished, because abstract technical thought is crippled, the character of God is being ignored in Teacher thought, and personal character is being ignored in Mercy thought.

Verse 21 emphasizes that Paul is being guided by both Teacher thought and Mercy thought: “not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men”. The word translated in the sight means ‘before the face of’. Looking at this cognitively, the technical thinking of incarnation is guided by the TMN of a concept of God, while people are mentally represented by MMNs within Mercy thought. Paul is trying to make sure that neither of these mental networks will complain that they are receiving incompatible input.

This tells us that society has developed to the point where one no longer has to choose between serving God and serving people. Instead, it is possible to serve both of these simultaneously—at a personal level. This type of interaction exists to some extent in the objective realm within today’s technological society. As was mentioned previously, Teacher thought views a machine as an example of order-within-complexity, while Mercy thought views the same machine as a useful tool for producing beneficial personal results. This would happen more fully within the future society of chapter 8.

The Second Brother 8:22-24

Verse 22 discusses the second brother: “We have sent with them our brother, whom we have often tested and found diligent in many things, but now even more diligent because of [his] great confidence in you.” The first brother was elected by the churches and is a representative of the citizens. The second brother is described as ‘our brother’, which means that he was chosen by Paul. In contrast, the first brother was described in verse 18 as ‘the brother’. The first brother was chosen by the people because of his fame in good news, and his purpose is to ensure that Paul the apostle/legislator continues to follow an intellectual path that leads to good news for the people.

The second brother is chosen for a different reason. Paul describes him as a person ‘whom we have often tested and found diligent in many things’. The word tested means ‘put to the test to reveal what is good or genuine. Cognitively speaking, this means subjecting a person to emotional intensity in order to reveal which mental networks are backed up by sufficient Perceiver and Server confidence to hold up under pressure. Each emotional test will only reveal a person’s character within some limited context. This brother has not just been tested once but rather has been tested ‘in many things often’. (The NASB says something slightly different, but the original Greek is literally ‘in many things often’.) Many things means ‘much in number’, while often means ‘many times, often, frequently’. Thus, this testing has occurred in different situations over a period of time, giving a general impression of the character of this person.

The character trait that Paul is looking for is our familiar term earnestness, which means ‘speedy diligence’. The NASB translates this word as ‘diligent’ in this verse and as ‘earnest’ in previous verses, but it is the same Greek word. Paul obviously wants this character trait because verse 22 adds that the second brother is “now even more diligent because of [his] great confidence in you”, using the same Greek word that means ‘speedy diligence’. The word translated confidence is derived from the word faith which means ‘persuade, be persuaded’. The preposition in actually means ‘to or into’. In other words, the second brother is heading to the believers with speedy diligence because of persuasion. Using the language of research and development, the second brother is being motivated by rational understanding to behave with speedy diligence towards the consumer.

Notice the symmetry. The first brother is functioning in abstract thought to bring a message that promises concrete benefits. The second brother is functioning in concrete thought guided by abstract understanding. The first brother ensures that Teacher understanding will help Mercy thought, while the second brother ensures that Mercy help will be guided by Teacher understanding. One can see why Paul would want the character trait of speedy diligence. When one is carrying out a plan that leads to personal benefits, the benefits will only arrive when the plan is completed, which means that the personal disruption can be minimized by finishing the plan as fast as possible. Stated simply, this person can be trusted to finish the plan and finish it quickly. The only way to know with confidence that a person will finish a job is to test that person under pressure in many ways over a period of time.

Verse 23 compares the function of Titus with the function of these two brothers: “As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker for you”. The word ‘partner’ comes from the noun koinonia and means ‘a participant who mutually belongs and shares fellowship’. The word fellow worker means ‘fellow worker, associate, helper’. If one interprets Titus as a form of prototype, then this prototype simultaneously fulfills two functions. As far as Paul the apostle/legislator is concerned, the prototype is a ‘partner’, a companion in the lonely job of being a legislator. But this prototype is not just locked behind doors and kept away from the public. Instead, as far as the average consumer/citizen is concerned, the prototype is a fellow citizen who works with normal people in normal concrete thought. Saying this another way, the prototype is being tested in normal life. This principle is often followed in current society, because prototypes will be tested by subjecting them to the experiences of normal existence.

The two brothers also have a larger role: “as for our brethren, [they are] apostles of the churches, a glory to Christ” (v.23). As was mentioned earlier, the NASB describes these two as messengers but says in a footnote that the actual word is ‘apostle’. These two are not described as apostles of Christ or apostles of God. Rather, they are called apostles of the churches, and described as ‘a glory of Christ’. (The original Greek uses the genitive case which means ‘of Christ’.)

Looking at this cognitively, an apostle introduces something major that is new, similar to the way that Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles who introduced the concept of theology. These two brothers are introducing a new form of interaction between abstract Teacher thought and concrete Mercy. This major new development is not the result of a theoretical breakthrough in Teacher thought. Instead, it is the result of people in Mercy thought functioning together as a ‘church’ in order to realize Teacher understanding.

The best analogy I know is what we call research and development, or R&D. R&D is neither abstract nor concrete but rather a loop that cycles between abstract and concrete. Instead of doing abstract research, R&D focuses upon applied research, which means working within Teacher thought for the purpose of bringing good results in Mercy thought. That describes the mindset of the first brother. Similarly, instead of merely doing concrete action, R&D applies understanding to action in order to reach goals with greater ‘speedy diligence’. And a major aspect of the concrete side of R&D is testing devices in many ways over a period of time in order to ensure that this device will continue to function reliably. That describes the mindset of the second brother. Going further, R&D has not always existed. Instead, it came into existence in the late 19^th century, with two of the earliest expressions being the German chemical industry and the labs of Thomas Edison. Thus, R&D could accurately be described as apostles of modern business. This also clarifies whether the ‘two brethren’ are referring to people in general or only to men. R&D is an expression of male technical thought. Many women work within R&D, but the overall mindset is still technical thought. Current R&D tends to focus upon male technical thought to the exclusion of female mental networks. That is because science and technology themselves ignore the mental networks of female thought, which is because matter-over-mind starts with the technical thinking used to understand matter. In contrast, R&D of the future would have to include mental networks to a much greater extent, because mind-over-matter starts with the mind, and minds are ultimately guided by mental networks.

One of the qualifications for being an apostle is to have ‘seen Jesus’. This qualification is described by the last phrase of verse 23, which describes the two brothers as ‘a glory of Christ’. Glory is the external expression of internal character. Therefore, ‘a glory of Christ’ expresses the internal character of the abstract side of incarnation. This implies that these two brothers have a well-developed internal concept of incarnation. This quality can be seen in current R&D which, like science, places a heavy emphasis upon clear thinking and mathematical analysis.

The chapter finishes with verse 24: “Therefore in the face of the churches, show the proof of your love and of our reason for boasting to them about you.” (The footnote gives a literal translation which is quite different in this case. It is an accurate translation, but in the original Greek the phrase ‘in the face of the churches’ occurs at the end of the sentence.) The word proof means ‘a pointing out or indication, a proof’. What is supposed to be proved is the ‘agape love’ of the citizens/church-members. Agape love is ‘love which centers in moral preference’ and ‘typically refers to divine love’. This proof of agape love is supposed to be shown ‘to them’, with ‘them’ referring to Titus and the two brethren.

Using technological language, the consumer is supposed to respond to prototypes and to R&D in an emotional manner that signifies the love of God. And simply talking about this is not enough. Instead this ‘agape love’ has to be proven. Today’s average consumer does not respond in such a manner, but rather typically responds to new gadgets with a childish infatuation or cynical exploitation that has nothing to do with divine love. Today’s consumer may say that he loves technology, but the average consumer loves the toys and does not care about the rational, technical thought that lies behind these toys. Thus, today’s typical consumer does not show proof of agape love to the two brothers. That is because technology can currently be separated from personal character within matter-over-mind. However, if mind ruled over matter, then moral fools would be incapable of using technology, because the moral foolishness within the minds would ruin the functioning of the matter within the technology.

Going further, the word boasting means ‘active boasting, glorying, exultation’. Paul the apostle/legislator wanted to find a group of consumers that would apply his laws so that he could be a fellow consumer/citizen with them. He is boasting that he has found his group. But this group needs to prove that this boasting is valid.

The final phrase says that this proof should be ‘shown to them in the face of the churches’. The word shown means ‘to make fully evident, showing conspicuous proof which demonstrate something as undeniable’. This undeniable proof is supposed to be ‘in the face of the churches’, which means public, personal, and widespread. Again, this principle is almost totally violated by current society. Instead what is shown publicly, personally, and widespread is the childish mindset of advertising and marketing. I am not suggesting that all advertising and marketing is childish. But I think that it is safe to say that most of it is. Again, the underlying problem is that science and technology have transformed the physical world while leaving people unchanged. Thus, complicated gadgets have to be marketed to childish minds. This is largely possible with matter-over-mind. (There are many exceptions. For instance, a childish mind is incapable of flying a complicated airplane.) But it would not be possible with mind-over-matter, because childish minds would be incapable of using complicated gadgets.

Church of Achaia 9:1

Chapter 9 expands what has been developed in chapter 8. Verse 1 opens: “For it is superfluous for me to write to you about this ministry to the saints.” The word saint is usually translated ‘holy’ and means ‘set apart by or for God’. Ministry is the familiar word that means ‘deaconing’. One can understand what a ‘ministry to the saints’ is by looking at the modern technological society. Technology performs Server actions; every gadget has a function. Similarly, technicians perform skilled Server actions: they install gadgets; they fix gadgets that stop functioning in order to make them function again; they use machines to perform tasks. Using religious language, technology and the modern service industry are examples of ‘deaconing’.

Continuing with this analogy, there is consumer technology and there is professional technology. Professional technology is for the individual or company that uses technology in a more technical and professional manner. Using religious language, professional users are like ‘saints’ because they are ‘set apart’ from normal consumer society in order to follow technology in a more professional and educated manner. I am not suggesting that professional users are saints. The personal lives of professionals usually leave much to be desired. However, when it comes to the use of technology and the universal laws of nature, then the professional user is behaving in a ‘saintly’ manner. Looking at this more carefully, when God is viewed as a special person in Mercy thought, then one will interpret being holy as being separate from normal experiences in Mercy thought. That is the Old Testament definition of holiness, which is still applied by most religions and in many churches. However, if one views God as a universal being in Teacher thought, then one will interpret being holy as thinking and behaving in a manner that is guided by Teacher thought rather than by normal Mercy experiences—and that defines the professional. In a future society of mind-over-matter, this professionalism would extend to personal identity. (This definition of holiness overlaps with the concept of righteousness. It might be that holiness describes how the average person views the professional while righteousness describes how the professional views himself and other professionals.)

The word translated superfluous occurs 23 times in the New Testament and this the only time that it is translated as ‘superfluous’ in the NASB. The word means ‘beyond what is anticipated, exceeding expectation’. ‘Superfluous’ gives the impression that Paul did not have to say anything, but he is saying it anyway. ‘Beyond what is anticipated’ conveys the idea that a general principle is being applied to an additional area where one did not initially think that it was applicable. For instance, it is ‘beyond what is anticipated’ to interpret the New Testament from a cognitive perspective. One would think that a cognitive theory could be used to explain psychology and social behavior. That is anticipated. But it is ‘beyond what is anticipated’ to use the same cognitive theory to explain a religious holy book that was written 2000 years ago.

Paul is writing about the ministry to the saints. Writing uses Server actions to give stability to Teacher words. A system of Teacher thought backed up by Server actions was developed in chapter 8. We will see in the next few verses that this theoretical system is being applied to an additional area where one would not initially think of applying it.

Verse 2 identifies this additional area: “For I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the Macedonians, [namely,] that Achaia has been prepared since last year, and your zeal has stirred up most of them.” This is the second time that Achaia has been mentioned in 2 Corinthians. The first mention was way back in the first verse of the book. The word Achaia means ‘grief, trouble’. Looking at this verse literally, Achaia refers to Greece with its educated Greek city states. Macedonia was a province just north of Achaia which was regarded by the Greeks as semi-barbaric and not really Greek. Paul is comparing Macedonia with Achaia in order to bridge this cultural divide.

A similar but deeper meaning arises if one looks at this passage symbolically. Macedonia means ‘tall or thin’ and we have interpreted this as social stature. The beginning of chapter 7 described a new form of academia arising within the Macedonian church. Academia has social stature; academia lives within a pleasant emotional environment. Achaia, in contrast, means ‘grief, trouble’. Achaia knows pain and not happiness. This may sound like a strange interpretation, but verses 6-7 will talk explicitly about this emotional distinction. Applying this distinction to present-day society, most Christian learning occurs through suffering. Saying this more generally, the Christian church has historically tended to grow when it is persecuted, while losing its effectiveness and moral character when life is too good. In other words, the current church lives in ‘Achaia’.

Academia also learns, but it does its learning in a pleasant environment. However, the learning of current academia is limited largely to the objective. As far as the suffering church of Achaia is concerned, academia is semi-barbaric. And that is a valid conclusion, because academia is usually reluctant to apply its rational findings to the core of the subjective. But it was the Macedonian church that made the breakthrough in chapter 8 and not Achaia. Similarly, academic research has laid the foundation that made it possible to transform current society, and it is now time for the ‘suffering Christian church’ to let go of its emotional fixation on grief and trouble in order to follow the example set by the ‘Macedonian church’ of academic research.

Notice that we are using a different analogy to interpret Greece. Historically speaking, Greece was the center of academic and scientific thought. Current academia views itself as the successor of ancient Greece, and would regard Christian thought at best as the semi-barbaric thinking of Macedonia. But that interpretation assumes that the ultimate goal is to use rational thought in the objective realm to understand the natural world. A different interpretation emerges when one starts to use rational thought within the subjective. One then realizes that when it comes to mental wholeness, then current academia is only semi-civilized. One also notices that Christianity contains the content of core rational thought but learns most of this content through the grief and trouble of personal suffering. Applying this to 2 Corinthians, significant grief and trouble has happened in the first six chapters of the book. Chapters 7-8 describe a new way of thinking and behaving based upon goodness and happiness, as exemplified by the coming of Titus in 6:6, which means ‘pleasing’. Chapter 9 describes the process of transforming a mindset of grief and trouble into a mindset of goodness and happiness.

Transforming the Suffering Church 9:2-3

Paul has been addressing his letter to the believers in Corinth. Corinth is a city within Achaia. But the name Achaia has not been mentioned until now. (It was used as a greeting in the first verse of the book.) In verse 2, Paul is finally pointing out to his readers that they live in grief and trouble. Looking at this cognitively, one cannot transform core mental networks immediately. Instead, one must first create an alternative set of core mental networks. One can then approach the old mental networks using the new mental networks as a bridgehead. Paul is connecting these two mindsets in verse 2 because he is boasting to the Macedonians about Achaia. Saying this another way, free will becomes maximized when the mind contains conflicting mental networks. The believers of Achaia can only choose to let go emotionally of ‘grief and trouble’ if an alternative Macedonian mindset of ‘tall and thin’ exists.

Looking at verse 2 in more detail, Paul begins by saying “I know your readiness”. The word know means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. The word readiness is the word that means ‘before-passion’ which was seen three times in chapter 8. Thus, Paul is observing them and he sees that they are motivated.

Going further, Paul is translating this emotional ‘before-passion’ of Achaia into rational language that the Macedonians can understand: “...of which I boast about you to the Macedonians that Achaia has been prepared since last year”. The word boast means ‘boasting from a particular vantage point by having the right base of operation to deal successfully with the matter’. The word prepared means ‘to prepare, make ready’. Putting this together, Paul observes the emotional fervor of Achaia and tells the Macedonians that Achaia is prepared because it has the right base of operation. And Achaia has had this right foundation ‘since last year’.

Looking at this cognitively, a similar distinction exists currently between Christians who learn through suffering and scientific academia. The suffering Christian has the ‘before-passion’ that is required to live in the kingdom of God, but does not know how to get there; the goal is present in Mercy thought but the Server sequences that are needed to reach this goal are not. In contrast, academia does understand Server sequences; science and technology have learned what it means to act in a righteous manner that is guided by a Teacher understanding of universal laws. But science and technology have inadequate goals in Mercy thought; they do not have ‘the right base of operation’.

Turning now to the future, in chapter 8, the Macedonian church set up a new form of academia leading to a new kind of science and technology. This Macedonian righteousness in Teacher and Server thought needs to be combined with the Achaian goal in Mercy thought. Looking now at the present, we are continually finding partial illustrations of 2 Corinthians in current science and technology. But with every illustration I always clarify that this is only a partial illustration because science and technology are missing the key aspect of subjective transformation in Mercy thought. That is why Paul is boasting about Achaia to the Macedonians. He knows that ‘science and technology’ are missing something in the core which needs to come from ‘learning through suffering’. But in order to talk intelligently with ‘science and technology’, Paul has to translate the ‘before-passion’ of the ‘suffering Christian’ into the language of ‘preparation’ and ‘right base of operation’ that is used by ‘science and technology’.

Verse 2 finishes by saying that ‘science and technology’ are learning about subjective emotions from ‘learning through suffering’: “your zeal has stirred up most of them”. The word zeal means ‘burning emotion, inner feeling boiling over’. The word stirred up is only used twice in the New Testament and means ‘stir up, aroused anger, provoke, irritate, incite’. In other words, the technical thinking of academia is getting annoyed by the emotions of ‘learning through suffering’. In the present realm of matter-over-mind, the technical thinking of academia can usually ignore the mental networks of subjective emotion. That is because technical thought is needed to deal with physical matter. In a future realm of mind-over-matter, subjective emotions would play a central role and technical thought would find itself unable to ignore mental networks.

However, these two will only get together if ‘learning through suffering’ stops focusing upon suffering. Paul addresses this possible concern in verse 3: “But I have sent the brethren, in order that our boasting about you may not be made empty in this case”. These brethren are presumably the two brothers that were discussed at the end of chapter 8. Looking at this literally, Jewish custom dictated that alms should be collected by at least two people (and distributed by three). Looking at this symbolically, Paul is hoping that the two ‘brothers’ of research and development will change the negative mindset of the suffering believers.

Again, one can see what this might mean by looking at present society. Absolute truth naturally focuses upon religious self-denial and ‘suffering for Jesus’. However, the modern consumer society has rotted out the core of this self-denial. The average Christian now talks and sings about suffering for Jesus while sitting on a comfortable chair in an air-conditioned building, taking occasional short-term mission trips which give the temporary feeling that one is actually suffering for Jesus. In the present, this leads to cognitive contradictions and a spirituality that appears deep but is actually shallow. That is because current science and technology do not provide anything meaningful for subjective identity. Thus, current research and development replace religious self-denial with—consumerism. However, the basic principle still remains, which is that current research and development are creating a flow of ever-new gadgets that is quite effective at undermining the mindset of suffering for Jesus. Going further, in order to use gadgets, one must learn to think and behave rationally. The typical Christian who is practicing self-denial often thinks that ‘before-passion’ is enough: ‘Quality and skill don’t really matter. All that counts is your heart.” But quality and skill are quite important when it comes to purchasing and enjoying gadgets. I imagine that a similar dichotomy would exist in the future between those who are following God passionately with mental networks and the new type of academic thinking that is arising with the Macedonian church.

Looking more closely at the reason for sending the brothers, Paul is sending them “in order that our boasting about you may not be made empty in this case” (v.3). The word translated made empty means ‘to empty out, render void’ and it is only used once in 2 Corinthians. Looking at this cognitively, one can only choose mental networks that exist within the mind. A mind that thinks in terms of learning through suffering can only choose to focus upon positive experiences if it contains mental networks composed of positive experiences. If no positive mental networks exist, then the boasting will be empty. Applying this to present society, the continuing stream of new-and-improved consumer gadgets may be insipid and shallow, but they allow the consumer to know at an experiential level what it means to pursue happiness rather than avoid sorrow. Going further, the person who has no technical experiences finds it very difficult to learn to think and behave in a rational manner. Consumer gadgets may supply personal needs in an inadequate manner, but they do force the average consumer to learn a modicum of technical thought. For instance, everyone has to know how to use a smart phone these days, and for some people this is quite a struggle.

Verse 3 finishes with Paul adding “so that, as I was saying, you may be prepared”. The word prepared is the same word that was used in verse 2, which means ‘to prepare, make ready’. This is not an emotional word. Achaia already has sufficient emotions of ‘before-passion’. Instead, it is a rational word. Using the example of a smart phone, the consumer may already be very excited about getting a new smart phone, but needs to take classes in order to learn how to think rationally when using this new gadget. That is because one has to learn to be smart to use a smart phone. This illustration may sound trivial. But the division between mental networks and technical thought is a cognitive division that would become more significant in a future realm of mind-over-matter. If consumers in the present who are driven by mental networks find it difficult to acquire technical thought, then consumers of the future would probably find it even more difficult, because the physical world would then express the mental split between mental networks and technical thought.

Preparing the Suffering Church 9:4-5

Verse 4 emphasizes the need to be prepared: “Otherwise if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we—not to speak of you—will be put to shame by this confidence.” The word find means ‘find, learn, discover, especially after searching’. Unprepared is only found once in the New Testament and is the negative of the word ‘prepared’ that was used in verses 2 and 3. Confidence means ‘standing under a guaranteed agreement’. It is used twice in 2 Corinthians: here, and in 11:17. These are all logical, rational terms. We looked previously at the process of going from making legislation to living within this legislation. ‘Confidence’ conveys this concept of ‘living within legislation’. Paul has observed the ‘before-passion’ of Achaia, and has told the Macedonians that Achaia is prepared. If some Macedonians show up with Paul, then they will examine the situation and they might conclude that Achaia is not prepared.

One can gain an idea what this means by comparing today’s suffering Christian with current scientific thought. (And by ‘suffering Christian’ I mean developing Christian character through some form of ‘grief and trouble’.) If one observes the motivation of the suffering Christian, one can see that such a person has learned what it means to live within moral law. But if one probes deeper, will one find a mind that is prepared to think rationally about moral issues? If one does not, then the result will be shame, which means ‘shame, disgrace, put to utter confusion’. Most Christians today feel shame, disgrace, and confusion when faced with academic research, and academic thought typically responds to Christian moralizing with emotional belittling. The suffering Christian has learned lessons of deep cognitive significance. However, this will only be apparent if the suffering Christian is ‘prepared’.

Saying this more generally, those who use technical thought have a natural tendency to emotionally belittle those who follow mental networks as being ‘insufficiently rigorous’. But technical thought will only function in a healthy manner if it is based upon a foundation of transformed mental networks. Therefore, it is important for those who use mental networks to go beyond emotional fervor to be able to describe the lessons that they have learned using language that is comprehensible to technical thought.

Paul describes in verse 5 how he is addressing this problem: “So I thought it necessary to urge the brethren that they would go on ahead to you and arrange beforehand your previous promised blessing”.

The word thought means ‘coming first in priority such as: the leading thought in one’s mind’. This word is only used once in 2 Corinthians. Necessary means ‘necessary’. And urge is the familiar ‘comfort’ word that has both emotional and legal overtones. In other words, Paul is thinking about what is required in this situation and this is the most significant issue. Looking at this cognitively, what matters more than any specific lessons that have been learned is the type of thinking that is being used. If mental networks are to become integrated with technical thought, then technical rigor needs to be added to mental networks.

This principle is already true today when trying to translate moral lessons into psychological language. But when living within matter-over-mind, the biggest problem is going the other way, which means adding mental networks to technical thought. Today’s biggest problem is extending rational thought to include the subjective. By symmetry, the biggest problem for a future society of mind-over-matter would be extending mental networks to include technical thought. Today’s society uses technical thought to construct many gadgets and machines, but what is missing is the proper emotional motivation for using these tools. It is as if everyone has a car but no one knows where to drive. In a future society, the motivation would be there, but what would be missing is the technical tools required to put this motivation into action. In other words, everyone would know where they want to drive but no one would have a car.

Paul does not deal with his problem by talking to ‘the suffering Christian’ of Achaia. Instead, he sends along ‘the brothers’ of R&D. As was mentioned previously, these brethren will teach the emotional believers how to think rationally by giving them gadgets that are fun and logical.

Paul explains that these brothers will “go on ahead to you and arrange beforehand your previously promised blessing”. (The word ‘blessing’ is in a footnote in the NASB.) The word translated go on ahead means ‘to go forward, go on’ and is only used once in 2 Corinthians. Arrange beforehand means ‘to make ready beforehand, and is only found once in the New Testament. Previously promised is found twice in the New Testament and means ‘promised beforehand’. Finally, the NASB uses the English translation ‘bountiful gift’ twice in verse 5, but as a footnote points out, the actual word is blessing. This refers literally to a verbal commendation but also by extension to some concrete benefit.

That leads us to the following question of interpretation. Is this ‘blessing’ something that Achaia is about to give or is it something that it is about to receive? The NASB translates blessing as ‘bountiful gift’, interpreting this blessing as a financial donation about to be given by Achaia. That fits the literal interpretation. However, Hebrews 9:15 suggests a possible deeper cognitive interpretation, which only emerges if one looks at the original Greek text. Paraphrasing, that verse talks about buying back the transgressions that were under the first covenant so that those who have been called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance. This is a strange language, which is why it is not translated this way in the English. In essence, one is dealing with the problem of maintaining justice when there is a regime change.

For instance, suppose that one lives in a country with harsh rules in which criminals are punished by putting them in jail. Suppose also that the justice system in this country is flawed and that many crimes are going unpunished. This combination existed in Nazi Germany as well as in most communist countries. Now suppose that a new system of government emerges which rewards law-abiding citizens rather than punishing criminals. If a sense of law and order is to be maintained, then all the crimes that went unpunished under the old regime need to be punished in the new regime. But the new regime does not punish. The only alternative is to reward those who were treated unjustly under the old regime. However, if this is to work, then those who were treated unjustly need to stop thinking in terms of punishment and start thinking in terms of reward. Using the language of Hebrews 9:15, transgressions that were under the first covenant need to be bought back so that those who were called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance. This may sound like a contrived example because no regime would only reward good citizens and not punish criminals. But that is because one is thinking in terms of matter-over-mind. If mind ruled over matter, then it would no longer be possible for a government to use physical force to punish people. Instead, the focus would be upon using government legislation to create an environment of goodness—which is what we have been discussing in the last few chapters.

Returning to 2 Corinthians, Paul’s primary thought is to “urge the brethren that they would go on ahead to you and arrange beforehand your previously promised blessing” (v.5). Whatever the brothers are doing, they need to do it first in order to arrange beforehand for a blessing that has been previously promised. This is saying precisely the same thing as Hebrews 9:15. Stating this in current language, the suffering Christian needs to experience what it means to live in a consumer society that comes from research and development, because this will create the mental arrangement that is required to receive a promised blessing from God.

This is not a trivial transition but rather describes the primary issue faced by a mindset of absolute truth. Looking at this in more detail, a person will only continue to believe in absolute truth as long as the source of truth remains far more important emotionally than personal identity. This has three primary repercussions: 1) Following God will be equated with denying self. Hence, the suffering Christian. 2) Enjoyment itself will be viewed as forsaking God. Therefore, God cannot fully bless such an individual. 3) Absolute truth will be viewed as too holy for finite humans to adequately understand. Therefore, rational thought will be minimized while emotional fervor will be emphasized. The current consumer society may be vapid and irresponsible, but it has managed to successfully question these three assumptions. That is significant, because as long as these three assumptions remain intact, heavenly blessing from God must remain a distant pie-in-the-sky by-and-by.

Verse 5 finishes by describing another result: “so that the same would be ready as a blessing and not as covetousness’. That is an accurate, literal translation, as given in the NASB footnotes. The NASB actually says “ready as a bountiful gift and not affected by covetousness”, which is consistent with the idea of giving a gift of money. However, the literal translation ‘as a blessing and not as covetousness’ is more consistent with the idea of a blessing being received. The two words translated as are a comparative which means ‘as, like as, even as, according as, in the same manner as’. Thus, two different mindsets are being compared. One is a mindset of thinking in terms of blessing and another is a mindset of thinking in terms of covetousness. The word covetousness is always used in a negative sense and means ‘the desire for more’.

One can understand these two mindsets by looking again at today’s typical consumer. Many consumers are driven primarily by ‘the desire for more’. No matter what they have, it is never enough. Cognitively speaking, this happens when Mercy thought is attracted to external objects and experiences without being channeled by any internal content. All that matters is getting the dopamine rush that comes from novelty. (Dopamine is related to Exhorter thought. Pure Exhorter thought is driven primarily by novelty and excitement.) Blessing, in contrast, recognizes that good things in Mercy thought are an expression of the Teacher character of God made concrete through the technical thinking of incarnation.

Sowing and Reaping 9:6-9

The next two verses are often quoted before collecting an offering in order to encourage an audience to give more money. But the original Greek says something a little different. Verse 6 uses the language of sowing and reaping: “Now this [I say], he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows with blessings will also reap with blessings.” Those who are familiar with this verse will notice that it sounds as if I have misquoted it, because the second phrase is usually rendered as some version of ‘he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully’. And that is what the main text says in the NASB. But the NASB also points out accurately in a footnote that the Greek word is not ‘bountifully’ but rather ‘blessings’. In other words, Paul is not comparing giving much money with giving a little money. Instead, he is comparing two kinds of sowing and reaping. The word translated sows means ‘sow, spread, scatter’, and the word translated reap means ‘reap, gather, harvest’. That aspect of the translation is accurate; this verse is talking about sowing and reaping.

However, the word translated sparingly is more tricky. The only time that this word occurs in the New Testament is the two times that it is used in this verse. The dictionary entry for this word gives the definition ‘sparingly’ but it also points out that this word is ‘an adverb from a participle’ of another word. If one looks up that other word, one finds the meaning ‘spare, abstain, forbear’, and this verb is found ten times in the New Testament. But precisely what kind of sparing is happening? One can see by looking at some examples. For instance, Romans 8:32 refers to God as “He who did not spare his own son”. In 2 Corinthians 13:2, Paul warns that “If I come again I will not spare anyone”. Similarly, 2 Peter 2:4 warns that “If God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell...” And the other seven occurrences have a similar sense. In other words ‘spare’ does not mean ‘a little’ but rather means ‘to avoid applying something to some group or person’. This describes an attitude rather than an amount. This tells us that verse 6 is comparing two attitudes regarding sowing-and-reaping.

The first attitude is an attitude of avoidance. One is focusing upon where one is not sowing: I am avoiding this area and avoiding that area. The second is an attitude of blessing. Saying this more carefully, when the preposition translated with is followed by the dative, it means that one thing is accompanying another. Thus, ‘sows with blessings’ means that when one is sowing this is accompanied by the idea of blessings.

Looking at this cognitively, cause-and-effect is the basic building block for concrete technical thought. Sowing-and-reaping is an organic version of cause-and-effect. With matter-over-mind, one notices primarily the impersonal version of cause-and-effect. With mind-over-matter the personal version of sowing-and-reaping would probably be dominant. The verb sowing is found three times in 2 Corinthians: twice in verse 6 and once in verse 10. The verb reaping is only used twice in 2 Corinthians: both times in verse 6. This implies that this passage is talking about the re-emergence of concrete technical thought. That is because cause-and-effect is a core element of concrete technical thought and the physical universe is governed by principles of natural cause-and-effect.

Cause-and-effect is one of the first things that a child learns growing up within matter-over-mind. For instance, ‘touch the hot stove and you will get burned’. But if technology extended into spiritual technology, then one of the first things to go would be consistent personal cause-and-effect—because no one likes painful consequences such as getting burned. Therefore, natural rules of cause-and-effect would become modified by spiritual content. That is because everyone would be driven by personal need and desire to use spiritual power to modify previously unalterable principles of cause-and-effect. Cause-and-effect is now finally making a reappearance within mind-over-matter in the guise of sowing-and-reaping.

Galatians 6:7-10 emphasizes five principles about spiritual sowing-and-reaping: 1) Humans are prone to self-deception in this area. 2) The principle of spiritual sowing-and-reaping is rooted in the very character of God. 3) Spiritual sowing-and-reaping functions at the general level of life and corruption. 4) Reaping usually occurs some time after sowing, and the temptation is to give up during this period of time. 5) Mind-over-matter governs spiritual sowing, because the one who sows to the flesh of physical matter receives corruption while the one who sows to the mental networks of the spirit reaps eternal life.

We have seen these principles at work in the previous verses. People living within matter-over-mind will naturally expect God’s justice to function the way that natural cause-and-effect does: immediately and irrevocably. However, the system of matter-over-mind will come to an end with many issues of personal injustice still unresolved—many cases where moral cause has not been followed by moral effect. This does not mean that God is unjust. Instead, the injustices suffered under matter-over-mind will be translated into sowing-and-reaping within mind-over-matter. If one has sown to the spirit, then one will eventually reap life within mind-over-matter.

But it is vital to approach sowing-and-reaping with the right attitude. One attitude is the attitude of sparing or avoidance. This type of attitude is a natural byproduct of absolute truth, which will presume that following God means: don’t do this, avoid that, stay away from them, don’t have fun, just say no. If one sows with this attitude, then one will also reap with the same attitude. The other attitude is an attitude of blessings. Instead of avoiding everything, one uses words to build something positive. Saying this another way, one uses Teacher words to create mental networks within which one could live and would like to live. If one sows with this attitude, then one will also reap with this same attitude: ‘he who sows with blessings will also reap with blessings’.

Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-30)

A similar distinction can be seen in Matthew 25 in the parable of the talents. Matthew 24 describes the dismantling of absolute religious truth leading to societal chaos and eventually ending in the theoretical return of Jesus. Matthew 25 opens with the parable of the ten virgins, this is followed by the parable of the talents, and that is immediately followed in verse 31 by the statement: “But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him.” Thus, the parable of the ten talents describes what happens after the theoretical return of Jesus when God starts to reward those who have sown to the spirit.

In this parable, the person who is given five talents works with them and gains five more. Similarly, the person who is given two talents also gains two more. When the master returns, he rewards both of these servants. Notice that both of these servants are thinking in terms of blessings. They are working with their talents rather than avoiding them; they are gaining more talents rather than denying their talents.

In contrast, the servant who is given one talent adopts an attitude of avoidance. When the master returns, this servant says “I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no [seed]. And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground.” The word translated knew refers to experiential knowing. The word hard means ‘hard because dried out… describing people who won’t budge’. The servant says that he knows experientially that his master is a hard man. This describes the attitude of absolute truth, because emotional Mercy experiences are being used to create a sense of ‘knowing’ which views God as the source of solid truth that will not budge. The servant then describes his master as someone who sows with an attitude of avoidance: ‘reaping where you did not sow and gathering from where you did not scatter’. Motivated by this concept of a God of avoidance, the servant avoids his talent by hiding it in a hole.

The master responds by saying that if the servant knew that the master reaps where he doesn’t sow and gathers where he does not scatter, then he should have given his money to the bankers. The word translated bankers is only used once in the New Testament and actually means ‘money-changer, banker’. A money-changer converts one kind of currency into another. The idea of a money-changer makes more sense than a banker because one gives the money changer one kind of currency and receives in exchange another kind of currency. This is also an example of reaping where one does not sow, because one is sowing one currency and reaping another. That is the general topic which we have been discussing: People are sowing to the spirit in the currency of matter-over-mind and then reaping from the spirit in the currency of mind-over-matter.

Part of the problem is that this servant used the wrong kind of knowing. The word he used for knowing means ‘experiential knowledge’. But when the master responds, ‘You knew that I reap...’ he uses a different word for knowing that means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. The servant used the experiential knowing of absolute truth; his ‘knowing’ about God came from religious experiences. Instead, he should have used the knowing of empirical evidence. As Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15:42 one sows in decay, dishonor, and weakness, while one reaps in immortality, glory, and power. These two belong to fundamentally different domains, which explains why one needs to go to the money-changers.

The servant and the master also use different verbs for having. When the master returns, the servant hands him back the talent that he has buried and says, ‘Behold, you have what is yours’. The word have here refers to simple possession. This attitude of preservation is a natural byproduct of absolute truth, because it leads to the mindset of the conservative who feels that solid truth needs to be preserved and conserved. But preserving is insufficient when there is a change of currency, because the original currency has now become worthless. In contrast, the master says ‘on my arrival I would have received my [money] back with interest’. The phrase ‘on my arrival’ implies a change of regime. The lord has been absent and has now returned. The word received back means ‘received back, received what has belonged to myself but has been lost, or else promised but kept back’. This is consistent with the idea of a debt being incurred in one regime and then being paid back in another currency in another regime.

Finally, one can see these two attitudes in the reaping of the servants. The lord says to the first two servants: “I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master”. They sowed with an attitude of blessing rather than avoiding and are now reaping with an attitude of blessing. There is substance within which to live and there is also joy.

In contrast, the lord says to the other servant, “Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” The word worthless means ‘behavior that lacks utility or usefulness’. One cannot do anything with avoidance, because avoidance is the absence of doing. This servant described the lord as someone who avoids when sowing. He reaps a destiny of avoiding the lord by being cast out into outer darkness. He hid the talent in fear. He reaps weeping and gnashing.

And this contrast is described as a general principle: “For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away” (v.20). In other words, blessing leads to blessing while avoidance results in further avoidance.

Returning now to 2 Corinthians 9, Paul summarizes “As it is written, he scattered abroad, he gave to the poor, His righteousness abides forever.” This verse describes one form of thought falling apart and another form of thought remaining. What falls apart is cause-and-effect. The word translated scattered abroad does not mean ‘to scatter seed’. Instead, it means ‘disperse, scatter abroad (as of sheep)’ and conveys the concept of ‘dissipate, waste’. The word translated poor is only used once in the New Testament and means ‘one who works for his living’. It conveys the impression of having to do something out of necessity rather than genuine desire. Both scattering abroad and giving to the needy convey the impression of dissipating resources without any long-term benefits. In contrast, ‘his righteousness abides to the age’. (The word translated ‘forever’ is literally ‘to the age’.)

In other words, when there is a massive regime change to the age of mind-over-matter, cause-and-effect itself will become dissipated. Preserving absolute truth by hiding it within the ground of rational thought will not be enough. But what will survive intact is righteousness, which means behaving in a manner that reflects the character of God. This principle is reflected by the approach that we have been taking in these essays. Our starting point has not been with absolute truth, or with either the culture of Biblical times or present-day culture. Instead, we have been guided by the righteousness of how the mind works and we have been finding partial illustrations in the righteousness of how the natural world behaves. When one thinks in terms of righteousness, then one can use the same thinking to analyze the past, the present, and the future, even if the current system of matter-over-mind becomes totally replaced by a new system of mind-over-matter. That is because ‘his righteousness abides to the age’.

Future Harvest and Daily Bread 9:10

Verses 10-15 use florid language to describe what sounds like paradise. One can either view this as Paul waxing poetical or as a breakthrough occurring within society. Looking at this cognitively, the suffering Christian will naturally follow a lifestyle that leads to ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’. And these words are not too strong, because that is precisely how it will feel. On the one hand, one must avoid committing to groups, organizations, and governments that are following paths that lead to spiritual and mental ruin. That describes the ‘damned if you do’. But on the other hand, one must also avoid sowing with an attitude of ‘avoidance’, because one does not want to reap avoidance; one does not want to destroy mental life; one does not want to commit mental abortion. That describes the ‘damned if you don’t’. The solution is to go to the money-changers and convert the currency of ‘a God of justice who punishes evil’ to ‘a God of blessing who blesses life’.

Using an analogy, it will feel as if one is continually living with one foot on the brake and another foot on the gas pedal. If one can manage to make a cognitive shift to a God of blessings, then this is mentally like taking one foot off the brake and putting both feet on the gas. The car will start moving at high speed instead of shuddering in place. Going further, it takes considerable Perceiver and Server confidence to hold a mental ‘car’ in one piece if it is shaking from the stress of simultaneously flooring the gas and slamming on the brakes. That same confidence will ensure that the car remains in one piece as it starts to move at high speed.

Looking at this now in more detail, verse 10 says, “Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness.” The word translated supply means ‘a person who both funds and directs an epic, ancient chorus’. It is used twice in the New Testament: here, and in 1 Peter 4:11, a verse which also uses grandiose language. The verb supplies is an intensification of this verb which adds the preposition ‘appropriately on’. This intensified version is used five times in the New Testament but only once in 2 Corinthians. ‘Funding and directing an epic, ancient chorus’ combines people in a manner that expresses both Teacher structure and personal Mercy emotion. On the one hand, drama and singing address deep personal and societal MMNs. On the other hand, an epic chorus portrays a story with great Teacher generality.

The purpose of Greek drama was to address emotional mental networks in a cathartic manner. However, the verb ‘supply’ is connected twice with seed in this verse: seed is ‘appropriately supplied’, and seed is ‘supplied and multiplied’. Seed is a form of life, and the mind uses mental networks to represent life. Thus, two different ways of dealing with mental networks are being juxtaposed. The Greek chorus with its catharsis helps an audience to live with existing mental networks, making them feel better about their problems. Seed transforms existing mental networks into abundant life through a process of rebirth.

The first phrase of verse 10 describes two things being appropriately supplied: First, seed is being supplied ‘to the one who is sowing’. Using the analogy of technology, seed money is being given to research and development in order to generate beneficial results in the future. This does not happen instantaneously. It takes longer to grow crops than it does to put on a theatrical production. Seed money does not translate immediately into new products. Second, bread is being supplied for food. The word food simply means ‘that which is eaten, food’. This tells us that people’s daily needs are being met while they are waiting for harvest.

Modern society has forgotten what this means. For instance, one article on medieval farming says that “July was the hungry month. Grain stores were at their lowest ebb, awaiting replenishment from the forthcoming harvest, and peasants in need eked out their diet by foraging.” In other words, people did not usually starve in winter, because there was still lots of food stored from the harvest. Instead, the period of greatest physical need was in the summer just before harvest. Looking at this cognitively, I keep finding in these essays that the passages can be interpreted simultaneously in two different ways: First, a stage in the large span of history is being described, and what one does in the present is sowing the seed for what will happen in this future time. Second, a universal cognitive principle is being described that applies at all times which provides spiritual food for the present.

The harvest does not come immediately. Instead, verse 10 first says that God “will supply and multiply your seed for sowing” and then “increase the harvest of your righteousness”. The word multiplied is used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘made full, especially to maximum capacity’. Speaking from personal experience, I keep waiting for my research to experience a harvest, but what happens instead is that seed continues to be supplied and multiplied, to the point where the seed has been ‘made full, especially to maximum capacity’. There may be a cognitive reason for this. Spiritual seed grows best under conditions of pressure and need. Experiencing harvest too soon would relieve the pressure and need that causes seed to grow and flourish. We saw this principle mentioned in 8:15, which said that “he who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little had no lack.” Therefore, the best harvest will happen if the seed is ‘made full, especially to maximum capacity’ before the reaping commences. But if the harvest is being postponed, then it is especially important to provide bread for food while one is waiting for the harvest.

Increasing the Quality of Righteousness 9:10-11

The final phrase in verse 10 says that he will “increase the harvest of your righteousness”. The word increase means ‘become greater in size and maturity’. In other words, ‘increase’ is referring to greater quality rather than greater quantity. The word harvest includes the concept of life because it means ‘offspring, child, fruit’. And righteousness describes actions in Server thought that reflect the character of God in Teacher thought. Putting this together cognitively, righteousness functions in the dimension of time and sequence, while humans live in experiences that occupy space. Saying this another way, righteousness is a relationship between Server actions and Teacher understanding, which is a different dimension than the human dimension of Perceiver facts and Mercy experiences. Therefore, when righteousness provides some solution, then this solution will continue to function over time but it will only satisfy one slice of human existence.

For instance, suppose that I hire some person to clean my house. As a human being, that person can do a thorough job of cleaning by performing many different kinds of activities. But if I want to have my house cleaned again, then I have to hire that person again. Now suppose that I use the righteousness of science and technology to buy a vacuum cleaner. That gadget will continue to perform the task of cleaning my carpets, but it will not wash the dishes, or do the laundry. If I want help washing the dishes, then I need to buy another gadget known as a dishwasher. Similarly, getting help with the laundry means buying a washing machine. In other words, each gadget can only supply one slice of human need. If one wishes to provide for a range of human needs, then one has to purchase many gadgets.

Verse 10 describes this principle. Science and technology lead to impersonal gadgets of righteousness, and each gadget can only supply one slice of human need. In contrast, righteousness here is leading to living fruit through a process of sowing-and-reaping. But this sowing needs to be multiplied in order to ensure that the life that results ‘becomes greater in size and maturity’. Sowing that is not multiplied will lead to a harvest of two-dimensional life. But if this sowing is multiplied, then the two-dimensional life will become greater in size and maturity and become fully three-dimensional.

Speaking from personal experience, as I have continued to develop mental symmetry, I have sensed that this has resulted internally in the development of spiritual life. And I deeply want to live in a physical environment that reflects this spiritual life. However, instead of being able to live in this life, I find that the seed continues to be multiplied. Even though this is disheartening at the time, looking back I can see that each multiplication of the seed has caused the internal spiritual life within my mind to become more three-dimensional.

Verse 11 elaborates upon verse 10: “You will be enriched in everything for all liberality, which through us is producing thanksgiving to God.” The word enriched means ‘much in number/quantity’. This is different than increase in verse 10 which means ‘greater in size and maturity’. The word all, which means ‘each part of the totality’, is used twice in this verse, once as ‘everything’ and once as ‘all’. Thus, both the enriching and the liberality will apply to all the parts of the whole. In other words, Paul is not just using florid language to make some overgeneralization. The word translated liberality has been encountered twice in 2 Corinthians, and actually means ‘singleness, without folds, like a piece of cloth unfolded; i.e. not compounded or overcomplicated’. This describes a simplicity of existence that emerges naturally when submitted to Teacher thought, because Teacher thought always looks for order-within-complexity—the simple essence that can summarize many similar situations. The preposition translated for means ‘to or into’. Therefore, a more literal rendition would be that ‘the increase in quantity is leading to complete Teacher simplicity’.

One can see this to some extent with current technology. For instance, the Internet is composed of millions of computers built by different manufacturers, running different operating systems, and located in different countries. But all of these different computers can be accessed using a single web browser. That is an example of an increase in quantity leading to complete Teacher simplicity. Unfortunately, there are also strong Mercy forces of tribalism and personal gain that are trying to break up the Internet: many companies and governments would like users to browse their section of the web and stay away from other sections. Significant Internet content is hidden behind paywalls, passwords, and systems of censorship. These two forces are currently fighting each other because the Teacher theories of science have left Mercy mental networks of culture and identity intact. 2 Corinthians 9 is describing a future time when everything becomes transformed by righteousness and not just physical reality. As it says in 2 Peter 3:13, “According to his promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.” And that verse occurs within a context that describes everything being made new.

The second phrase of verse 11 specifically mentions this focus upon God in Teacher thought: “which through us is producing thanksgiving to God”. The word producing means ‘work down to the end-point’. The word thanksgiving is constructed from a root that means ‘grace’. Thus, it means ‘the giving of thanks for God’s grace’. (It is the source of the word eucharist, which is discussed in the essay on 1 Corinthians.) And God is explicitly mentioned in verse 11 because the thanksgiving is ‘to The God’. One can see what this might mean by thinking again of the Internet. When everything can be accessed on the Internet through a single browser program, then users will be thankful to a concept of God within Teacher thought that is motivating everything to function ‘in a simple manner without any folds’. But when content becomes hidden behind various barriers erected in order to preserve MMNs of country, corporation, crookedness, and control (‘c’ what I did there?), then feelings of thanksgiving will be replaced by feelings of frustration.

Liturgical Service 9:12

Verse 12 describes the end result of Server-based thought meeting all human needs: “For the ministry of this service is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints...” The word ministry is the familiar ‘deacon’ word which refers to Server actions. Service, in contrast, is only found once in 2 Corinthians. It is the root of the English word ‘liturgy’ and it refers to ‘service done by someone in an honorary religious or civic office, leaving a significant impact on the community’; it is also defined as ‘official technical service offered by a duly authorized minister’. Again, the focus is upon performing Server actions. But these actions are performed for a community and are connected with God.

Verse 12 explains that this liturgical service is performing two functions: First, it is “fully supplying the needs of the saints”. The verb translated fully supplying means ‘to fill up by adding to’, and it is found only in 2 Corinthians: here, and in 11:9. In other words, it is topping things off rather than supplying everything; it is the icing on the cake and not the entire dessert. The word needs means ‘that which is lacking, need’. Using the analogy, cake without icing is lacking; it is missing something.

Second, it is “also overflowing through many thanksgivings to God”. Overflowing means to ‘go beyond the expected measure’. Many ‘emphasizes the quantity involved’. And thanksgivings is the same ‘eucharist’ word that was used in verse 11, which means ‘thankful for God’s grace’. Verse 11 ended with a single ‘thanksgiving to the God’. In verse 12, the ministry of the service is overflowing ‘through many thanksgivings to the God’.

Now that we know what the various terms mean, we can pose the question: What is liturgy and what benefit does it have? The Catholic Church teaches that the liturgy of the Eucharist is a (the?) primary means by which God dispenses grace to humans. Many Catholics believe that “The Holy Eucharist is unique among the sacraments. Even the variety of names by which it is called emphasizes the central position which it occupies in Catholic Christianity. It is the Blessed Sacrament, the Lord’s Supper, the Holy of Holies, the Table of the Lord, the Body and Blood of Christ, the Sacrifice of the Mass, Holy Communion, the Sacrament of the Altar, Viaticum, and the Real Presence – to mention only a few of the titles by which the Church has identified this central Mystery of Faith.” Using the analogy of cake, the liturgy of the Eucharist is being viewed as the whole dessert and not just as the icing on top of the cake. It is also viewed as a great mystery in which the bread and wine actually become the body of Christ and the worshipper becomes mystically united with Christ.

My goal here is not to try to debate the topic of transubstantiation and Catholic liturgy. Instead, one can step back and ask a cognitive question: Why is liturgy being regarded as central and how does this relate to a sense of divine mystery? I suggest that one can find a possible answer by looking at science. Science is also heavily liturgical in the sense that academia is governed by methodology. In order to be a legitimate scientist, one must gain a scientific education by being trained through proper channels, become a member of an academic group that conducts itself in a proper fashion, gather evidence in the proper way, and then publish this evidence in a proper manner. Similarly, what makes a Catholic Mass legitimate is that is being performed in the proper manner by a priest who has become a priest by being trained through proper channels, who then functions as a member of a church that conducts itself in a proper manner. In both cases, liturgy (defined here as ‘official technical service offered by a duly authorized minister’) is being regarded as the core feature that overshadows everything else.

This may sound like an overstatement, but I have learned through personal experience over many decades that this really is the case. I am not aware of any other theory of human thought that comes even close to having the explaining power of the theory of mental symmetry. However, I keep finding that following the liturgy of science is regarded as more important than coming up with a general theory. In other words, both the Catholic Church and academia regard liturgy as the whole dessert and not just as the icing on top of the cake.

That brings us to the matter of mystery. One is actually dealing here with two kinds of systematic behavior: We live within matter-over-mind, within a natural universe that behaves in a systematic manner. Science is ultimately a study of how the universe behaves. In contrast, scientific methodology describes how a group of scientists behave. Which is more fundamental in science, how the universe behaves or how a group of scientists behave? If how the universe behaves is more fundamental, then scientific methodology is, by definition, secondary. But if how the universe behaves is a mystery, or if discovering how the universe behaves is too complicated for any single person to decipher, then methodology will become primary. In a similar manner, if one can use Teacher thought to understand how God behaves, then any religious liturgy becomes, by definition, secondary. But if how God behaves is a mystery, then religious liturgy will become primary. One can see this transition happening in postmodern thought, because postmodernism questions the very existence of objective truth. When there is no truth out there, then what remains is how people behave. That is because Server thought can always gain confidence by choosing to repeat some set of actions, which happens when one practices some skill or sequence of actions.

One can explore this further by looking at government bureaucracy, another form of liturgy. The goal of a well-functioning bureaucracy is to ensure that everyone gets treated in an equal manner without leaving anyone out. Using the language of verse 12, a bureaucracy can ensure that people’s needs are completely filled up. But when a bureaucracy becomes the primary means of doing things, then life tends to grind to a halt. Saying this more clearly, government bureaucracy can ensure equality when most people are meeting most of their needs without having to go through government bureaucracy. It can put the icing on top of a cake that is being baked elsewhere. But communism made it clear that life becomes grey and meaningless when all needs are met through government bureaucracy.

Looking at a personal example, I currently attend a liturgical, evangelical church. But this church is not part of any large institutional structure and there is no paid staff. Instead, several members of the congregation take turns assembling the liturgy for each Sunday, and people within the church take turns performing the various aspects of the liturgy. This works, even though the congregation is small, because the church is filled with people who have appropriate skill and expertise. Factors such as these are ensuring—so far—that people do not become the servants of liturgy and bureaucratic structure.

Continuing with verse 12, the liturgy “is also overflowing through many thanksgivings to God”. Overflowing means to ‘go beyond the expected measure’. A bureaucracy does not normally ‘go beyond the expected measure’. On the contrary, if anyone within a bureaucracy goes beyond the expected measure, then the rules of the bureaucracy will be modified to ensure that no one ever goes beyond the expected measure in that manner again. But verse 12 suggests that bureaucracy can go beyond the expected measure ‘through many thanksgivings to God’. ‘Thanksgiving to God’ recognizes that what ultimately matters is how God behaves and not how a group of people behave. Thanksgiving to God becomes meaningless when one views God as a mystery. This is like trying to thank an anonymous donor who mysteriously leaves donations in random places. But verse 9 said that the righteousness of God remains forever, while verse 10 referred to a harvest of righteousness. One can only behave in a righteous manner that is consistent with the character of God if God is not a mystery but rather has a character that is knowable.

Notice that transcending a bureaucracy requires many thanksgivings to ‘the God’. One must continually recognize—and re-recognize—that God is the ultimate source of benefits and not bureaucracy, methodology, or liturgy.

Glorifying God with Simplicity 9:13

Verse 13 explicitly states that the ultimate focus will be upon God and not upon human actions: “Because of the proof given by this ministry, they will glorify God for your obedience to your confession of the gospel of Christ and for the liberality of your sharing with them.” The word proof means ‘proof of genuineness; approval through testing’. What is being tested for genuineness is ‘this ministry’, and ministry is the familiar ‘deacon’ word. In other words, when some bureaucracy, academia, or liturgy claims to be the proper way of doing things, then this claim needs to be tested. A genuine service will have the qualities described in the rest of this verse. Looking at the first phrase, it will cause people to ‘glorify the God’. The Bible dictionary explains that ‘glorifying God means valuing him for who He really is’. And we saw earlier in this essay that glorifying God goes beyond merely saying good things about God to acting and building in a way that expresses the character of God. This means that the ultimate focus will not be upon how the group behaves but rather how God has made things to behave.

For instance, many years ago I played violin in a local church production. The program consisted primarily of a number of skits referencing various movies and TV shows and was put on in a nice church auditorium that seats 2000 people. At the end of the program the pastor got up and told the audience that the program had demonstrated to them how wonderful God is. But that was not the case. The pastor may have talked for five minutes at the end about glorifying God, but for the previous ninety minutes, the program had glorified Hollywood, and it took place in a physical structure that glorified science and technology. In terms of verse 13, if one put the service to the test, then one concluded that it did not glorify ‘the God’.

Verse 13 continues by explaining what it means to glorify God: “for [your] obedience to your confession of the gospel of Christ”. Obedience combines the word ‘under’ with ‘arrange’ to mean placed or rank under’. This is not a matter of personal status in Mercy thought. It also does not describe obeying orders in Server thought. Instead, it refers to domain in Teacher thought. One is placing mental networks of identity and professionalism within the domain of some general TMN. For instance, I am a Canadian citizen who lives in Canada. Therefore, I am within the domain of Canadian law. Similarly, the church program mentioned in the previous paragraph was socially within the domain of Hollywood and physically within the domain of science.

The word confession combines the word ‘speak’ with the word ‘the same, together’. Thus, one is saying something that is consistent with what someone else is saying. For instance, the pastor in the program was not confessing Jesus because his words did not match the message of the rest of the program. And the program did not confess Christianity, because it was delivering a message that was inconsistent with the message of the Bible. A similar statement can be made about scientific academia. When scientists place an inordinate emphasis upon scientific methodology, then this is inconsistent with the message conveyed by science itself, which is that ‘how the universe works’ overrules anything that people say or do.

In verse 13 the message that is supposed to be confessed is ‘the gospel of the Christ’. (Both ‘the’s are explicitly in the Greek.) Gospel means ‘good news’. Christ refers to the divine, abstract side of incarnation. Gospel, Christ, and confess all involve words in Teacher thought: ‘Gospel’ uses words to describe benefits in Mercy thought. A concept of Christ is based in abstract thought, which emerges when precise definitions are given to words. (For instance, we are continually examining the precise definitions of the original words of the Greek biblical text.) And ‘confess’ means to say words that are the same as what another person is saying.

In current society these concepts tend to be separated. Science uses abstract technical thought to analyze how the physical world functions, leading to a partial concept of Christ. But when one starts by ignoring personal emotions and subjective identity, then there can be no good news. The theory of evolution says that the human species is evolving, but evolution has no good news for the individual. On the contrary, one has to struggle to include positive personal concepts such as cooperation and altruism within the theory of evolution.

Going the other way, Christianity preaches good news; becoming personally transformed, improving society, and going to heaven when one dies is good news. However, the concept of Christ tends to be missing. Instead, the focus is upon the life of Jesus based upon the absolute truth of the Bible, and the character of Jesus is only partially expanded into universal truths. Thus, instead of constructing a concept of Christ, the character of Christ and God regarded ultimately as unknowable mystery. When objective science confesses Christ while ignoring good news, and subjective religion preaches good news while ignoring Christ, then no one is really confessing the gospel of Christ, because what is being said by one of these is continually inconsistent with what is being said by the other. And ‘confess’ means ‘to say the same as’.

Verse 13 continues by saying that people will glorify God “for the liberality of your contribution to with them and to all”. The word translated liberality was seen in verse 11 and means ‘singleness, without folds’. This describes Teacher simplicity, in which everything flows from a single, simple Teacher theory. The word translated contribution is actually koinonia, which means ‘what is shared in common as the basis of fellowship’. This could involve making a financial donation but goes beyond this. What we have seen in the previous paragraphs are several examples of fellowship with folds. The church program had many folds because three separate domains of technology, entertainment, and Christian fundamentalism were being shoved together in a manner that did not ‘flow smoothly without folds’. Similarly, the interaction between scientific methodology and studying how the universe behaves is also full of folds, because if one follows one of these one will find oneself colliding with the other.

There are also fundamental folds in a Catholic or Orthodox liturgy of the Eucharist. On the one hand, one is eating bread and drinking wine dispensed by somber men in fancy clothes. On the other hand, one is partaking of Christ. If one asks how these two fit seamlessly together, the response is that these two are mysteriously the same. On the one hand, one is celebrating the death of a Savior who died for everyone and everything. On the other hand, this celebration happens within an environment that sharply distinguishes between holy places, people, and events, and secular places, people, and events. Again, if one probes, then the response will be that these two are mysteriously the same.

In contrast, verse 13 says that the simplicity of the fellowship is ‘toward them and toward all’. In other words, there are no splits. The same Teacher theory applies both to some special group and also to people at large. This will not be the case when the emphasis is upon how some group of people behaves. Instead, there will be one simplicity of fellowship ‘toward them’ and another simplicity of fellowship ‘toward all’. However, if the goal is to understand how God has made things behave, then divine order will take precedence over any human bureaucracy, government, academic group, or liturgy.

Supporting the Priesthood 9:14-15

Verse 14 continues to describe the attitude of followers: “While they also, by prayer on your behalf, yearn for you because of the surpassing grace of God in you.” The word translated prayer means ‘praying for a specific, felt need’. When a bureaucracy is regarded as primary, then one will pray for specific needs to the bureaucracy, because the bureaucracy is the source of help. In contrast, the prayer here is ‘on your behalf’. One is praying on behalf of the bureaucracy. One can see what this means by looking at science. One does not pray to scientists for help, because scientists do not come up with rules. But one can pray on behalf of scientists for help, because scientists discover rules. Going further, the verb yearn means ‘to long for, especially as it is fitting or apt’. Thus, there is an emotion, but it is also appropriate emotion, longing that is ‘fitting or apt’.

For instance, I suggest that eucharistic adoration is emotion that is not appropriate, because it fixates emotionally upon the physical objects of bread and wine. Similarly, I suggest that it is emotionally inappropriate to fixate upon Hollywood in the church (or more generally, upon most contemporary Christian music.) In a similar vein, it is emotionally inappropriate to regard science and scientists as the priesthood of society. Science may be good for understanding how the natural world functions, but academia makes a lousy priesthood.

The final phrase of verse 14 refers explicitly to the efficacy of a priesthood: “because of the surpassing grace of God in you”. Surpassing means ‘throw beyond’ because it combines the word ‘beyond, above’ with the word ‘throw’. This specific word is only used twice in 2 Corinthians: here, and in 3:10. Looking at this symbolically, air represents Teacher thought: words are vibrations in the air; Teacher theories with no basis in reality are referred to as ‘castles in the air’. When an object is carried, then human Server actions are being performed during the entire journey from ‘here’ to ‘there’. However, when an object is thrown, then some Server action is used initially to throw the object, but it then travels through the air guided solely by the laws of physics in Teacher thought before it eventually returns to earth. In other words, ‘throw beyond’ symbolizes leaving human concrete thought in order to gain an understanding in abstract thought so that one can return to human concrete thought with a better solution. This describes the guiding principle of research: If one studies the topic in a scientific manner, then one will come up with a better solution. Using the language of verse 13, this better solution that comes from ‘throwing beyond’ is ‘grace of the God’. Saying this more simply, one does not simply pray ‘God give me grace’ and then continue to live the same way within concrete thought. Instead, one receives grace from God through the ‘throwing beyond’ of using abstract thought to come up with a general Teacher understanding that leads to a better solution. In other words, one goes through some form of research and development.

Putting this all together, people are making requests on behalf of researchers, because researchers have the ability to go through abstract thought to receive grace from God. Using scientific language, people fund research and development because science has the ability to understand and apply the laws of nature. Stated bluntly, the only reason that academia continues to exist is because academia has learned how to understand how the universe works. Therefore, when academia places an undue emphasis upon methodology, it is actually shooting itself in the foot by de-emphasizing its very reason for existence.

Similarly, religious liturgy and clergy only continue to exist because they have gained a partial understanding of how the mind works, and how one reaches mental wholeness. Therefore, when religion places an undue emphasis upon liturgy, it is actually shooting itself in the foot by de-emphasizing its very reason for existence—which is to bring the grace of God down to people. And saying verbally that ‘one receives the grace of God through the Eucharist’ is not enough. I can say that I receive the grace of God by eating cornflakes. This is not just a snide remark, because if I ate cornflakes with a sufficiently somber attitude at the same time that millions of others were eating cornflakes in a similar manner, carrying on a centuries-old tradition of eating cornflakes in this manner, then eating cornflakes would probably feel deeply meaningful. Thus, celebrating the Eucharist with great religious conviction may generate feelings of encountering God, but this is not the same as actually receiving grace from God. Instead, a ministry needs to be tested to see if it is genuine, and if it is genuine then people will glorify God and not the scientists or the priests.

In verse 15, Paul finishes with a short statement: “Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!” This is normally interpreted as religious hyperbole which emphasizes the transcendence of God. The commentaries on this verse are definitely full of religious hyperbole.

But the word indescribable has a precise meaning. It is only used once in the New Testament. It adds the prefix ‘not’ to the word describable, which is found twice in the New Testament. ‘Describable’ means ‘declaring a full account of the matter and its outcome. The word is a very strong expression for the fullest and clearest declaration: declare throughout’. A bureaucracy or methodology tries to reduce everything to written rules, ensuring that there is a clear regulation that covers every possibility. That is the meaning of the word ‘describable’. Verse 15 says that the gift of God is not-describable. One cannot reduce the gift of God to a set of bureaucratic regulations.

For instance, physics has been trying for several decades to come up with a ‘theory of everything’, a unified mathematical description that applies to all of physical existence. Physics has come up with a standard model which explains everything at an atomic level except for the force of gravity. This mathematical ‘bureaucracy’ is incomplete in at least three different ways: First, it does not include Einstein’s theory of general relativity and the force of gravity. However, gravity is the one force that is most apparent within normal human life. Second, the standard model may be able to describe the universe at an atomic level, but it is of no practical use at the normal scale of human existence. In fact, it violates normal common sense. Third, the standard model can only make statistical predictions and cannot make any definitive statements about specific, individual particles. In fact, quantum field theories say that one should not even think in terms of specific, individual particles. But humans are specific individuals who live within physical bodies composed of specific, individual particles. Thus, one sees even in physics that the gift of God cannot be reduced to a set of bureaucratic regulations. This does not mean that the natural universe is incomprehensible, because physics can use math to make accurate predictions about the physical universe. But the gift of God is ultimately not a bureaucracy, it is not a liturgy, it is not a government, and it is not a set of mathematical equations.

Going further, the word gift means ‘a gift, freely given and hence not acquired by merit or entitlement’. It ‘expresses a brand of giving that highlights the beneficent desire of the giver’. Bureaucracy reduces everything to a set of predictable rules. It ensures that everyone gets the same reward and no one gets anything more. God goes beyond that. One finds this trait described in the parable of the laborers in Matthew 20. In this parable, Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a landowner hiring workers throughout the day. When the owner pays those who have worked for one hour the same wages as those who worked the entire day, then those who worked longer complain. The owner responds that he is paying them what they agreed to work for; he is following the rules of the bureaucracy. But the owner says that as the owner he has the right to pay others the same amount if he wants to. In other words, God is not violating the rules of a bureaucracy, but rather deciding that he wishes to go beyond these rules.

Looking at this from a personal perspective, I have found that if one approaches God in a legalistic manner, then one will receive a legalistic reward. God respects sowing-and-reaping. But if one lets go of legalism in order to be guided by mental networks of character and goodness, then I have found that the reward will end up being better than if one clings to a legalistic attitude. I also learned this principle when living in Korea. In Korean culture, a contract is a starting point and not the final authority. If one insists upon following the contract then one will go crazy, because a contract is seldom followed to the letter. But if one lets go of legalistic thinking, then the times that one is ripped off will tend to be balanced by the times that one receives more than expected. The end result will be about the same, but one maintains one’s sanity.

Summarizing, one should not regard bureaucratic rules of ‘how we do things’ as pre-eminent, because one will receive a better reward from God if one does not. Instead, one should give thanks to the God for his not-fully-describable free-gift.

Gentle Strength 10:1-2

Chapter 10 introduces a subject which has not been discussed until now, which is fighting. Fighting occurs naturally when society is driven by cultural and personal MMNs, because tribes and leaders will struggle for domination. War is also a natural option within matter-over-mind, because armies can use physical force to control people. The reason that war appears at this stage has to do with the nature of Teacher thought. Whenever there is a regime change or a paradigm shift then the first goal is to ensure that the new Teacher structure has a stable foundation. During this initial stage, the new regime will usually act docile and permissive in order to avoid getting destroyed by the opposition. But once the new Teacher structure is solid, then the second phase will begin, which is eliminating the opposition. This second stage will be driven emotionally by a Teacher desire for a general theory to apply to all situations without exception. Chapter 10 describes this second stage.

But how can a legislator assert himself over the opposition while remaining a citizen under the law? This is not a problem with matter-over-mind because leaders naturally regard themselves as above the law, and often view war as just a more extreme version of normal politics. However, the previous chapters have discussed in some detail the problem of how a legislator/apostle can only enjoy the personal benefits of his legislation by becoming a fellow citizen. If a legislator acts assertive in the wrong manner, then this assertiveness will undo everything that has been achieved.

Paul addresses this problem in verse 1: “Now I, Paul, myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ – I who am meek when face-to-face with you, but bold toward you when absent!” Apart from the salutation in 1:1, this is the only time the Paul mentions his name in the book of 2 Corinthians. And Paul does not just mention his name, he also uses the personal pronoun twice: ‘I’ and ‘myself’, and both of these are in the original Greek. Thus, is clear that Paul is making a request that affects him personally as a legislator/apostle. Consistent with this, the verb urge is again the ‘comfort’ word that combines emotion with rule of law.

The reason for Paul’s request is “by the meekness and gentleness of Christ”. The preposition by actually means ‘through, throughout’, when combined with the genitive. In other words, Paul is not appealing to the meekness and gentleness of Christ, but rather making a request from a position that was reached by going through the meekness and gentleness of Christ. Meekness is used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘gentle strength which expresses power with reserve and gentleness’. Gentleness is used twice in the New Testament: here, and in Acts 24. It means ‘sweet reasonableness that knows when to relax the strict legal requirements concerning others to carry out the real spirit of the law’.

‘Meekness’ summarizes Paul’s predicament as a legislator/citizen. He has power to create law as a legislator, but he also wants to submit to the law as a citizen. Therefore, he must express his power with reserve and gentleness. ‘Gentleness’ is especially significant in the light of the section that we have just discussed. The previous verse said that the gift of God cannot be reduced to some set of comprehensive, written rules. ‘Meekness’ says that Christ, the incarnation of God, who brings gifts from God to man, does not function in a manner that can be reduced to some set of comprehensive, written rules.

This does not mean that Christ makes personal exceptions to the rules motivated by MMNs of personal identity. Instead, it means that Christ follows the essence of the rules motivated by a TMN of general understanding. That is what it means to follow the spirit of the law, because a concept of spirit emerges from Platonic forms which are an indirect expression of Teacher generality. We saw this in the parable of the vineyard, because the owner adjusted the written rules in order to generate greater Teacher universality by giving each worker the same payment.

Paul then describes how he expresses ‘gentle strength’. When he is face-to-face with them, he is lowly. (As a footnote in the NASB indicates, ‘meek’ is literally ‘low-lying, lowly, lowly in spirit’.) Using cognitive language, Paul does not assert himself personally by demanding MMNs of personal status. And this is not just a façade that he is putting on but an expression of his spirit, motivated by a deep desire to experience the benefits of his legislation as a fellow citizen. In the original Greek, Paul says that he is lowly when ‘in the realm of you’.

In contrast, Paul is “bold toward you when absent”. The word bold means ‘to show boldness or courage’. This is a simple description of attitude which contrasts with ‘lowly’. Absent is also a simple word that means ‘to be away, to be absent’.

Therefore, Paul is using a very simple strategy to deal with the problem of being both a legislator and a citizen. He is lowly when with the citizens while bold when away from the citizens. Paul does not say that he changes his persona depending upon the context. He is being the same person all the time. But he is changing his assertiveness. Looking at this from personal experience, one may gain the impression from my essays that I am always talking to people about mental symmetry, or continually trying to spread my theories of eschatology. On the contrary, I do not push my ideas on others. When asked, I tell people what I am doing, but if others do not want to talk about the subject further, I allow the subject to be changed, and I allow the subject. to remain changed. That is because my primary goal is not to have people talk about spiritual technology but rather to live within spiritual technology.

In verse 2, Paul asks that others would give him the privilege of being lowly when he is physically present: “I ask that when I am present I need not be bold with the confidence...” The word translated ask ‘means to have a deep personal need causing one to beseech (make earnest, specific request)’. In other words, he is not merely asking this as a matter of common courtesy. Instead, he is begging them from a deep personal need. The word bold is the same word that was used in verse 1, which simply means ‘to show boldness or courage’. The word present also has a simple meaning which means ‘to sit constantly beside’. In verse 1, Paul used the emotional term of ‘in the face of’. Here he is simply talking about being in the same physical location.

Paul is asking this because there is a personal problem that needs addressing. That is “the confidence with which I propose to be courageous against some, who regard us as if we walked according to the flesh” (v.2). The word confidence is ‘properly, persuasion; used of human confidence… but more commonly of Spirit-produced persuasion’. This word is derived from the word ‘faith’ which means ‘persuaded’. In other words, Paul is not going to be imposing himself upon others but rather using rational thought. This essay shows us the kind of rational thinking that Paul will be using. This rational approach can also be seen in the word propose, which means ‘reason to a logical conclusion’.

Courageous means ‘to show daring courage necessary for a valid risk’. The risk for Paul is that the rule of law will relapse into the imposition of personal status. Paul needs to deal with people who are also using logic, but a different kind of logic. That is because the word translated ‘regard’ is the same word that is translated ‘propose’ earlier in verse 2, which means ‘reason to a logical conclusion’.

This different kind of logic is described as ‘walking according to the flesh’. Walking means ‘walk, hence… conduct my life, live’. One could describe this as a way of life. The word flesh means ‘flesh, body, human nature, materiality’. Paul uses this term in Romans 7-8 when contrasting ‘the flesh’ with ‘the spirit’. Cognitively speaking, ‘the flesh’ describes the mental content that is acquired growing up in a physical body in a physical universe. The last time this word ‘flesh’ was used in 2 Corinthians was in 7:5 where Paul said that his flesh had no rest but was comforted by the coming of Titus. The reappearance of this word is significant because it means that the transformation of society is now reasonably complete.

For instance, one can see this with modern technology. The invention of the personal computer and the development of the Internet have totally transformed society. Thirty years ago, it would have been unimaginable to suggest that the average person would carry within his pocket a computing device that could immediately access information from around the world. But what was unimaginable has now become commonplace, and this interconnected society defines physical reality for current children. What older people view as an incredible development of science and technology, today’s generation sees as culture and physical reality. In a similar manner, when there is a change in regime, then society eventually settles down to regarding as normal what was previously regarded as new and revolutionary.

Paul is noting that some people are regarding him as if he is ‘walking according to the flesh’. Paul the legislator/apostle has succeeded in creating a new physical system within which people can live. People are now starting to regard this as a new kind of stable culture. Saying this another way, a new stable system of personal existence has been constructed within mind-over-matter, and the stability of this new system gives people the impression that they can regress to the old mindset that was used in matter-over-mind.

Spiritual Warfare 10:3-6

Paul clarifies in verse 3 that the present may look like the past but conflict is quite different in the present: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh.” Paul explains that there is now a ‘walking in the flesh’, using the same words ‘flesh’ and ‘walking’ that were used in verse 2. There is a new ‘normal’. But Paul uses a different preposition. In verse 2, people are thinking that Paul is now walking according to the flesh. Paul, in contrast, says that he is walking in the realm of the flesh. This distinction can be seen in the phrase ‘in the world but not of the world’, which is described in John 15:19 as well as John 17:14-16.

Paul adds ‘that we do not war according to the flesh’, Using the same preposition translated according to. The word translated war means ‘to make war, to serve as a soldier’. It is used once in the book of 2 Corinthians. One can see why Paul needs to be courageous. Somehow, he has to ‘live in the flesh’ as a citizen while at the same time ‘making war’ as a legislator. He solves this problem by pursuing a different kind of war.

As verse 4 says, “The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.” The word weapons means ‘an implement, normally used for warfare’. The word warfare is the noun form of the word ‘war’ in verse 3. Of the flesh is a single word that means ‘pertaining to the flesh, carnal’. Putting this together, Paul is making it clear that he is not using the kind of thinking that naturally emerges within matter-over-mind in which one uses physical force to control people.

The NASB explains in a footnote that the phrase ‘divinely powerful’ could also be translated as ‘mighty before God’. Either way, one is dealing with weapons that acquire their power from the TMN of a concept of God. The goal of these weapons is not to destroy people but rather ‘the destruction of fortresses’. The noun destruction is only used in the book of 2 Corinthians, where it is found three times. It means ‘taking down, razing, destroying’. The word fortresses is only found once in the New Testament and means ‘a fortified, military stronghold; a strong-walled fortress’.

The cognitive meaning becomes apparent if one understands how Teacher thought functions. I have mentioned numerous times that Teacher thought comes up with general theories. But the average Teacher person does not really want a general theory. Instead, the Teacher person wants the feeling of emotional safety that a general theory provides. A theory does not have to be truly universal in order to feel universal. Instead, a theory will feel universal if it never encounters any situations that undermine this theory. This can be done by mentally constructing some mental ‘castle’ and then pulling up the drawbridges in order to preserve the feeling of Teacher generality.

Something similar happens when a monarch claims to be ‘lord of the entire known world’. This could mean that the monarch rules over the entire world, but it could also mean that the monarch is a tribal chief who rules over the local valley and never ventures forth beyond this valley to encounter the wider world. Paul’s goal is to tear down all of these theoretical fortresses. Looking at the bigger picture, if matter-over-mind was replaced by mind-over-matter, then many local fiefdoms would emerge, each ruled by the thinking of some local dominant mind. Now that a new normality has emerged, it is time to tear down all of these fortresses. Something similar happens when an empire falls apart. Law-and-order breaks down, and society fragments into local fiefdoms. If a new national government emerges, then one of the tasks of this new national government will be to extend law-and-order to all of these various isolated enclaves.

This is a different kind of warfare than what one sees today, because the goal is to extend Teacher order rather than to destroy existing infrastructure. This different kind of warfare is described in verse 5: “[We are] destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and [we are] taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” The NASB adds the word ‘we are’ guided by the assumption that warfare is always waged by someone. But the language of verse 5 is actually totally impersonal without any explicit pronouns or even implicit personal pronouns conveyed by the conjugation of verbs.

The word speculations means ‘bottom line reasoning that reflects someone’s values, i.e. how they personally assign weight in determining what they find reasonable’. Cognitively speaking, this means constructing the TMN of a general theory by extrapolating from MMNs of personal experience. This happens with rationalization. These mental structures are being destroyed, which means ‘to take down, pull down’. Looking at this cognitively, Mercy emotion feels like Teacher emotion. If Mercy thought values some experience, then Teacher thought will interpret this as indicating that this experience has Teacher generality.

More generally, what is being pulled down is “every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God”. Lofty thing simply means ‘height, that which is lifted up’. It is used twice in the New Testament. The other time is in Romans 8:39, where it is listed as one of the things that are incapable of separating us from the love of God. Verse 5 does not describe the indiscriminate leveling of communism in which anything or anyone that protrudes is shoved down. Instead, what is being pulled down is any height ‘raised up against the knowledge of God’. ‘Raised up against’ means in Greek what it says in English. Knowledge here describes experiential knowledge. And God is literally ‘the God’, which refers to the concept of the one-and-only monotheistic God based in a universal theory in Teacher thought. The analogy to this would be a re-emerging national government eliminating local fiefdoms in order to reimpose national law-and-order. Saying this cognitively, any Mercy status which opposes the experience of God in Mercy thought is being torn down.

In essence, Paul the apostle is now applying to everyone the attitude which he had to develop as a legislator. Paul had to ensure that his personal Mercy desires and values were all submitted to the TMN of a concept of God. He is now fighting to extend this same attitude to all of the various enclaves of Mercy status.

This is explicitly stated in the second half of verse 5: “taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ”. The verb taking captive means ‘to take or lead captive’. Thought refers to ‘the personal verdict that comes out of using the mind’. Every thought is being led captive to, which means ‘to or into’. In other words, Paul is not following deconstructionism, which attacks Mercy status and then stops without providing an alternative. Instead, Paul is dismantling Mercy status and then leading thought towards an alternative. This alternative is ‘the obedience of the Christ’. Obedience combines the two words ‘to hear’ and ‘beneath’ to mean ‘submission to what is heard’. Looking at this cognitively, Paul is not replacing one Mercy dictator with another Mercy dictator. Rather, Paul is replacing submitting to MMNs with placing oneself under the TMN of a verbal theory. This verbal theory is Christ, the divine side of incarnation, which is based in abstract technical thought with its precise definitions of words. A current illustration of this would be replacing superstition with submission to scientific reasoning.

Verse 6 expands upon this: “And we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete.” This translation is OK, but it does not really convey the exact meaning. The word ready means ‘ready because prepared’. Punish means ‘to dispense justice, carrying a judgment completely through’. This describes the application of law-and-order rather than being driven by personal MMNs to attack some individual. Disobedience means ‘contrary hearing… the refusal to listen properly’. In other words, the rule of law will be applied to anything that refuses to listen to Teacher understanding.

This will not happen right away but rather whenever, which means ‘whenever a specific condition is fulfilled’. This specific condition is that ‘your obedience is complete’. The word obedience means ‘submission to what is heard’. And complete means ‘fill to individual capacity’.

Putting this all together, Paul is not going on a vendetta of punishment. Instead, Paul says that when people are following Teacher understanding to the extent of their ability, then a step will be taken of extending law-and-order to those who are not willing to listen to Teacher understanding. This means that the average citizen can help the regime best by submitting to understanding rather than by attacking the enemy. This is quite different than today’s concept of patriotism which thinks that one serves one’s country best by being willing and prepared to kill enemies. Instead, Paul is preparing to extend the rule of law when citizens submit to understanding and stop focusing upon people.

Submission to Christ 10:7-8

Paul addresses these various misconceptions in the next section. He begins by pointing out that they are looking at the wrong thing. The NASB says that “You are looking at things as they are outwardly” (v.7). But the alternate rendering from the footnotes is “Do you look at what is before your face?” The word translated appearance means ‘the face, countenance, surface’, and in most cases it is translated as ‘face’. The verb looking means ‘to see something physical, with spiritual results’. One can see from the context what this probably means. First, a new normality has just emerged, making it possible for people to come up with conclusions based upon physical appearance. This is the normal mode of thought with matter-over-mind, but an entire societal structure would have to be constructed before it would become possible within mind-over-matter. Second, Paul is waging warfare on all MMNs that are asserting themselves against the TMN of verbal understanding, similar to the way that scientific thought with its rational theories has been waging war against superstition and blind faith for the last several centuries. The face is a major source of personal Mercy emotions through nonverbal communication. Within such a context, it would be appropriate to ask, ‘Are you listening to what people are saying or are you focusing upon personal Mercy emotions?’

Verse 7 continues by providing a test by which one can tell if one is following the right path. “If anyone is confident in himself that he is Christ’s, let him consider this again within himself, that just as he is Christ’s, so also are we.” The word translated confident means ‘to persuade’. ‘In himself’ indicates that one is using rational thought to examine personal motives. The purpose of this self-questioning is to determine if one ‘is Christ’s’, and the emphasis of this phrase in the Greek is on ‘is’ and not ‘Christ’. In other words, what am I really like? Am I personally, internally Christ’s? In verse 5 Paul talked about ‘taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ’, and in verse 6 he said that this process starts with believers. In verse 7, Paul is clarifying what it means to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

This does not mean thinking only religious thoughts or saying the Jesus prayer several thousand times a day. Instead, it means allowing personal feelings and preconceptions to be shaped by a technical understanding of how things work, guided by an understanding of universal laws in Teacher thought. And one does not have to have a graduate degree in physics to do this. For instance, my nieces have a deep knowledge of mental symmetry at the practical level of interacting with people and raising children. This technical knowledge shapes their interaction with friends and family, and this knowledge is guided by the general understanding that God created people with seven different cognitive styles. That is an aspect of bringing every thought captive to the knowledge of Christ. In contrast, a social researcher with a PhD who uses rigorous language to state that ‘personal identity is too complicated to be analyzed’ is not bringing every thought captive to the knowledge of Christ, regardless of how many papers that researcher publishes about social interaction.

Instead, verse 7 says that one should use a comparison: “Let him consider this again within himself, that just as he is Christ’s, so also are we”. The word consider is the word ‘reason to a logical conclusion’ that was used back in verse 2 to describe two forms of logical thought. ‘Just as’ and ‘so’ are both comparative words. Just as means ‘according to the manner in which’, while so means ‘thus, so, in this matter’. The two things that a person is supposed to internally compare are ‘how I am of Christ’ and ‘how Paul is of Christ’.

I suggested earlier that Paul the apostle is now applying to everyone the attitude which he had to develop as a legislator. Paul says this explicitly in verse 7: Examine how Paul submits to the rule of the law. Use logical thought to compare that internally with how I submit to the law. Are they similar? Notice how this comparing makes it possible for Paul to exert authority as a legislator while remaining as a citizen. That is because the law that Paul is imposing as a legislator upon the citizens is the mindset that makes it possible for Paul to be both legislator and citizen.

Saying this another way, Paul the legislator and the average believer are approaching the same principle of personal submission to the rule of law from a different direction. Paul is starting with the law and then adding to this personal submission. The average believer is starting with personal submission and then adding to this the concept of the rule of law. This idea of Paul and the believers approaching the same mindset from two different directions was mentioned a few pages earlier.

In verse 8, Paul acknowledges that he is applying a form of authority over the believers. “For even if I boast somewhat more abundantly about our authority...” The word abundantly means ‘exceeding expectation’. Boast means ‘having the right base of operation to deal successfully with a matter’. And authority means ‘power to act, authority’. In other words, Paul is exerting his function as a legislator. He is not lifting himself up in Mercy thought, but rather placing more confidence in the structure of being a legislator.

Paul then applies the principle that he has just described by saying that he too is subject to the rule of law: “which the Lord gave”. In other words, Paul did not grab authority by asserting status in Mercy thought. Instead, he was given authority as a result of regarding incarnation as Lord.

And this delegated authority is for constructive purposes: “which the Lord gave for building [you] up and not for destroying you”. Building up means ‘a building serving as a home’. This goes beyond merely constructive to being constructive for the purpose of creating a structure within which Mercy identity can live. Destroying is the same word that was used in verse 4 to describe ‘the destruction of fortresses’. I pointed out earlier that the description of ‘tearing down speculations and taking every thought captive’ in verse 5 was stated impersonally using no pronouns. That is because the weapons are ‘divinely powerful’ and not ‘according to the flesh’. Paul’s personal authority is for building homes for personal identity and not for tearing down. The tearing down is always done in an abstract manner by God in Teacher thought. Saying this another way, one never rebels from the law but rather submits to a higher law; one does not impose the law upon people but rather shares the law which then imposes itself upon people.

Paul behaves in this manner so that “I will not be put to shame”. The word put to shame means ‘to dishonor, make ashamed’ and is only used once in 2 Corinthians. In other words, Paul does not want to be attacked personally himself as a source of Mercy status that is setting itself up against the knowledge of God. For instance, I have found when analyzing systems of thought that most systems fall apart when they are applied to themselves. That is because most authors do not practice what they preach. In fact, the basic premise of objective science is that what one practices is irrelevant to what one preaches. That may work to some extent within matter-over-mind, but this kind of hypocrisy would tear down any system within mind-over-matter. In fact, the most effective way of ‘tearing down speculations’ within mind-over-matter would probably be to apply a system to its personal source. That is why Paul emphasizes in verse 7 that people should look internally to see if they are submitting to the rule of law the way that Paul legislator is. And Paul the legislator learned what it means to submit to the rule of law driven by a deep desire to experience the personal benefits of his laws.

Combining Power and Humility 10:9-11

Verse 9 explains Paul’s reasoning: “So that I may not seem as if I would terrify you by my letters.” (I am using the literal translation given in a footnote.) The word seem ‘directly reflects the personal perspective of the person making the subjective judgment call’. In other words, Paul is trying to avoid creating a certain impression. The word frighten is only used once in the New Testament and means ‘frighten out of one’s wits’. A letter is ‘an epistle, a letter’, and would refer more generally to a legislator/apostle presenting verbal structure in written form. One of the basic principles of the rule of law is that laws must be recorded in some sort of permanent form in order to know what the law is. This record of the law—usually in written form—makes it possible for abstract technical thought to come up with precise definitions, because one cannot assign precise definitions to words that are ephemeral and keep changing.

Looking at this from a social perspective, suppose that some legislator/apostle acquired the ability to make laws that could affect the reality in which one lives. This would describe the situation in mind-over-matter. Citizens would only be able to approach such power without being scared out of their wits if that authority was given for constructing homes for personal identity. If that person had the power to tear people down, then any written laws from that person would trigger feelings of extreme fright. For instance, suppose that I was a friend of Superman. This would not be possible if Superman could accidentally look at me with his heat vision and fry me to a crisp, or shake my hand and crush the bones in my fingers. Instead, the very presence of Superman would frighten me out of my wits.

Paul then addresses the opposite problem, which is that people will not respect him as a person: “For they say, ‘His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible.’” (v.10). The word weighty means ‘heavy, weighty, burdensome’ and strong means ‘strong, mighty’. Presence means ‘presence, coming’ and is also used to describe the second coming of Christ. It is used three times in 2 Corinthians: twice in 7:6 and 7:7 to describe the coming of Titus, and here. The word bodily is soma, which means ‘body, flesh’. And weak means ‘without strength, weak’. Continuing with the Superman analogy, people are saying that Superman is strong and powerful, but Clark Kent—Superman’s alter ego—is a wimp and a weakling.

Going further, the word translated speech is logos, which we are interpreting as rational TMNs composed of words within Teacher thought. The word contemptible means ‘to count as nothing, to treat with utter contempt’. Looking at this in terms of legislator/citizen, people are creating a mental split between Paul the legislator and Paul the citizen. Paul is acting small and weak in person so that he can participate as a fellow citizen. But others are responding by belittling him and rejecting his theories, making it impossible for him to live as a fellow citizen. Speaking from personal experience, I try very hard not to push my ideas personally on others while at the same time writing them down clearly in these essays. As a result, what I say in person tends to be ignored by most people as insignificant because I do not back up my words with personal status. I can live to some extent as a ‘fellow citizen’ in areas such as computers, music, math, or physics, but when it comes to mental symmetry, then the average person ignores what I say and listens instead to more respected experts.

Paul responds in verse 11 that people should think in terms of righteousness rather than personal status: “Let such a person consider this, that what we are in word by letters when absent, such persons we are also in deed when present.” The word consider is another appearance of ‘reason to a logical conclusion’. Thus, we are talking again about a worldview or a paradigm. Going further, another comparison is being made in this verse. The word translated what means ‘what sort or manner of’, while such means ‘such as this, such’. Paul told others previously to compare how they submit to Christ with how Paul submits to Christ. Paul is now telling others to compare how he behaves when absent with how he behaves when present.

The word absent means ‘to be away, to be absent’ and was used back in verse 1 to describe Paul’s strategy of being bold when absent. In verse 10, people were making a distinction between the ‘letters’ of Paul and the ‘logos’ of Paul. In verse 11, Paul brings these two together by describing what he is in ‘logos’ through ‘letters’ when he is absent. In other words, when Paul is writing legislation, he is using the same Teacher theories that they reject as worthless when he talks about them in person.

Going further, present means ‘to sit constantly beside’ and was used back in verse 2 when Paul begged out of personal need that he would not have to act important when being present with others. Deed means ‘work, task, employment; a deed, action’. Putting this together, Paul is saying that his abstract theories in Teacher thought are the same as his concrete actions in Server thought. His Mercy status may change, but his righteousness remains the same. Modern technology provides a partial illustration of what this means. Computers have become ubiquitous within society. For instance, the typical car now contains between 25 and 50 computers. It is easy to disregard the computing devices that are within a cell phone which one stuffs in one’s pocket while esteeming a computer that sends a rocket into space. But all computers function in the same way by turning verbal instructions into steps of action. Some computers are used to propel rockets while other computers are used merely to chat with friends, but they all function in the same way. Applying this to chapter 10, Paul is demonstrating by his words and his actions that people need to have a worldview that thinks in terms of righteousness and not personal status.

Technical Thought and Quantification 10:12-13

Paul goes further in verse 12 by asserting that he will not seek professional status the way the typical academic professional does: “For we are not bold to class or compare ourselves with some of those who commend themselves.” The word bold means ‘to show daring courage necessary for a valid risk’. This word was used back in verse 2 where I suggested that the risk was that the rule of law which Paul had struggled for so long to construct should regress back to the level of personal status. Verse 12 backs up this interpretation because Paul says that he is not willing to take the risk of comparing his personal status with others.

The word class is only used once in the New Testament and means ‘to judge in, to reckon among’. Compare is used three times in the New Testament, with two of these occurrences being in this verse. It combines the word ‘identified with’ with ‘to judge’, and means ‘judge together, i.e. closely compare’. This describes a form of personal ranking, in which one compares one expert with another. The people who are doing this comparing are individuals “who commend themselves”. The word commend refers ‘to facts lining up with each other to support or commend something’. This does not describe personal status in Mercy thought but rather professional integrity in Teacher thought. In other words, professional experts are comparing themselves based upon the Teacher coherence of their expertise. Paul states that he does not want to take the risk of being part of this.

Paul explains that this sort of internal personal comparing lacks understanding: “But when they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding” (v.12). The verb measure means ‘measure, measure out’, and the noun measure refers to the volume of a standard amphora, which was about 40 liters. Using modern language, one is quantifying some quality by reducing it to a numerical value. This is normal practice for most scientific research or business. The word compare means ‘closely compare’ and was used in the beginning of verse 12. Reducing something to a numerical value makes close comparison possible. For instance, if one can determine that player A is ranked 12^th in the world while player B is ranked 21^st in the world, it is easy to conclude that player A is better than player B.

The problem in verse 13 is not with using numbers but rather with using numerical comparisons with no external reference. The word themselves is used five times in this one verse. People are commending themselves, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves. This is using technical thought where it is not appropriate, because mental networks of personal identity (‘themselves’) are being reduced to numbers that are being compared with one another.

Paul explains that this kind of pseudo-technical thought is ‘without understanding’. The word translated understanding is used once in 2 Corinthians and means to ‘join facts or ideas into a comprehensive inter-locking whole’. Saying this cognitively, placing people within a common numerical grid is not the same as building an integrated Teacher understanding of people. This is obvious with the theory of mental symmetry. The literature is full of studies that perform experiments on people which generate numerical results that can be compared. But most of these studies contain at best a few nuggets of understanding about human behavior. In contrast, mental symmetry does not use numbers, but it provides a general understanding that can explain human behavior—including how humans behave when they use numbers.

Looking at this another way, most personality schemes use standardized tests to apply a set of numerical values to people. I have tried to come up with a test that would reliably determine cognitive style, and the best that I could come up with is something that is about 70% accurate. That is because a personality test will measure what parts of the mind are functioning, while cognitive style appears to describe the area of the mind in which one is conscious. However, even though standardized personality tests can come up with numbers, these numbers are ‘without understanding’, because one cannot build a general understanding of human thought upon these numbers. In contrast, one can build a general understanding of human thought upon Romans 12 spiritual gifts.

In verse 13 Paul says that he will not extend the quantifying of technical thought into areas where this is inappropriate: “But we will not boast beyond [our] measure.” ‘Our’ is not in the original Greek. Instead, the word translated beyond measure is measure with a negative prefix, and measure means ‘a measure, the actual measure itself’. Thus, Paul is referring to what cannot be quantified. This word is used twice in the New Testament: here, and two verses later in verse 15. Boast means ‘having the right base of operation to deal successfully with a matter’. This is not an attitude or an emotion but rather a confidence based upon knowledge and expertise. Going further, the preposition translated beyond actually means ‘to or into’. Thus, a more literal rendering would be ‘we are not applying confidence based upon technical expertise to areas that are not quantifiable’. In today’s system of matter-over-mind, everything is quantifiable to some extent because matter is over mind and matter can be quantified. But mental networks would ultimately be in charge in mind-over-matter, and mental networks cannot be reduced to numbers.

This does not mean that Paul is not using numbers. Instead, he is using numbers within specializations: “...but according to the measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure”. The word measure occurs twice in this phrase. It means ‘a measure, the actual measure itself’ and ‘beyond measure’ is the negative of this word. The word sphere means ‘a rod or bar used as a measuring standard’. It is used four times in the New Testament, with three of these times occurring in this section of 2 Corinthians 10. For instance, the metre used to be represented by a prototype metal bar made of 90% platinum and 10% iridium stored in climate-controlled conditions in Paris. Every system of measurement requires some such ‘measuring standard’. The word apportioned is used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘to divide, distribute into parts or portions’.

Putting this all together, God in Teacher thought is subdividing personal existence into different specializations by assigning a measuring standard to each division. Each specialization extends as far as it makes sense to use the measuring standard of that specialization. For instance, one can use a metre ruler to measure length, but one cannot use a ruler to measure time. For that, one needs a clock. This is an interesting way of defining specialization. What typically happens today is that specializations are determined artificially by restricting the amount of knowledge that is taught to some group and then giving that group privileges which are limited to that area of knowledge. The end result is similar to the current national borders of Africa, because these borders were initially established with little to no regard for the local topography or the local tribes. Instead, most of the borders were determined by leaders in far-off countries drawing lines on maps. Paul, in contrast, is defining specialization in terms of standards. Each specialization extends as far as its measuring standard can measure.

For instance, physics studies the structure of the physical universe. God is not a physical being. Therefore, it does not make sense for physicists to make definitive statements about God or religion because the measuring standards of physics cannot be used to measure either God or religion. However, what commonly happens is that people (especially Facilitator and Contributor persons) with technical expertise in one area will use that as a justification to make pronouncements about topics that lie outside of this area of expertise.

Going further, one of the most fundamental barriers that I keep banging my head against when attempting to interact with academia is the inappropriate extension of technical thought. Technical thought by its very nature is limited to some specific domain. For instance, one cannot use the rules of chess to play hockey, and one also cannot use the rules of chess for normal life. Instead, the technical thinking used to play a game of chess must be limited to the realm of chess. This limitation is obvious, and academia recognizes this limitation, but I have found that one is still expected to use only technical thought when discussing the limitations of technical thought. If one attempts to use the less-rigorous analogies of normal thought to break free of the inherent limitations of technical thought, then anything that one says will be instinctively rejected. That is because an academic researcher has spent years acquiring and perfecting the skill of using technical thought while rejecting less rigorous forms of thinking.

For instance, it felt wrong to me at a gut level when I was writing sections of the previous essay on physics, because I was building upon analogies in a way that would be regarded as non-technical. This attitude is starting to change, partially because well-known researchers (such as Lakoff & Johnson) are suggesting that communication is ultimately based upon metaphors and not upon technical thought. But one is still expected to use technical thought to say that technical thought is based upon the normal thinking of metaphors. One must still play the official rules of the game of academia. Actually building a meta-theory upon metaphors is still forbidden. Therefore, when Paul talks about using measuring standards beyond their valid domain, he is not just talking about some esoteric philosophical problem. Instead, he is addressing a fundamental flaw that naturally emerges within academic thought.

Paul concludes by saying that his measure can ‘reach even as far as you’. (The NASB connects the word ‘measure’ with the previous phrase, but the interlinear Greek suggests the phrase ‘a measure to reach as far as also you’, and this phrasing is found in about half of the English translations.) The word reach means ‘to arrive upon, to reach’. It is used twice in the New Testament: here, and in the next verse. In other words, Paul is saying that the measuring standard of his specialization as an apostle/legislator extends to the believers. And we are seeing that this is the case. Paul is not just writing a random letter. Instead, he is describing an area of expertise that extends to the realm of apostles and believers, or legislators and citizens.

Extending Technical Domains 10:14-18

In verse 14, Paul gives a reason why his expertise extends to the believers: “For we are not overextending ourselves, as if we did not reach to you, for we were the first to come even as far as you in the gospel of Christ.” The word reach means ‘to arrive upon, to reach’. It was used in the previous verse and this is the second of the two times that it is used in the New Testament. Overextending is used once in the New Testament and means ‘to extend beyond the prescribed bounds’. Stated cognitively, Paul is not going beyond his area of expertise. Going further, the word translated the first to come means ‘to come before another, anticipate, arrive’. As far as means ‘as far as, up to, until’. And gospel means ‘good news’. Saying this cognitively, Paul was the first to recognize that abstract technical thought could provide beneficial results to the believers, back when society was still at the stage of research. Since then, research has been followed by development, prototypes, and the emergence of a new normal society. If Paul’s message was the first to promise beneficial results to these people when Paul was functioning at the verbal level of legislator/apostle, then Paul’s expertise obviously extends to these people now that they are functioning at the experiential level of enjoying these promised beneficial results.

This principle is often violated in today’s matter-over-mind. One person will conceive of a new product and develop it, and then some other person or large corporation will then steal this idea and market it and get rich on it. This does not always happen, but it happens often enough to be stated as a reasonably general principle. However, if mind were to rule over matter, then marketing would be unable to steal products from inventors, because the mind of the inventor/legislator/apostle would still remain ultimately in charge. John 1:10-11 describes a similar theft happening to Incarnation: “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.”

In verse 15, Paul says that he is not acting like the marketer who steals a product that has been developed by someone else: “Not boasting beyond [our] measure, [that is,] in other men’s labors”. (The words in square brackets are in italics and are not in the original Greek.) The word boasting means ‘having the right base of operation to deal successfully with a matter’. Beyond measure is the same composite word ‘not-measure’ that was used in verse 13 which we interpreted as not quantifiable. We now understand more clearly what it means to be not quantifiable. It does not mean that no one can measure it. Instead, it means that I cannot measure it using my technical measuring standard. And the preposition that is used means ‘to or into’. Thus, a more literal rendering would be ‘not extending some expertise into areas that cannot be measured’. Where is this expertise being inappropriately extended? ‘In other men’s labors’. In means ‘in the realm of’, and other men’s means ‘belonging to another person, belonging to others, foreign, strange’. It is used twice in 2 Corinthians: here, and in the next verse. Labor means ‘laborious toil involving weariness and fatigue’. We have seen the laborious toil that is involved in being an apostle/legislator/inventor. Paul is not going to invade someone else’s turf; he is not going to pretend that his expertise extends to areas that were developed painfully and laboriously by others.

As I mentioned in a previous paragraph, this is standard practice in today’s society, because some marketer who did no hard work will often get rich off a product that was developed through the laborious toil of someone else. (Or some professor will profit off the research that is being done by his graduate students.) This kind of theft is possible when one lives within a physical universe composed of objects that function independently of people’s minds. Generally speaking, this would not be possible within mind-over-matter, because the mind that had struggled to produce the breakthrough would contain the strong mental networks that would be required to give material substance to that mental breakthrough. But the society being described in 2 Corinthians 10 has reached a point where such theft would be possible—for a short while.

Instead, Paul is expanding his own domain “with the hope that as your faith grows, we will be according to our sphere enlarged even more by you” (v.15). Hope is ‘expectation of what is sure or certain’. Cognitively speaking, hope is an expression of Exhorter thought. Hope is not a matter of wishful thinking but rather involves the unseen. As Paul says in Romans 8:24, “hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?” Similarly, faith is not blind faith but rather ‘being persuaded’. The verb grows means to ‘become greater in size and maturity’. It is found twice in 2 Corinthians: here, and back in 9:10. The previous reference talked about God multiplying the seed for sowing in order to ‘grow’ the fruit of righteousness. I mentioned there that righteousness and human experience use different dimensions: righteousness involves time and sequence while humans live within space and experience. Therefore, each facet of righteousness only affects a slice of human existence, and these various slices have to ‘become greater in size and maturity’ in order to provide for all facets of human existence. Similarly, one can see here that the Teacher understanding is present: faith is certain because it is based upon understanding; similarly, hope acquires its certainty as a result of understanding. However, hope and faith have to be expanded and grown in order to come visible within the human realm of Mercy experiences.

The second half of verse 15 talks about this expansion. The verb enlarged is used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘to make or declare great’. This enlarging is not happening randomly but rather ‘according to our sphere’. Sphere was used in verse 13 and means ‘a cane or reed used as a standard measure’. Looking at this cognitively, Paul is rationally convinced that his measuring standard can be applied to more areas. Saying this another way, he thinks that the rules of his game can be applied to more situations. Saying this still another way, he believes that the system of law that he has instituted as a legislator/apostle can be expanded to include more citizens. Similarly, I have become intellectually convinced that the theory of mental symmetry can be applied to more areas in greater depth. And each of these extensions adds another slice of human life to the understanding. Similarly, Paul hopes that his measuring standard can be extended ‘to abundance’ (v.15). And abundance is a slightly different version of the normal word which means ‘comprehensively all around’.

Verse 16 emphasizes Paul’s goal to extend his own domain rather than poach off the domain of others: “So as to preach the gospel even to the regions beyond you, and not to boast to the things prepared in the sphere of another.” (This is the literal translation from a footnote.) Beyond is used once in the New Testament and mean simply ‘beyond’. Preach the gospel is a single word that means ‘to announce good news’. Looking at this literally, Paul had already made a major leap by crossing over from Asia into Greece. He now wants to go even further than Corinth in his missionary journeys. Looking at this symbolically, Paul describes going further as going ‘beyond you’. Within matter-over-mind, distance is defined geographically; one goes beyond Corinth to perhaps Italy or Spain. Within mind-over-matter, distance would be defined personally; one would go beyond someone to another person. For instance, this happens on the Internet, because one clicks on a link on one page in order to go beyond that to another page. One goes beyond the webpage of one person in order to reach the webpage of another.

Paul is going further by using the same method that he used originally, which is to preach good news. Paul began by sharing Teacher understanding that promised beneficial Mercy results. He will extend his measuring standard by following this same process. Using the language of business, he grew his company by using research to develop products that help people. He will expand his company by continuing to develop products for a customer base that continues to grow through word-of-mouth. This may sound idealistic, and in today’s world of matter-over-mind it only happens some of the time. But it does happen, and in mind-over-matter it would become the primary method of growth.

The contrast is “to boast to the things prepared in the sphere of another”. In the Greek, the phrase ‘in the sphere of another’ comes first. Sphere means ‘measuring standard’, and another means ‘belonging to another person’. Thus, Paul is referring again to the specialization of someone else, specialization being defined as the area where some measuring standard can be applied. Going further, prepared means ‘ready, prepared’. And boast is the familiar word that means ‘having the right base of operation’. Looking at this cognitively, other people have developed other specializations in which they are prepared because they have the right base of operation. Paul will not intrude on the specializations of others.

Looking at this generally, this passage is describing the emergence of a new form of spiritual economy guided by the spiritual version of private enterprise in which the future equivalent of companies grow organically by developing technical areas of expertise that are capable of meeting personal needs.

An economy is held together by collective confidence in the marketplace. Similarly, a future spiritual economy would be held together by collective confidence in incarnation. In the words of Paul, “But he who boasts is to boast in the Lord” (v.16). The word boast is used twice in this verse and is the standard word that means ‘having the right base of operation’. The right base of operation for everyone is ‘in the realm of’ the Lord, and Lord refers to incarnation as a master to which one submits.

That is because incarnation ultimately holds everything together: “For it is not he who commends himself that is approved, but he whom the Lord commends” (v.17). The verb commends ‘refers to facts lining up with each other to support or commend something’. This describes order-within-complexity, an expression of Teacher thought. Using modern language, this describes a coherent system. Approved means ‘acceptable because genuine; validated, verified’. In other words, the ultimate test for genuineness is not isolated self-consistency but rather what incarnation regards as self-consistent. For instance, within current matter-over-mind, the laws of nature reflect the technical thinking of incarnation. Coming up with some self-consistent framework is not enough. Instead one must come up with a self-consistent framework that is also consistent with the structure of the universe. Using the language of philosophy, coherence is an insufficient standard for truth. Instead one must follow both coherence and correspondence. This principle would continue to exist within mind-over-matter, but instead of being indirectly consistent with incarnation via the laws of nature, one would be directly consistent with incarnation through the person of Jesus Christ.

Preparing a Bride 11:1-2

We saw several things happen in the previous section: First, technical specializations emerged, each guided by their own measurement standards. Second, technical specialization started to expand inappropriately, by reducing situations to numbers and measurement, and by using the ‘rulers’ of one specialization to measure other specializations. Third, technical specialists were starting to use technical thought to evaluate themselves and others.

Chapter 11 will describe what happens next. One can illustrate this partially from current society because Western civilization places an inordinate emphasis upon technical thought. Several things happen: First, a search for Teacher understanding becomes replaced by a desire to solve technical problems better than one’s neighbor. Using the language of Thomas Kuhn, revolutionary science becomes replaced by normal science. Second, people become judged by their ability to use technical thought. Third, the technical experts of the present will look back at the founders of their specialization and discover with horror that these founders did not use rigorous thought, which means that their edifice of rigorous logic is actually based upon a non-rigorous foundation.

Paul begins by saying that he will be using a form of thought which he thinks is foolish: “I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me.” The word wish is ‘used to express an unattainable wish’. Bear with means ‘still bearing up, even after going through the needed sequence’. And foolishness is based upon an adjective that means ‘lacking perspective because shortsighted’. Putting this together, Paul is adopting a strategy that works in the short-term but not in the long-term. He wishes that his audience would put up with this strategy over the long-term but he knows that this is an unattainable wish. However, he does know that “you are bearing with me”. In other words, he knows that his strategy will only work in the short term, but he also knows that his audience will put up with him as a person for much longer, even if he adopts a short-term strategy. That is because the appreciation that they have for Paul as a person will override the long-term consequences of what Paul is about to do.

Paul begins by emphasizing this personal bond: “For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy” (v.2). The word jealous means ‘to burn with zeal’. Using cognitive language, Paul is motivated by potent mental networks, and these mental networks are an expression of the TMN of God. This is not just a jealousy, but a godly jealousy.

The next phrase describes Paul’s jealousy using strongly emotional language: “for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin”. Betrothed is used once in the New Testament and means ‘to join, to fit together; to betroth a daughter to anyone’. Husband means a male human being; a man, husband’. Virgin means ‘a maiden, a virgin’. Pure means ‘free from ceremonial defilement, holy’. And present means ‘to place beside, to present’. When we were looking at delivering the financial donation, it was possible to interpret the passage literally. But in this case a literal interpretation is impossible. Paul must be talking symbolically, because ‘you’ is in plural and therefore refers to a group of people and not to a single girl. However, Paul also explicitly mentions one husband.

One can see that Paul really is ‘burning with zeal’ because he uses an analogy that involves the deepest possible personal emotions. But in this case, Paul’s goal is not to become emotionally closer to the believers. Instead, he wants them to become emotionally ‘married’ to a single, integrated concept of incarnation.

This may seem at first glance to be another example of religious self-denial expressing itself in poetic language: ‘I just want to give my life for God so that others can find Jesus’. However, even though the language is emotional, it is still a technically accurate description of what Paul the apostle/legislator has achieved.

Male thought uses technical thinking; female thought emphasizes mental networks. Achaia means ‘grief, trouble’, which indicates a focus upon female mental networks. The believers of Achaia have been ready to experience blessing in Mercy thought, but they lacked the rational understanding that was necessary to reach the desired goal; they had the right mental networks, but these were not combined with adequate technical thinking. Paul has used the research and development of Macedonia to teach Achaia how to go beyond focusing upon grief and trouble in Mercy thought to looking forward to blessing, as well as learning the rational skills that are required to reach and enjoy that blessing.

Using Paul’s analogy of a bride, Achaia is like a ‘dumb blonde’ who has the right heart but does not know how to think rationally. Paul picked her because she is a virgin who has been ‘saving herself for God’. Paul has been teaching this ‘dumb blonde’ how to be a ‘smart blonde’ in order to make her a ‘beautiful and intelligent blonde’ that Incarnation will find attractive. But now this ‘beautiful blonde’ is starting to flirt with other systems of male technical thought.

What does Paul get out of the deal? He gets the personal benefit of being able to participate as a citizen within this group that is the ‘bride of Christ’. Paul just said at the end of the previous section that all technical specializations are held together by a concept of incarnation. Thus, the best group to be a citizen of is the group that is attached directly to incarnation and not indirectly through some technical specialization.

For instance, the theory of mental symmetry started out as a specialized theory of cognitive styles. But it has grown to become a meta-theory that is capable of bringing order to other more specific theories. Living within a meta-theory would be personally more rewarding than living within some specialization. That is why Paul can have a deep emotional zeal for someone else’s marriage. Paul is not just acting as a legislator who is setting up some system of rules in which people can live. Instead, he is acting as a matchmaker who is preparing a system of life that would be suitable for the bride of Christ.

Led Astray Like Eve 11:3

Verse 3 describes Paul’s concern: “But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity [of devotion] to Christ.” Paul is referring here back to the Garden of Eden. The word serpent means ‘snake’ and is the same word that is used in Revelation 12 to describe Satan as ‘the serpent of old’. This serpent “deceived Eve by his craftiness”. The word deceived is an intensified verb used only once in 2 Corinthians which ‘means thoroughly taken – biting the bait that hides the hook.’ It ‘emphasizes the end-impact of deception’. The name Eve comes from a Hebrew word that means ‘life’. Looking at this cognitively, Eve describes the original mental networks of life. The name ‘Eve’ is only used twice in the New Testament: here, and in 1 Timothy 2:13. This implies that the reference to Eve is significant. Craftiness means ‘unscrupulous cunning that stops at nothing to achieve a selfish goal’.

My general hypothesis is that the serpent tempted Eve with a form of mysticism. I say this for several reasons: First, a serpent is visually a simple form of life without any details—it is basically a living string. Similarly, mysticism is also based in the simplest form of Teacher thought without any details—it adds Mercy identification to Teacher overgeneralization. Second, the mind naturally practices overgeneralization and identification when first developing. For instance, young children use overgeneralization when learning rules of grammar and practice identification when playing make-believe. Thus, it is Eve, the first expression of female thought, who will be naturally tempted with mysticism. Third, what the serpent says to Eve in Genesis 3:5 sounds like the promise of mysticism: “In the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’. Using cognitive language, Eve will have a transcendent experience with God in Teacher thought that will cause her to identify personally with a form of knowledge that transcends Mercy categories.

Eve was the first created woman within matter-over-mind. Paul has struggled as an apostle/legislator to create the first corporate intelligent female thought within mind-over-matter. That is why Paul is afraid that the Corinthians will be deceived as the serpent deceived Eve. Female thought naturally uses intuition, jumping directly from Mercy experiences to Teacher generalities. The temptation is to use feminine intuition in a manner that ignores rational thought, becoming in essence a ‘dumb blonde’.

For instance, Goop is a company owned by actress Gwyneth Paltrow. Quoting from the Wikipedia article, “Goop has faced criticism for promoting and selling products and treatments that have no scientific basis, lack efficacy, and are recognized by the medical establishment as harmful or as misleading.”

This kind of innocent female mind is susceptible to deception in which some nasty hook is hidden within the attractive package of a tasty, overgeneralized bait. And the previous section has described the emergence of various specializations of male technical thought that are using unscrupulous means to extend their domain.

Paul is worried that “your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity to Christ”. (The phrase ‘of devotion’ is not in the original Greek. ‘Devotion’ implies some sort of religious fervor based in Teacher overgeneralization and Mercy identification, which is precisely what Paul is trying to avoid.)

The word led astray ‘literally means waste away or degenerate, moving down from a higher level to a lower form’. And mind means ‘the mind, especially its final output of systematic understanding’. In other words, Paul is not talking about devotion. Instead he is scared that female thought will degrade from the higher level of rational Teacher understanding to the lower level of overgeneralized intuition. (A similar kind of mental degrading causes theologians to descend from rational analysis to religious mysticism.) Saying this more generally, female thought is naturally acquainted with Mercy feelings, but that is only part of the story. Instead, intelligent female thought is also capable of coming up with integrated understanding in Teacher thought that bridges the various specializations of male thought.

Paul describes this kind of intelligent female thought as ‘simplicity and purity to Christ’. Simplicity means ‘singleness, without folds, like a piece of cloth unfolded’. This describes Teacher order-within-complexity. Saying this another way, simplicity means no wrinkles. The word purity is used twice in the New Testament, both times in 2 Corinthians. It means ‘purity, even in inner make-up i.e. real integrity’. Putting these two words together, male thought can aspire to Teacher elegance while female thought can embody it. Notice that the preposition is to, which means ‘to and into’ and not ‘of’. This implies that Christ is not the source of this embodied elegance. Instead, it is being directed towards Incarnation.

Saying this more generally, incarnation is the legitimate husband of embodied elegance, but incarnation itself does not actually express this embodied elegance, because incarnation uses technical thought. This explains why the church is the bride of Christ and why Christ is the head of the church. The technical thinking of Christ protects the embodied elegance of the church. But it is the church that embodies this elegance and not Christ. Of course, this assumes that people within the church actually have a concept of Christ within abstract technical thought. Unfortunately, this does not really exist within the current church, because most theologians have been deceived by the craftiness of the serpent of mysticism. Saying this more bluntly, I have yet to encounter any theologian of any religion who does not ultimately worship and follow a God of mysticism. Many theologians use some rational thought, and some theologians use extensive rational thought, but I have found so far that there is always a core of mysticism. Such a core of mysticism is almost inevitable when living within matter-over-mind, but it will not be inevitable when rebuilding in the future within mind-over-matter. However, it will be a possible danger.

Receiving a Different Message 11:4

Verse 4 explains what might happen: “For if the one who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear [this] beautifully.” The NASB translates the first phrase as ‘If one comes and preaches another Jesus’, presenting this as a situation that might arise. But it also points out in a footnote that the literal translation is ‘if the one who comes preaches another Jesus’, indicating that this situation will happen, and Paul is hoping that the believers will respond properly when it does.

All three of these phrases refer to concrete thought: Jesus is the concrete side of incarnation, spirit resides within Mercy thought, and gospel is a message that promises good Mercy experiences. Looking at the details, preaches means ‘to preach or announce a message publicly and with conviction’. The word another refers to ‘another of the same kind; another of a similar type’. Deception combines a bait with a hook. This first stage describes the bait, because the Jesus that is being announced is another of the same kind. In other words, someone is proclaiming personal salvation with conviction, and this proclamation is similar to the message of personal salvation that Paul pronounced.

The differences lie in the second and third attributes, because in both cases the word different is used which means ‘another of a different kind’. The second attribute is ‘receiving a different spirit’. With the first attribute, both alternatives were being accepted passively from someone else: Paul is proclaiming a Jesus, and someone else is proclaiming a similar Jesus. The word receive means ‘actively lay hold of to take or receive’. And in both cases the believers are themselves receiving the spirit. Thus, this is not just passively imbibing of some spirit but rather choosing to follow some Platonic form within Mercy thought.

Looking at this cognitively, one of the initial stages for female cognitive development is to ‘decide to think for myself’, but this is not intelligent decision-making. Instead the female mind will choose as a matter of will to pursue some mental network regardless of whether it makes sense or not. In this case a different kind of spirit is being chosen. Mysticism leads to a different kind of spirit than rational incarnation. Mysticism projects the attitude ‘I cannot understand; no one can understand; stop discussing the subject rationally.’ In contrast, incarnation projects the attitude ‘I do not understand; it is possible to understand; please discuss the subject rationally in order to help me gain more understanding.’ These are radically different spirits, and when one is choosing one of these attitudes, then one will automatically reject the other.

The third attitude is “a different gospel which you have not accepted”. Accepted means ‘to receive in a welcoming or receptive way’. With the second attitude, two different kinds of spirit were being received: one spirit from Paul, and a different kind of spirit from another. With the third attitude, the text says that the good news from Paul was received in a welcoming way, but it does not mention welcoming the new and different kind of good news. Looking at this cognitively, incarnation can preach a good news that can be received in a welcoming manner, because incarnation talks about content and one can live in content. In contrast, mysticism is incapable of being received in a welcoming manner. Mysticism qualifies as ‘good news’ because practicing mysticism will lead in Mercy thought to the pleasant feeling of being one with God. Welcoming mysticism would bring mysticism into the realm of human facts. However, mysticism is incapable of being welcomed because it is based in overgeneralization, which by its very nature cannot handle the realm of human facts.

This may sound like philosophical quibbling. It is not. Instead, it is a fundamental shortcoming of mysticism. For instance, Martin Buber, a Jewish mystic, describes mysticism as a salvation that cannot be welcomed to human reality: “As we reach the meeting with a simple Thou on our lips, so with the Thou on our lips we leave it and return to the world. That before which, in which, out of which, and into which we live, even the mystery, has remained what it was. It has become present to us and in its presentness has proclaimed itself to us as salvation; we have ‘known’ it, but we acquire no knowledge from it which might lessen or moderate its mysteriousness. We have come near to God, but not nearer to unveiling being or solving its riddle. We have felt release, but not discovered a ‘solution’... This is the eternal revelation that is present here and now. I know of no revelation and believe in none whose primal phenomena is not precisely this. I do not believe in a self-naming of God, a self-definition of God before men. The Word of revelation is I am that I am” (I and Thou, p.112). Notice the strong language that Buber uses to emphasize that mysticism brings a ‘salvation’ which remains mystery and does not lead to any form of revealed knowledge.

Paul is afraid that “you bear [this] beautifully”. The verb bear was used in verse 1 and means ‘still bearing up, even after going through the needed sequence’. Beautiful means ‘viewed as good, advantageous, appealing; i.e. as winsomely attractive’. If one wants an illustration of what this means, one simply has to look at the bulletin board of today’s typical liberal church, or glance at other forms of poetical spiritual oneness which are being lovingly embraced by female thought today.

Meeting Technical Standards 11:5-6

But why? Why would intelligent women listen to religious garbage? Verses 5-6 provide the answer. In verse 5 Paul says, “for I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.” This implies that other apostles are arriving on the scene with greater technical expertise. An apostle is someone who introduces a major breakthrough. The word translated most eminent means ‘conferring benefit, i.e. for the sake of betterment, improvement, extending benefit’. This describes a fundamental attribute of technical thought, which takes some idea and improves it. Technical thought is not good at coming up with ideas in the first place. But it is the best at improving and optimizing existing ideas and products. In other words, a new group of pioneers is showing up who are using technical thought to bring major improvements. This naturally happens whenever some technical field emerges. In the words of Thomas Kuhn, revolutionary science will be followed by normal science. Revolutionary science comes up with a paradigm; normal science then uses technical thought to improve and optimize within this paradigm.

The word consider means ‘reason to a logical conclusion’. Thus, Paul is using rational thought to compare himself with the new technical developers. Inferior means ‘coming behind and therefore left out’. And in the least means ‘no one, nothing – literally, not even one’. Putting this together, Paul is comparing himself rationally with the new set of technical experts and he is concluding that they have not left him behind in the dust. In fact, he has not been left behind in any area at all.

So if this is the case, then why are the new technical experts being welcomed? Verse 6 provides the answer. In brief, Paul does not project an aura of technical expertise and he does not use the right technical language: “But even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge”. The word translated unskilled means ‘an amateur, and unprofessional man, a layman’ and is ‘used of a person who conspicuously lacks education or status’. The word translated speech is ‘logos’, which refers to TMNs of understanding rather than to specific words. In other words, Paul is not using the correct technical language; he is not projecting the mental networks of professional expertise. Going further, knowledge refers to experiential knowledge. Thus, when it comes to experiential knowledge, Paul is not lacking in any technical expertise.

For instance, the theory of mental symmetry tends to be instinctively rejected as amateurish by technical experts because I do not have the right technical pedigree. But when it comes to experiential knowledge of cognitive principles, I keep finding that it is the technical experts with the impeccable credentials who tend to be the experiential amateurs. They often have no clue what it means to have an experiential knowledge of truth, but rather think that technical skills are sufficient. This may work when studying the physical universe within matter-over-mind. But it does not work when studying the mind. And it would not work in the future when attempting to use technical thought within mind-over-matter.

Paul explains that the evidence backs him up: “in every way we have made [this] evident to you in all things” (v.6). The word ‘this’ gives the impression that Paul is referring to specific facts. But ‘this’ is not in the original Greek. Instead, a more literal translation would be ‘but in every way, we have been made manifest in all things to you’. The verb translated we have been made manifest means to ‘illumine, make manifest or visible’. ‘Every way’ and ‘all things’ are the same Greek adjective, which ‘focuses on the parts making up the whole’. Looking at this cognitively, Paul is producing exactly what mysticism is incapable of generating. Mysticism cannot go beyond generalities to real facts. Paul, in contrast, has gone beyond generalities to real facts in every way in a detailed manner. Mysticism identifies personally with God in some vague manner. Paul has expressed his personal character within reality in a detailed manner. Applying this to mental symmetry, mysticism generates vague feelings of being one with God, while mental symmetry describes how a rational understanding of God can be combined with the path of personal transformation in a detailed manner that applies to the facts of reality.

But the technical experts have the aura of expertise. They use the right technical lingo. Immature female thought does not care about details and is incapable of evaluating details. But it will be emotionally impressed by an aura of expertise and by words that sound technical. For instance, I am reminded of a comment made to me by one lady whose husband was a respected professor. When referring to another respected professor of theology, she said: “I love to hear him speak even though I do not understand what he is saying.” (The professor she was referring to is the one who recommended that I read Martin Buber’s I and Thou.)

Paul says in verse 7 that he has deliberately chosen not to generate an aura of professional expertise: “Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted.” The word sin means ‘to miss the mark’. The word humbling means ‘to make low, to humble’. Exalted means ‘to lift or raise up, to exalt, uplift’. Paul deliberately behaved with low emotional status while emotionally lifting up his fellow citizens in order to personally experience the benefits of his legislation. Is this path of Paul now going to miss the mark? Are the believers going to reject Paul in favor of the new technical experts with their highfalutin’ words?

Preaching without Charge 11:7-11

Paul continues, “I preached the gospel of God to you without charge” (v.7). The word ‘preached’ here is not the word ‘proclaimed’ that was used in verse 4. Instead, the word gospel, which means good news, is used twice, as a noun and as a verb. Thus, Paul ‘gospeled the gospel’. He did not just proclaim a message of good news, but also spread this message using a methodology of good news. This good news that was good-news-ed is described as ‘of the God’, which means that Paul is being guided by the TMN of a universal concept of God, and not by the TMN of some specific technical specialization.

Paul delivered this message without charge, which means ‘as a free gift, without payment’. Paul did this because he wanted to receive a reward from ‘the God’, and Matthew 6:1-4 makes it clear that if one wishes to receive a reward from God, then one must not receive a reward from people. (This does not mean that one should always practice altruism. Instead, altruism is critical when entering some new field in which one requires some new benefit from God. Paul wants to receive the new benefit from God of living as a citizen within his legislation.)

Technical thought, by its very nature, will tend to ignore these deeper motivations. That is because technical thought specializes, and technical thought finds it easier to function with less emotional issues. Therefore, technical thought will tend to leave an emotional vacuum: It will ignore the TMN of ‘the God’ by specializing and it will ignore MMNs of personal identity by remaining objective. This emotional vacuum will naturally be filled by self-promotion, personal rewards, academic status—and mysticism, which immature female thought will tend ‘to receive in a welcoming and receptive way’.

In verse 8, Paul points out that he treated the church of Achaia differently than other churches: “I robbed other churches by taking wages [from them] to serve you.” The word translated robbed is only used once in the New Testament and means ‘to plunder, exercising the right of seizure to strip and take spoil, like seizing spoils of war’. Taking means ‘lay hold by aggressively accepting what is available’. And wages means ‘the purchase of meat or food’. Finally, serve means ‘deaconing’, which refers to Server actions.

I think that I have done something similar in my research. The theory of mental symmetry could be developed in many directions. But I have specifically chosen to emphasize Christianity and biblical exegesis. I have done this by intellectually plundering other fields of thought—acquiring principles from these other fields and then applying those principles to theology and personal transformation. I did not steal from these other fields in the manner mentioned at the end of chapter 10, because mental symmetry can legitimately claim to be a meta-theory that rules over these other fields. This gives mental symmetry ‘the right of seizure to strip and take spoil’. However, my underlying focus has still been to strip other fields in order to serve Christianity.

Notice exactly what is being taken and what is being given. What is being taken is ‘the purchase of meat or food’. In other words, the goal is not to plunder other fields in order to get intellectually rich, but rather to strip other fields in order to stay intellectually alive. What is being given is ‘service’. The principle of righteousness demands that Teacher understanding be given stability by Server actions. Therefore, the way that one behaves will act as a service to some theory or concept of God in Teacher thought. I have chosen to act in a way that gives stability to the Teacher words and theories of Christianity and theology. This is not a trivial point, because it means not following the methodology of other fields, and when one does not follow approved methodology in a postmodern environment, then one will automatically be excluded.

I suspect that this passage is describing something similar. If Paul’s goal is to ‘present a pure virgin to Christ’, then it would make sense to focus one’s efforts upon the best possible candidate. Similarly, my goal is to extend the partial incarnation of science and technology into the subjective realm. Looking at this from purely a historical perspective, Christianity is the form of subjective thought that historically gave birth to science and technology. Therefore, if one wishes to extend science and technology into the subjective, then it makes sense to examine Christianity.

Paul continues by explaining his attitude toward the Corinthian church: “and when I was present with you and was in need, I was not a burden to anyone” (v.9). Present is the same word that was used in chapter 10 to indicate being physically present. In need means ‘fall behind, and lacking, fall short, suffer need, am inferior to’, and this word was used in verse 5 when Paul described himself as ‘not inferior to’ the professional apostles. The word burden is used three times in the New Testament: once in this chapter, and twice in the next chapter. It literally means ‘to numb from up to down’ and was ‘used as an ancient medical term meaning stupefy, literally, make numb, paralyze’.

This is a rather strange way of describing behavior. But I have done something similar. I have often felt that Christian thought does not meet the professional standards of technical specialization. In fact, one of my main goals has been to bring theology up to the level of professional rigor that one finds in scientific thought. Hence, these essays. But, if one attempted to interact face-to-face with Christians at a professional level, then this would essentially paralyze thought, because the average lay Christian does not grasp what it means to approach Christianity in a technically rigorous manner, while the average theologian is using the wrong kind of technically rigorous thought to analyze Christianity. A similar principle would probably apply in the future within mind-over-matter, because one would want to focus upon a group that has developed healthy mental networks, but this desired attribute of healthy emotional thought would become paralyzed if one tried to force technical rigor upon such an environment.

Instead, “When the brethren came from Macedonia they fully supplied my need, and in everything I kept myself from being a burden to you” (v.9). The ‘brethren’ refer literally to the two men who accompanied Titus with the financial donation. We interpreted these brethren as referring to some form of research and development, because this matches the description of these two brothers. Macedonia was interpreted as a description of some form of science and technology, based upon the description of the Macedonian church. The word need is the noun form of ‘in need’ used earlier in the verse, which means ‘that which is lacking’. The word fully supplied means ‘to fill up by adding to’. This verb is only used twice in the New Testament: here, and back in 9:12. I mentioned previously that it does not mean providing everything, but rather refers to a topping up in which one adds to what is already being provided in order to fill up the supply.

Looking at this personally, I have found that when one needs to add technical rigor to Christianity, then one can use the thinking of research and development to top up the intellectual content of Christianity. For instance, most of the examples in this essay do not come from Christianity but rather come from various aspects of science and technology. Scientific thought does not provide all the needs because science tends to ignore God and personal identity. That is why I am focusing upon Christianity rather than upon scientific thought. Christianity has the right content. But it lacks the intellectual rigor. Therefore, it meets the need incompletely. This lack can be topped up by turning to scientific thought, and I have found it helpful to occasionally make forays into various aspects of secular research in order to add technical rigor.

Continuing with verse 9, the word translated not a burden is used once in the New Testament and combines ‘not’ with ‘weight, burden’. Looking again at personal experience, I have tried over the years not to impose my burden of translating Christianity into cognitive language onto the Christians around me. This relates to the idea of paralyzing thought, or to use another Biblical metaphor, pouring new wine into old wineskins. What really matters is following God in a transformative way with personal integrity. That is the bottom line, and not highfalutin’ technical language. Even if one can use technical language to describe and analyze the process of following God in a transformative way, throwing this technical language at those who are sincerely trying to follow God will burden them with a weight that cannot be carried, and freeze the growth that is happening.

This concept is conveyed in the final phrase of verse 9. The NASB translates this as ‘and will continue to do so’, but it explains in a footnote that it is literally ‘and I will keep’. The word keep means to ‘watch over, to guard… keep intact’. The verb ‘keep’ is found twice in verse 9, and these two occurrences are separated by a single ‘and’. A more literal rendition would be, ‘in everything unburdensome myself to you I-kept and will-keep’. Thus, Paul is being motivated by a strong desire to preserve something valuable. Using the analogy of wineskins, Paul is doing his best not to pour new wine into old wineskins, because he wants to preserve the existing wine and the wineskins. Looking again at this personally, present-day Christianity may have an inadequate formulation, but it contains many individuals who are following a path of personal transformation. This is valuable and needs to be kept intact until it can be presented as a ‘pure virgin’ to Christ.

In verse 10 Paul describes his attitude: “As the truth of Christ is in me, this boasting of mine will not be stopped in the regions of Achaia.” Looking first at the second half of this verse, boasting is a variant of ‘confidence in an adequate basis’. Sealed up means ‘to fence in, to stop’. Regions refers to ‘a small geographical division, district, or territory. And Achaia is specifically mentioned, which means ‘grief, trouble’. I am not sure whether this fencing in is happening within Achaia or to the region of Achaia. However, placing verse 10 within the larger context provides a possible cognitive interpretation. Paul is talked about treating Achaia different than other churches in order to preserve some qualities of the Achaian church. Keeping something within ‘a keep’ is a form of fencing in, because Paul is guarding or keeping something that exists within the regions of Achaia. In contrast, Paul says that his boasting will not be fenced in to this region.

Looking at this from a personal perspective, I have found that there is a natural tendency to avoid being too vocal about protecting sincere subjective belief. When one is attempting to be more rigorous, then it is easy to feel ashamed of naïve Christian trust. Going the other way, it can feel insincere to illustrate deep principles of Christianity using science and technology. After all, what does the consumer society have to do with following Christ? In both cases, it is important to remain emotionally convinced and not adopt an attitude of muted compartmentalization. If one continues on this path, it will eventually become clear to sincere Christians that science and technology do provide valid illustrations of Christian thought, and it will also eventually become clear to academic thinkers that it is possible to evaluate Scripture in a more rigorous manner.

Turning now to the first half of verse 10, truth means ‘true to fact’ and ‘is synonymous for reality as the opposite of illusion’. Thus, ‘truth of Christ’ would describe universal truth that expresses itself in reality because it is based in the character of incarnation. Paul says that this truth of Christ ‘is in me’, which means that he has built his personal identity upon universal truths of incarnation. This internal structure is guiding his boasting.

Looking at this personally, my primary motivation is not to attack or support biblical Christianity, or to attack or support scientific thought. Instead, the theory of mental symmetry has caused a concept of incarnation to form within my mind. I value sincere Christianity because it describes and embodies core aspects of incarnation, and I value honest science because it pursues the thinking of incarnation. Saying this more generally, an internalized, personalized concept of incarnation makes it possible to bridge science and religion in an integrated manner.

Paul compares two reasons for his attitude in verse 11: “Why? Because I do not love you? God knows [I do].” (‘I do’ is not in the original Greek.) The word translated ‘love’ is agape. Thus, those who are trying to follow God in a sincere—but intellectually inadequate—manner will naturally feel that bridging subjective sincerity with technical thought is not an example of ‘agape love’. In their eyes, ‘agape love’ means having mental networks of godly devotion, and these mental networks should not be contaminated by technical reasoning. Paul’s answer is that ‘the God knows’. The word knows here is ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. The sincere believer has experiential knowledge, but empirical knowledge tends to be missing. Paul is observing the situation from an objective perspective guided by the TMN of a universal God in Teacher thought. Speaking again from personal experience, many Christians who know me tend to think that I am lacking in ‘agape love’ because I am using too much rational, technical thought. But I am being guided emotionally by the TMN of a concept of God based in facts that bridge secular and religious thought. And when technical thinkers convey the emotional impression that one is being insufficiently rigorous, or religious believers convey the emotional impression that one is being insufficiently reverent, then one has to respond by holding emotionally to the Teacher mental network of an integrated concept of God.

Dealing with Technical Experts 11:12

Paul is also trying to think ahead in order to eliminate a potential problem: “But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be found just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting” (v.12). Cut off means ‘to cut off, cut down, cut out’. Opportunity means ‘a pretext or launching point to assert an idea’ and is used twice in this verse. Boasting in this case is the familiar ‘having the right base of operation to deal successfully with a matter’. Found means ‘find, learn, discover, especially after searching’. And as is a comparative which means ‘according to the manner in which, in the degree that’. Thus, Paul sees that others might step in and appear like Paul. So Paul is continuing what he is doing in order to make sure that this does not happen. Saying this another way, there is a chance that Paul’s plan might be taken over by others. Therefore, Paul is behaving in a way that ensures that this does not happen.

So what exactly is Paul doing and how will this help? First, he is not being a burden. He is not imposing himself or his way of thinking upon his audience. Instead, he is guarding what is valuable. Saying this more generally, he is treating them with a certain spirit and being respectful of their spirits. Second, he is not allowing his boasting to be fenced in. Instead of dividing between the mental networks of the sincere believers and the technical thinking of the new apostles, he is publicly emoting about these two in an integrated manner.

These two factors will address the two differences mentioned in verse 4, which were a different spirit and a different gospel. First, the new experts have a different spirit. Paul wants to make this difference clear to the believers by demonstrating his spirit. Technical experts do not respect thinking that they regard as non-rigorous but rather emotionally belittle it. Technical experts thrive on academic respect and they find it difficult to continue when their work is not properly acknowledged and rewarded. Paul, by continuing to do what he is doing, is setting up mental networks of unspoken expectation, mental networks which the typical technical expert will find abhorrent. The end result is that technical experts will smell wrong to the believers, and I mean this almost literally, because smell is a way of directly triggering mental networks.

Second, the new experts also have a different gospel, which involves a fundamental split between technical thought and mental networks. Lesser needs are being met using technical thought while core emotional needs that cannot be met by technical thought are being satisfied through some sort of existential leap of faith into mysticism. Paul is counteracting this with an emotional attitude of boasting that refuses to be fenced in. This emotional attitude is critical. That is because technical thought is ultimately willing to admit that it is incapable of meeting core emotional needs and that one has to find meaning in religious experience. (For instance, I just heard a talk by a visiting scholar to the local Christian graduate school who said precisely this.) However, this emotional need will be described and analyzed using technical language while the mystical ecstasy itself will be experienced in private. In fact, mystical ecstasy is, by definition, a private experience which cannot be connected with the real world. (As opposed to ‘praise and worship’ which functions publicly.) Therefore, saying that technical thought and mental networks need to be integrated—in a manner that publicly emotes—will smell wrong to the technical apostle.

Going the other way, if one uses technical language to tell the sincere believer that one needs to integrate technical thought with mental networks, then this will not work. That is because the sincere believer will not understand the technical language but rather regard these words as mystery, perpetuating the split. But if one continually conveys the attitude that technical thought and mental networks need to be integrated, then that will communicate, and when a technical expert comes in and says something different then it will smell wrong.

Verse 12 says that the technical experts want to be “found just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting”. In other words, those who use technical thought within some field will claim that they are following in the footsteps of those who pioneered this field. But they are not, because they are using a different mental strategy. Instead of applying truth and embodying it in order to live within this truth, they are exploring aspects of this truth using technical thought. Saying this more bluntly, many academic tomes have been written about Christian doctrine by technical experts who know the Bible with great technical rigor but have no idea what it means to apply the message of the Bible. I am not saying that it is wrong to use technical thought to analyze the Bible. We are using extensive technical thought to analyze the Bible in these essays. What is wrong is to use technical thought in a compartmentalized, objective manner. That is why I keep pointing out connections between one area and another in these essays as well as giving personal illustrations.

False Apostles 11:13-14

Verse 13 describes the true nature of these technical apostles: “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.” The word false apostle is only used once in the New Testament. It combines the word ‘apostle’ with the word pseudo which means ‘lying, false’. Looking at this cognitively, an apostle who uses technical thought exclusively is, by definition, a false apostle. That is because an apostle is someone who comes up with a major breakthrough involving God and personal transformation. Technical thought, in contrast, improves and optimizes, and improving is the opposite of making a major breakthrough. Going further, technical thought, by its very nature, tends to avoid emotional issues such as God and personal transformation. A form of incremental thought that naturally avoids God and personal transformation cannot make a major breakthrough involving God and personal transformation. Using the language of Thomas Kuhn, an apostle practices revolutionary science, while normal science is characterized by technical thought. Revolutionary science is different than normal science.

Applying this to mysticism, a person will often experience mysticism as an emotional breakthrough. The mind will struggle to bring unity to thought and then suddenly experience the feeling of oneness with God and the universe. However, this is not a breakthrough to rational understanding, but rather a breaking apart of rational thought. The mind is regressing to a more childish form of thought. That is because overgeneralization and identification are characteristics of immature thinking. This will not lead to further understanding of the character of God, but rather to the insistence that one cannot understand the character of God. Therefore, even though mysticism can feel like a major spiritual breakthrough, it is actually a pseudo-apostle.

Moving on to the second phrase, the word deceitful is used once in the New Testament and means ‘advertising the bait and concealing the hook’. The word deceived that was encountered before ‘emphasizes the end-impact of deception’. ‘Deceitful’ in this verse focuses upon the false advertising. Worker means ‘a workman or laborer’. In other words, these technical experts are hard at work. They are not merely talking without doing. But there is an inherent false advertising in their labor. Thomas Kuhn describes the inherent false advertising present in normal science: “The scientific enterprise as a whole does from time to time prove useful, open up new territory, display order, and test long-accepted belief. Nevertheless, the individual engaged on a normal research problem is almost never doing any one of these things. Once engaged, his motivation is of a rather different sort. What then challenges him is the conviction that, if only he is skilful enough, he will succeed in solving a puzzle that no one before has solved or solved so well. Many of the greatest scientific minds have devoted all of their professional attention to demanding puzzles of this sort” (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p.38).

Summarizing, science proclaims that it follows the scientific method, which means gathering data and then building and testing hypotheses. However, science actually spends most of its time solving puzzles. Translating this into cognitive language, science claims to be a search for new Teacher theories. In fact, most science uses technical thought to explore existing Teacher theories. Using religious language, science claims to be practicing a form of apostleship, but in fact it emphasizes technical thought while de-emphasizing following God and being personally transformed. I am not suggesting that science is a fraud. Science is a legitimate master at the task of solving technical problems, and science works very hard to solve technical problems. But claiming to search for breakthroughs in fundamental understanding while actually solving technical problems is false advertising, especially when the technical expert claims to be a better apostle than the real apostle.

I should also point out that there are currently some extenuating circumstances. First, we live within matter-over-mind, and one must use technical thought to analyze how the physical universe functions. Technical thought would have a less fundamental role in a future realm of mind-over-matter. Second, there currently is no integrated understanding of the subjective. Thus, science with its technical thinking is presently the primary source of rational Teacher understanding. In contrast, an integrated understanding of the subjective would be absolutely crucial to living within a future realm of mind-over-matter. Nevertheless, even if one considers these extenuating circumstances, current science is still practicing a form of false advertising by claiming to practice apostleship when it is actually using technical thought to solve puzzles.

The third phrase is “disguising themselves as apostles of Christ”. The word disguising means ‘change the outward appearance’. It is used five times in the New Testament, with three of these occurrences here in verses 13-15. In other words, the outward appearance of being an apostle of Christ is being adopted, but not the inner substance. Repeating what has already been stated several times, a concept of incarnation is based in technical thought and that Christ refers to the abstract side of technical thought. The primary difference between Christ and science is that Christ extends beyond abstract technical thought to include the TMN of a concept of God. Using theological language, Christ is ‘the living word who is with God and who is God’. In contrast, science uses abstract technical thought in a specialized manner that spends most of its time solving technical puzzles while ignoring universal understanding in Teacher thought. Going the other way, the primary difference between Jesus and technology is that technology saves things while Jesus saves people. The end result is that becoming a technical expert will naturally cause a person to disguise oneself as an apostle of Christ, because one is using the thinking of incarnation in a peripheral manner without applying it to core issues. That is why I keep referring to science and technology as partial illustrations of incarnation.

Verse 14 makes an even stronger statement: “No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” The word wonder means ‘a wonder, evoking emotional astonishment or gaping at the marvel’. If something is ‘no wonder’, then this means that it is not something extraordinary but rather an expression of known principles. Science has gone to great lengths over the centuries to reduce Christianity and other religions to the level of ‘no wonder’ by using universal natural laws to explain them. Paul is saying that the deception and false apostleship of science are also a matter of ‘no wonder’. One should not regard this as something amazing but rather as a natural expression of universal cognitive principles.

The word Satan means ‘adversary’. Satan is ‘disguising himself as an angel of light’. We saw that disguising means to change one’s outer appearance. The word angel means ‘messenger’, and can refer to either a human messenger or an angelic being who lives within the Teacher realm of messages. The word ‘angel’ is used twice in 2 Corinthians: here, and in 12:7. Light means ‘light, a source of light, radiance’.

This verse is not suggesting that science is Satanic. Instead, the emphasis of this verse is that Satan himself is somehow showing up. Looking at this cognitively, when one emphasizes technical thought while downplaying universal Teacher understanding and subjective Mercy identity, then this will create an emotional void, and that emotional void will naturally tend to be filled by something adversarial which masquerades as the light of integrated understanding. There will be the surface appearance of an angel of light—of an abstract (messages by definition involve abstract thought and angel means messenger) search for the light of Teacher understanding. But hidden underneath will be an adversarial (Satan means adversary) nature of tribalistic MMNs vying for status.

Servants of Satan 11:15

Saying this more simply, there is a natural tendency for science and technology to become the servants of dictators who project a façade of unity while practicing war. This is partly because both of these are disguising themselves in a similar manner. Technical science is disguising itself as a search for Teacher illumination, while satanic dictators are disguising themselves as messengers of Teacher illumination.

Verse 15 moves from Satan to his servants: “Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.” The word translated surprising is used 243 times in the New Testament, and this is the only time that the NASB translates it as ‘surprising’. The Greek word is ‘mega’ and actually means ‘large, great, in the widest sense’, and the KJV translates it as ‘great’. ‘Mega’ has to do with Teacher domain, because something that is larger has a greater Teacher domain and thus generates greater Teacher emotion. If something is ‘not great’, this means that it is not a source of Teacher generality; it is following the rules of the system, and not trying to exalt itself above the system.

The word servants is used twice in this verse, and is the familiar word ‘deacon’. This word tells us two things: First, it emphasizes the idea of acting under authority, consistent with being ‘not great’. In contrast, someone who is great is not being a servant. Second, it indicates that the focus is upon Server actions. This is backed up by the word righteousness, which indicates Server actions guided by a Teacher understanding.

The question in this verse is who is being served. Are these people servants of Satan or are they servants of righteousness? Looking at this cognitively, which Teacher theory is more fundamental, the Teacher theory driving righteousness or the Teacher theory of disguising? Verse 14 says that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Verse 15 says that his servants are disguising themselves as servants of righteousness. This reminds me of an old joke about Communism: ‘We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us’. Satan the leader has the surface appearance of Teacher understanding, while his servants have the surface appearance of following a Teacher understanding in righteousness.

For instance, this combination describes what is known as the military-industrial complex, which Wikipedia defines as ‘an informal alliance between the nation’s military and the defense industry that supplies it’. On the surface, both government and the military are illustrations of Teacher order and structure. They have the appearance of an angel of light. The defense industry also has the appearance of scientific research and development. It acts like a servant to the righteousness of natural law. But both of these are disguising their true nature which lies underneath. A military exists for the prime reason of overcoming adversaries in an adversarial manner. Everything is ultimately seen as a potential threat or a potential enemy. This is fundamentally satanic, because Satan means adversary. The righteousness of the defense industry is also a façade, because the ultimate purpose of the R&D is to develop high-tech weapons that will destroy Teacher order-within-complexity. And disguising is also a fundamental property of both military and the defense industry. Language is disguised: one is not killing, one is eliminating a threat. Weapons are disguised so that they will not be recognized and taken out by the enemy. Technology is disguised in order to keep technological breakthroughs from the enemy. Plans are disguised so that one can catch the enemy off guard. Programs and knowledge are disguised in order to prevent spies from stealing knowledge. The horror of war is disguised with fancy uniforms and shiny weapons. And the underlying problem is one of disguising: TMNs of rational understanding are being used to transform the mind peripherally while leaving fundamental childish MMNs of war and tribalism intact.

Within current matter-over-mind, there is no complete solution to this problem, because any attempt to totally transform the mind will butt up against the fundamental problem that matter is over mind. But the fact still remains that leaders in comfortable surroundings are giving orders to maim and murder humans, while researchers in comfortable surroundings are using rational thought to optimize the maiming and murdering of humans. Such a combination can only be described as Satan masquerading as an angel of light.

Verse 15 finishes by saying about the servants: “whose end will be according to their deeds”. The word ‘end’ is telos, which means ‘consummation, the end-goal, purpose, such as closure with all its results’. Deeds means ‘to work, accomplish—a work or worker who accomplishes something’. In other words, what really matters is what the Server actions are accomplishing. The servants will end up in a state that reflects what they have accomplished. For instance, what is the military-industrial complex really accomplishing? Is it building and preserving societal order or is it destroying democracy? Is it leading to greater freedom or is it restricting personal freedom? In other words, forget about all the disguises and simply look at what is being accomplished in reality. That is what eventually counts, and that will determine the final fate of the surface servants of righteousness. Thus, one cannot make a blanket condemnation of all employees within the defense establishment and declare them to be servants of Satan. One also cannot make a blanket condemnation of all UFO aliens who cooperate with such humans. Instead, everyone within such a system will eventually be judged at an individual level based upon what was accomplished as an individual.

Unveiling the Disguises 11:16

In verse 16 Paul steps back again and examines his thinking: “Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if [you do], receive me even as foolish, so that I also may boast a little.” The word translated think ‘directly reflects the personal perspective of the person making the subjective judgment call’. In other words, this is a matter of personal opinion. Foolish means ‘lacking perspective because short-sighted’. The word foolishness appears three times in Chapter 11 (and only one other time in the New Testament), but this is the first time that the adjective ‘fool’ is used in 2 Corinthians and it occurs twice in this verse. The NASB translates these both as ‘foolish’, but the original Greek says ‘should think me to be a fool’ and ‘receive me as a fool’. Being a fool is more personal than foolishness.

Putting this into context, Chapter 11 has been dealing so far with a problem at a peripheral level. Paul has been comparing his expertise with the professional expertise of the technical apostles. He has been engaging in foolishness and he has been trying to circumvent the problem by his behavior. In verses 13-15 the professionalism was revealed to be a façade that was hiding an underlying adversarial nature. The confrontation now becomes personal. Paul becomes a fool, he describes how the believers are being personally treated, and he responds by describing his personal experiences.

Looking at verse 11 in more detail, Paul says in the first phrase that people should not form the personal opinion that he is a short-sighted person. The second phrase says that even if they do think that he is only focusing on the short-term, they should still receive him. The word receive means to ‘receive in a welcoming or receptive way’. This same verb was used in verse 4 when talking about different good news which the believers did not ‘receive’. Verse 4 described three contrasts, and each contrast is a little different. In the first phrase, two similar Jesuses are being preached. In the second phrase, two different spirits are being received. In the third phrase, receiving good news from Paul is being compared with different good news—but it does not say that this different good news is being received. In verse 16, Paul is telling the believers to receive him, even if he is a fool. That is because he is now dealing with the problem at the level of existence itself rather than at the more peripheral level of content.

This explanation may sound complicated but the issue itself is fairly simple. Anyone who is wearing a disguise must not reveal his true nature. Such a person dare not be ‘received in a welcoming or receptive way’ because this personal interaction will reveal the true nature behind the disguise. Paul . We if reveal his true nature; the professional apostles must not—especially if they become servants of Satan. That is why I say that one is now dealing with the problem at the level of existence. At this point it is of secondary importance whether Paul is or is not a short-sighted fool. Instead what matters is that he can open up his personal life to the believers while the professional apostles cannot.

Looking at the problem behind the problem, mysticism performs the ultimate ‘disguising as an angel of light. Angel means ‘messenger’, and a message implies meaning and content. Mysticism claims to bring the light of spiritual en-light-enment. But the general Teacher theory of mysticism is the overgeneralization that ‘All is one’. And an overgeneralization cannot handle facts. Looking at a simple example, if I say that it always rains on the weekend, then I will not appreciate it when someone else points out that it was sunny last Saturday. Mysticism is the ultimate overgeneralization, because it asserts that everything fits together without providing any details. As the ultimate overgeneralization, mysticism cannot handle any facts. (If mysticism has to contend with facts, then it will assert that it transcends all of these facts in a mysterious manner.) In other words, mysticism must disguise itself as an angel of light because it can only provide its light by contradicting existence as an angel; it can only maintain the overgeneralization that ‘all is one’ by insisting that it transcends all messages.

This is not just a philosophical problem, because mysticism becomes the great enabler within which other kinds of disguises can flourish. One dare not expose someone’s disguise when one’s concept of God itself depends upon the concept of disguises. One can peel back a person’s true nature to some extent, but one cannot go too far, because that would reveal the entire edifice to be a façade. For instance, we may complain about the secret sins of pastors and priests, but if these secrets were fully exposed, then we would lose the sense of mystery upon which religious ritual depends.

As far as I can tell, this is the primary factor that stops most Christians from exploring the theory of mental symmetry. They are scared at a gut level that nothing will remain if too much rational thought is used to analyze Christianity. They need to maintain a sense of mystery, because they ultimately believe in a mystical God. One cannot simply choose to abandon a sense of mystery. Instead, one must use rational thought to construct a valid Teacher concept of God and then step-by-step choose to follow this concept of God.

In the coming verses, Paul will be summarizing the painful steps that he took to construct and follow a God of theology—because Paul, the real Paul of history—invented theology. And the basic premise of theology is that God and salvation can be rationally discussed. Paul talks throughout his epistles about unveiling what used to be a mystery regarding God and salvation. Thus, even though we are analyzing these passages from a symbolic perspective, the real historical Paul had to struggle with similar issues.

The positive side of going through all of these painful steps is that Paul has a personal life that he can share with the believers. Those who are disguising themselves dare not share their personal lives, while mysticism has no personal life to share. Paul, in contrast, can ask the believers to receive him as a person in a welcoming manner.

Paul concludes verse 16 by adding “that I also may boast a little”. The word boast here is the usual word that means ‘having the right base of operation’. Thus, we are looking here at confidence based in facts and not merely an attitude of confidence. The word little is ‘micros’, which means ‘small, little’. Thus, Paul is about to indulge himself in a little bit of personal promotion based in facts.

Stepping back briefly to look at the big picture, the challenge has been for Paul the legislator to be a fellow citizen of his legislation. In order to accomplish this, Paul has avoided acting self-important in the presence of his citizens. Saying this in terms of being a ‘short-sighted fool’, acting important would accomplish the short-term goal of gaining status, while failing to reach the long-term goal of being a fellow citizen. But the appearance of professional legislators/apostles has changed the nature of the game. Paul is no longer the only apostle. He is now one of many apostles all trying to prove their legitimacy. The very fact that other apostles are trying to prove that they are legitimate indicates functioning within the rule of law. Using the language of Thomas Kuhn, science has become normal science with professional experts trying to solve technical puzzles better than their colleagues. The presence of normal science presupposes a paradigm within which people are functioning—in submission to this paradigm.

For instance, Ben Yehuda reinvented Hebrew as a modern language. He experienced fierce opposition from the ultra-Orthodox community, who strongly objected to using the ‘holy language’ of Hebrew in everyday conversation. But when these debates started taking place in Hebrew, then Ben Yehuda knew that he had won. Ben Yehuda also had to deal with a version of the problem of legislator becoming a fellow citizen, because he would invent a word in Hebrew and then his family would use that new word in everyday conversation over the next few days in order to spread this new word around. Most of the words that Ben Yehuda invented caught on. But about 2000 of his words did not.

Going further, one of the major differences between a legislator and a citizen is that a legislator initiates laws while a citizen responds to laws. Until now, Paul has been in control of the process of moving from legislator to citizen. He has been actively taking the steps that are required. The very fact that Paul is choosing to respond in the right manner means that he is still implicitly behaving like legislator. Saying this another way, Paul is still a legislator who is putting on the disguise of a citizen. Paul will now start to feel what it is like to be a citizen at an existential level, because others will be doing things to him and he will be responding. Speaking from personal experience, I have found that applying a cognitive principle usually goes through two stages: First, one chooses to apply the principle in some situation. When one has completed this, then one will usually think that the process is finished. But that is not the end. One will then find that divine providence will arrange circumstances to place one in a situation where the principle must be applied. If one makes it through this second aspect, then one has truly applied the principle.

Looking at this more generally, mental symmetry suggests that the process of personal transformation can be divided into the three stages of: building understanding in Teacher thought, applying this understanding in righteousness, and then living within this principle through rebirth. A legislator functions at the first stage of building an understanding in Teacher thought. A legislator enters the second stage of righteousness by choosing to act like a citizen. A legislator enters the third stage of rebirth by responding as a citizen to outside forces.

Living as a Fellow Citizen 11:17-18

One can see this loss of control which signifies the third stage of rebirth in verse 17: “What I am saying, I am not saying in accordance with the Lord, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting.” (I am using the literal translation from a footnote.)

The word translated saying is not ‘logos’ but rather means ‘talk, chatter in classical Greek’. The very fact that Paul is able to chatter means that he can function to some extent as a citizen and not as a legislator. A public person does not chatter; a public person dare not chatter. This verb is used 297 times in the New Testament, but the last time that it was used in 2 Corinthians was in 7:14, where Paul was talking about the ‘Titus’ joy’. Instead, 2 Corinthians has been using a slightly more dignified verb which means ‘to say’.

Paul adds that his chattering is not “in accordance with the Lord” but rather “as in foolishness”. The word as is a comparative, while in means ‘in the realm of’, and foolishness is a version of ‘lacking perspective because short-sighted’. Paul is not saying that he is a fool (and he also did not say in verse 16 that he is a fool). Instead, he says that he is talking as if he is thinking only about the short-term. This is also an aspect of being a citizen. Legislators make laws and think about long-term, national repercussions (that is what legislators should do). Citizens perform short-term activities such as doing the laundry and preparing lunch. Paul is entering the realm of short-term activities. He is preparing his own lunch, instead of having the servants prepare lunch while he focuses on fine-tuning some major legislation.

This may sound like a trivial issue, but many wealthy people have no experience of normal activities. For instance, the Queen of England does not go grocery shopping, and she does not carry money with her—except for a specially ironed five pound note that she places in the offering at church on Sundays. Again, notice that Paul is not saying that he is a short-sighted fool, because many citizens think only about short-term activities such as money and shopping without focusing upon the long-term. Instead, Paul is behaving as if short-sighted.

This interpretation may seem like a stretch, but it is reflected in the next phrase. On the one hand, Paul says that he is ‘as if in the domain of being short-sighted’. On the other hand he says he is in the domain of “this confidence of boasting”. Paul uses a different word for confidence here, which means ‘a legitimate claim because it literally is under a legal-standing’. This word is only used twice in 2 Corinthians: here, and previously in 9:4. If Paul is functioning ‘under a legal standing’, then this literally means that Paul is functioning as a citizen rather than as a legislator.

Verse 18 introduces another aspect of being a citizen, which is that of being one among many: “Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also.” The word translated I also means ‘and, even so, me also’. It is reasonably common in the New Testament but this is the first time that it has appeared in 2 Corinthians. It is used six times in chapter 11 and once in chapter 12. This tells us that Paul is increasingly able to behave as a citizen and not as a legislator, because he can view himself as one among many. This may sound trivial to someone who is used to living the life of a citizen. But one of the primary characteristics of being an apostle is walking a lonely path that others do not walk in order to break through to some new facet of God and personal transformation.

For instance, everyone goes shopping. But, quoting from the article referenced earlier, “Neither queens, nor kings, not even princes and princesses are supposed to go to something as un-royal as a grocery store. So when the queen of England, Her Majesty Elizabeth II, showed up on Thursday at a supermarket, the news shot around the world.” However, the Queen was only pretending to shop: “To be clear, it wasn’t as if she was going to do her week’s shopping. She, in fact, looked so bewildered by what she saw that many were wondering if she had ever been at a grocery store in her 90 long years of life.” When ‘I also’ appears for the first time and then appears six more times, this tells us that Paul is not just pretending to shop, but actually going to the store and buying things like a normal citizen.

The first ‘I also’ is that Paul is ‘boasting according to the flesh’. The word boast means ‘having the right base of operation to deal successfully with the matter’. Flesh refers to the mental content that one acquires from living in a physical environment. 10:2 talked about ‘walking according to the flesh’. That was a significant breakthrough. Walking according to the flesh is the default when one grows up within matter-over-mind. It would not be the default within mind-over-matter. The challenge within matter-over-mind is to be guided by mental networks of the spirit. The challenge within mind-over-matter would be to extend mental networks of the spirit to the physical flesh. If Paul is boasting according to the flesh, then this means that he is able to live within physical concrete reality while maintaining ‘the right base of operation to deal successfully’.

The fable of king Midas illustrates what it means not to be able to ‘boast according to the flesh’. In the fable, everything that Midas touched turned to gold. This was fine for acquiring wealth, but when Midas touched his daughter, then she also turned into a lifeless gold statue. A legislator is cursed with a version of the Midas touch. If Paul can boast according to the flesh, then this means that he can interact with citizens without freezing their life. Paul expressed this fear in 10:9 where he said “for I do not wish to seem as if I would terrify you by my letters.” As I mentioned, the word translated terrify means’ frightened out of one’s wits’ and is only used once in the New Testament. If legislators frighten today within matter-over-mind, imagine how legislators/apostles would frighten within a future realm of mind-over-matter. For instance, one nine-year-old boy was recently so overwhelmed by meeting the Queen of England that he dropped to his knees and crawled out of the nearest door.

Tolerating Foolishness 11:19-20

Paul then addresses the problem of submitting passively to personal abuse. “For you, being [so] wise, tolerate the foolish gladly” (v.19). The word gladly is used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘sweetly, gladly’. Tolerate means ‘still bearing up even after going through the needed sequence’. It was last used in verse 4 to describe the believers putting up with the technical pseudo-apostles. We have seen the word foolish several times. ‘Foolish’ is the opposite of ‘wise’, and wise refers to an ‘inner outlook that regulates outward behavior. Putting this all together, the believers are being guided by internal principles to continue responding sweetly to the short-sighted.

The standard interpretation is to interpret this as Paul being sarcastic. But I do not like that interpretation. First, it is inconsistent with the idea of the Bible being written using careful language. If God reveals himself to mankind through the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and if a concept of incarnation uses technical thought but extends beyond it, then if the Bible really is the word of God in which he revealed himself to mankind, then the Bible will exhibit the core attribute of abstract technical thought—which is the use of words with precise definitions. Moving to the second point, the typical technical expert responds with sarcasm when faced with thinking that is regarded as insufficiently rigorous. Paul has just described the technical expert as a servant of Satan who masquerades as a servant of righteousness. It does not make sense that Paul would immediately turn around and act like the typical technical expert.

Paul has been talking repeatedly in this epistle about the need to respond correctly to mistreatment. The church of Achaia has taken this lesson to heart, to the point of continuing to smile sweetly even when faced with repeated foolishness. One can see this illustrated symbolically by the name Achaia, which means ‘grief, trouble’. Speaking from personal experience, I have now lived for decades with a knowledge of cognitive styles and cognitive principles within a society that for the most part is unwilling to learn about cognitive styles. Everywhere I turn, I see foolishness. I have responded so long by smiling sweetly that it is now an internal response. (I do occasionally lose my cool, but not very often.) I am not doing this in order to ‘suffer for Jesus’, but rather because I am trying to pursue the long-term goal of being personally transformed. Paul has also been practicing personal submissiveness in order to pursue the long-term goal of enjoying his legislation as a fellow citizen.

But at some point this attitude has to change. One can see this contradiction in verse 2, which talks about Paul betrothing the Achaian church to Christ ‘as a pure virgin’. A virgin who gets married is no longer a virgin. A virgin continually says no to sex. At some point this attitude of ‘just say no’ has to change into ‘yes you are my husband’. We looked at this transition earlier when examining the parable of the talents. The servant who buried his talent was ‘sowing sparingly’ in the sense of avoiding certain areas. A virgin ‘sows sparingly’ in the same sense. Paul has been ‘sowing sparingly’ in a similar way, and so have the believers of Achaia who have been looking forward to the blessing.

That attitude has to change. But how can one change that attitude without being arrogant? The solution is similar to what Paul adopted at the beginning of chapter 10. He decided in 10:1 to be lowly in the presence of the believers while bold in their absence. In 11:20 he is being bold about how they respond to others rather than being bold about how they respond to him. Notice also that he is no longer the instigator. In 10:1 he was deciding to be either bold or lowly, while here he is responding to the behavior of others.

Paul addresses the believers using strong language: “For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, anyone devours you, anyone takes advantage of you, anyone exalts himself, anyone hits you in the face” (v.20). The word translated tolerate is the same word used in the previous verse, which means ‘still bearing up even after going through the needed sequence’. Paul then mentions five character traits. ‘You’ is explicitly mentioned in the first one, while ‘you’ is implied with the other four.

The first trait is ‘if anyone enslaves you’. Enslave is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘enslave; to impose abject bondage’. The second trait is ‘if anyone devours’. Devours means ‘eat up, eat until it is finished, devour’. It is used once in 2 Corinthians. The third trait is ‘if anyone takes’. The word takes means ‘to lay hold by aggressively accepting what is available’. Paul used this verb in verse 8 to describe ‘taking support for your service’. (The NASB translates this as ‘takes advantage of’, but that is stretching the meaning of the verb.) The fourth trait is ‘if anyone exalts himself’. Exalts himself means simply ‘raise, lift up’. The final trait is ‘if anyone hits you in the face’. Hits is a strong word that means ‘to skin, to thrash’. This is being directed to the face.

One can interpret these traits from (at least) two perspectives. From one perspective, these traits sound rather like the way that an abusive husband treats his wife. After all, Paul has compared the believers to a fiancée in verse 2. The first stage is to assert personal dominance: ‘You are my slave’. For the abusive husband, might makes right. Cognitively speaking, one MMN of personal identity is imposing itself directly upon another. The second stage is to extend this personal dominance to all areas: ‘You are not just my slave; you are my slave in every area. I will swallow up your life until you have no independent existence.’ This will naturally happen when MMNs of personal dominance are backed up by the TMN of a universal theory, because Teacher thought wants a theory to apply everywhere without exception. The third stage expresses this total slavery in invasive ways: ‘You have no existence of your own. Whenever I want anything I will reach in and take it.’ What’s happening cognitively is that the universal Teacher theory of dominance is expressing itself in daily Server actions. The fourth stage expresses this behavior in mental networks of culture. The abusive husband instinctively responds in every situation by invoking Mercy status. And in the final stage it becomes truly abusive. If she displeases him in any way, then he responds with a slap to the face. This may be literal, but it also represents a personal attack on Mercy identity, because the face expresses nonverbal communication: ‘You are an idiot. You are a nobody. You are not worthy of me.’

And how is the abused wife supposed to respond? She is supposed to smile sweetly and continue to bear it. I should add that it is also possible for a wife to abuse a husband, and the emotional interaction would be similar. But within matter-over-mind, it is more common for a husband to abuse his wife, because the male usually has more physical strength and is naturally better at using technical thought. My guess is that within mind-over-matter, the roles would tend to be reversed, because female thought would find it naturally easier to live within an environment controlled by mental networks. Saying this more bluntly, instead of having male thugs one would have female witches. However, the focus of chapter 11 is specifically upon male technical thought abusing female religious devotion.

Looking at these five traits from a difference perspective, I suggest that they naturally emerge when mysticism becomes applied to real life. Mysticism combines Teacher overgeneralization with Mercy identification. Asserting that ‘I am one with God’ may generate ecstatic feelings when practiced internally in private, but it becomes abusive when adopted as a philosophy of life to be practiced in reality. I am one with God then becomes l’état, c’est moi—I am the state. Moving on, Teacher thought want theories to apply without exception, and will want a universal theory to apply everywhere without exception. Saying this another way, when a general theory turns into a TMN, then it will gradually devour the rest of the mind. The theory of mental symmetry has devoured my mind. That is why I compare a general theory to a mental prison. Being mentally imprisoned within a general theory that demands mental wholeness is very annoying but also ultimately redemptive. Being mentally imprisoned within a general theory that demands abject slavery would be mental hell. The third trait is grabbing. This naturally happens when one identifies with a universal theory of overgeneralization, because overgeneralization cannot handle specific facts. Therefore, it will always intervene within physical reality by not just ignoring facts but by submerging facts. It will deliberately butt-in in order to make sure that no human facts get in the way. The fourth trait is lifting up. Whenever mysticism encounters rational content that it cannot eliminate, it responds by asserting that it transcends this rational content. That is because a Teacher theory will feel as if it is universal if it is regarded as above all other mental content. The final trait is facial beating. Asserting an overgeneralized theory of unity within physical reality is not mentally stable. That is because reality contains facts, and facts by their very nature threaten overgeneralization. This instability cannot be addressed factually—because facts by their very nature threaten overgeneralization. Therefore, facts will be addressed emotionally by continually putting them in their place and reminding them forcefully that they are nothing.

In a similar manner, I suggest that President Trump exhibits these traits. Trump is not the only dictator who behaves in this fashion, and Trump resonates emotionally—in public—with other world dictators, such as Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-Un. But President Trump is unusual in being an elected leader of a democratic country. First, Trump only thinks about Trump. Everything that Trump says or does is guided by the desire to make Trump look and feel good. This is a form of overgeneralization applied to personal identity. The end result is that all other personal identities become mentally reduced to abject slavery within the mind of Trump. Second, Trump’s infatuation with Trump is a universal principle that eats up everything else, including government processes, international relations, international agreements, and the rule of law. Third, Trump has no concept of politeness. Instead, he simply inserts his personality into any situation without any regard for the feelings of others. Fourth, Trump views himself as above any mundane details such as facts, truth, legal process, or consistency. Finally, Trump lies repeatedly, habitually, and obsessively. His incessant lying is not designed to protect some facts from being exposed but rather to use emotional domination to ensure that he continually remains above the facts. Trump is continually lashing the ‘person’ of truth on the face in order to ensure that ‘she’ stays in her place and knows that ‘she’ is worthless trash. This turns every encounter with Trump into a face-to-face battle in which anyone who asserts the concept of truth is emotionally battered into submission.

Looking at this symbolically, one is dealing here with a distinction between a serpent and a dragon. A dragon is essentially a serpent with legs. The mindset of mysticism is represented by a serpent. When this mindset is expressed in reality through dictators such as Putin or Trump, then symbolically speaking, the serpent grows legs and turns into a dragon. Revelation 12:9 explicitly makes this connection by referring to the great dragon as “the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan”.

Like the church of 2 Corinthians 11, the American evangelical church puts up with this and continues to receive Trump gladly. I can think of three reasons why this is the case: First, an attitude of absolute truth will believe—at the deepest level—that ‘truth’ is imposed upon the population by sources with strong emotional status. Therefore, it will be considered natural for Trump to use his emotional status to impose ‘truth’ upon the American population, and it will also be considered natural for Trump to use his status to appoint supreme court justices who will use their emotional status to impose ‘truth’ upon the American population. Second, an attitude of absolute truth will feel that I am nothing compared to the source of truth. Therefore, when Trump treats everyone else like dirt, then this is mentally compatible with worm theology. Finally, absolute truth has a core of mysticism, because it believes that finite humans cannot use rational thought to analyze the essence of God. (If I use rational thought to analyze my concept of God, then this will raise my emotional status relative to my concept of God causing me to doubt absolute truth.) Therefore, when Trump acts like a mystical god-made-flesh who transcends the normal human realm of facts, then this resonates mentally with the underlying assumption that God ultimately transcends human rational thought. One can tell that an emotional resonance which transcends facts is happening, because Trump repeatedly and publicly praises and resonates with dictators, while those who support Trump also tend to support him at an emotional nonfactual level.

For the church of the future, the primary reason for putting up with such abuse would be not absolute truth but rather a desire to submit to the rule of law instead of imposing oneself upon others. The underlying motivation would be Platonic forms of idealism. I say this from personal experience, because my ultimate motivation comes from my concept of ideal personal identity: I will respond in a humble fashion because mental wholeness is inherently humble. I will be humble not because of anything that anyone says or does but rather because that is how the mind works, and I want to be a person who has a whole mind. Notice that this relates to the fifth trait of being beaten in the face, because both are based ultimately in self-image. The repeated personal beating from the dictator is to ensure that the person being abused develops the self-image of being submissive. Similarly, when one truly pursues mental wholeness, then humility becomes an expression of self-image.

I think that some evangelical Christian Americans are motivated to some extent by a similar desire. For such a believer, this internal spiritual desire can be transformed into something positive. And I think that chapter 11 is talking about this mental transformation. However, I suggest that it is becoming clear that in most modern cases absolute truth is actually disguising itself as truth. It is possible to transform absolute truth into universal truth by submitting to the rule of law and by applying the same truth to ‘them’ as to ‘us’. But if one clings to absolute truth in the face of universal truth, then absolute truth will turn into a satanic, adversarial mindset of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ that is covered by a veneer of absolute truth. If this disguise of absolute truth is removed without transforming the absolute truth, then what is left under the surface is a dragon. And when absolute truth turns into a dragon, then one is no longer a servant of Christ but rather a servant of Satan.

Taking a Risk by Responding 11:21

Returning to 2 Corinthians, Paul addresses the underlying attitude in verse 21: “To [my] shame I [must] say that we have been weak [by comparison]”. (The NASB adds several explaining words to this sentence which are not in the original Greek. In this case, the KJV is more accurate: “I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak.”) The word translated shame means ‘dishonor, perceived as without recognized value or worth’. Thus, one is not regarding something with personal disdain but rather concluding that it has no intrinsic value.

The sentence begins with according to, which was previously used in verses 17-18. In verse 17, Paul said that he was not ‘chattering according to the Lord’. Verse 18 said that many were ‘boasting according to the flesh’, and Paul responded by saying ‘me too’. In verse 21, Paul is ‘speaking according to dishonor’. Notice the cognitive progression. Paul has gone from not speaking according to something, to following the example of others who are acting according to something, to now speaking according to something else. This may sound like a step backwards, but for a legislator with the ‘Midas touch’, it is a major step forward. Paul may be speaking from dishonor, but he has found a platform from which he can speak. And this platform of dishonor is being imposed by the professional experts upon the group of believers with whom Paul wishes to be a fellow citizen.

For instance, I have very little in common with the apostle Paul. He lived in a different culture, spoke a different language, traveled by different means, had a completely different education, lived under a different government, ate radically different food, suffered severe physical hardship, and had no idea that science even exists. But I find myself resonating with Paul because I know what it is like to try to pursue a new understanding of God and salvation in the face of continued opposition from professional experts. We share a common platform of dishonor. (Notice that this is a negative platform, a common form of mis-treatment. In the coming verses, Paul will be transforming this into something positive.)That’s

Paul describes the platform from which he can speak: ‘as that we have been weak’. The word weak means ‘to be ill, without strength’. Paul does not say that he has been weak but rather begins with the comparative as. In other words, in the same way that the Achaian church has been humble in the face of considerable abuse, Paul also has been humble in the face of considerable abuse. (And I too have tried to remain humble in the face of considerable abuse.)

In the rest of verse 21, Paul says that he is willing to take a risk based upon this platform: “But in whatever respect anyone [else] is bold – I speak in foolishness – I am just as bold myself.” The word translated bold means ‘to show daring courage necessary for a valid risk’. This word is used four times in 2 Corinthians. It was used in 10:2 where Paul took a risk to be courageous against those who thought that he was walking according to the flesh. In 10:12 Paul concluded that it was too much of a risk to classify himself or compare himself with others. And the word ‘bold’ is used twice here in verse 21.

But the risk in verse 21 is combined with I also. If anyone else takes a risk, then Paul will also take this risk. Thus, Paul has found a platform from which he can speak based in weakness: he is willing to take a risk as long as he is part of the crowd.

At this point it may seem as if I am reading too much into this passage. But I suggest that this is because we live within matter-over-mind, in which the only real risk is physical risk. The average person today does not have a concept of mental or spiritual risk, because the body will continue to hold the mind together even if the mind falls apart, and the physical environment will continue to obey natural law, even if a person regards themselves as being above the law. Neither of these would be true within mind-over-matter. If one uses one’s mind as a legislator/apostle to create a new societal structure, then risking the mental concept of rule of law will risk everything including the physical environment within which one wishes to live. Thus, a more accurate analogy would be a drug addict who risks destroying his brain by taking some potent drug, or a Christian believer in a repressive regime who risks being sent to prison for several years for talking about Christianity. I know personally about mental risk because my mind is being held together emotionally by the TMN of the theory of mental symmetry. If I behave in a manner that is inconsistent with mental symmetry then I run the risk of having my mind fall apart.

In verse 17, Paul was chattering as if in the realm of foolishness. In verse 21, Paul is speaking in the realm of foolishness. Remember that foolish relates to being short-sighted. Paul is taking a major risk as an apostle/legislator, because he is deciding that he will speak freely without thinking of long-term consequences. And this is a universal risk that Paul is taking because he will be daring wherever anyone else is being daring. That is because a professional apostle is also taking a risk when he allows others to see behind his disguise. And within mind-over-matter, this would be a very real risk.

Comparing Identities 11:22

In verse 22, Paul mentions ‘I also’ three times: “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they seed of Abraham? So am I.” Paul mentions three labels here which are often considered to be synonyms, but they have slightly different meanings.

The word Hebrew comes from a Hebrew word that means ‘region beyond’ which also has the sense of ‘to pass over’. (The feast of Passover comes from a different word which means ‘to pass or spring over’ in the sense of sparing rather than in the sense of crossing.) One of the basic principles of technical expertise is that one must leave the realm of normal thought in order to ‘pass over’ into a ‘region beyond’ of technical expertise; one must leave the human realm of Mercy experiences in order to be guided by Teacher thought. Similarly, one of the basic principles of personal transformation is that one must leave the realm of normal childish thought in order to pass over into a ‘region beyond’ of mental wholeness; one must leave the human realm of Mercy culture in order to be guided by a concept of God in Teacher thought. Thus, there is a cognitive principle behind Paul saying that he is also a Hebrew. Notice also that this ‘passing over’ involves embracing human weakness. The technical expert recognizes that normal human thought is weak and inadequate. Similarly, the person who is following a path of transformation also acknowledges that childish human thought is weak and inadequate.

The word Israelite comes from the Hebrew word Israel which means that ‘God strives’. God first gave this name to Jacob in Genesis 32:28 after Jacob wrestled with an angel: “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.” Jacob is given this name a second time in Genesis 35:10 when he returns to the land of Canaan and God promises to bless him: “Your name is Jacob; you shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.” This is also a cognitive principle that applies to both abstract technical thought and personal transformation. Jacob represents the third stage of personal transformation in which one returns from abstract thought back to concrete thought through rebirth.

For instance, science does not end with abstract theories. Instead, as has been described previously, science combines abstract theory in Teacher thought with personal action in Server thought. And instead of wrestling with humans in concrete thought, science wrestles with messages and messengers in abstract thought. Thus, when science returns to concrete thought through technology, it is blessed by Teacher understanding because it now strives by using machines that express universal principles in Teacher thought. Manual labor then becomes replaced by machines which are expressions of scientific understanding.

In a similar manner, personal transformation goes beyond theology to applying theology in righteousness. The end result is that human effort becomes motivated by the TMN of a concept of God. Using theological language, it is no longer I that live but Christ who lives through me. This too is an example of embracing human weakness. The person who is using a machine recognizes that he is too weak to physically perform the action. Similarly, the person who is pursuing mental wholeness recognizes that MMNs of personal identity are inadequate and need to be supercharged by the TMN of a concept of God.

The phrase ‘seed of Abraham’ occurs several times in the New Testament and was discussed when looking at Hebrews 2:16. Abraham represents the first stage of personal transformation in which one leaves MMNs of existing society in order to follow God in a new way. The word seed means either ‘seed, commonly of cereals’ or ‘offspring, descendants’. In either case a small kernel of life in the present will eventually lead to fully developed life in the future. For instance, Judaism introduced to the world the concept of monotheism in seed form. Similarly, when one becomes a Christian, then new MMNs of spiritual life form within the mind in seed form. In both cases, there is an underlying concept of present weakness because one starts with a seed that is very fragile and then allows it to grow into something much more substantial. Paul himself seeded the concept of theology, which lies behind the very concept of science with its rational paradigms.

Summarizing, it makes cognitive sense for Paul to refer to these three traits, and he is not just using three synonyms to state with emphasis that he is a fellow Jew.

Verse 23 begins with one more comparison: “Are they servants of Christ?—I speak as if insane—I more so.” Here Paul does not say ‘me too’ but rather ‘I more so’. In other words, Paul is performing the comparing that he was unwilling to risk in 10:13. But Paul is now doing this comparing on his own terms. Previously, the comparing was being done using technical thought. Now the comparing is being done from the mindset of personal lowliness.

One can see that a new form of confidence is emerging within the mind of Paul because of the unusual verb that he uses, which the NASB translates as if insane. This verb only occurs once in the New Testament so we cannot look to other passages for the correct meaning. However, it is a modified version of a word that has been used several times throughout this section. The word foolish adds a prefix meaning ‘not’ to a root word that describes ‘inner outlook or mindset that regulates outward behavior’. As if insane takes that same root word and adds a prefix that means ‘contrary-beside’. Thus, what is really happening cognitively is not that Paul is going insane but rather that a new ‘inner outlook that regulates outward behavior’ is emerging alongside the existing one. Using an example from physics, part of the job of learning physics is to unlearn common sense. One literally has to develop a new inner outlook upon physical reality that is different than the outlook which one normally develops growing up in a physical body. Saying this more technically, one must let go of childish Aristotelian thinking and learn to think in Newtonian or possibly Einsteinian terms.

Paul’s fourth comparison in verse 23 does not use the term ‘I also’. Instead, he says ‘I more’, and then uses the as if insane word which combines ‘contrary beside’ with ‘inner perspective regulating outer behavior’. In other words, Paul is emerging into a new form of thought and behavior in which he can compare himself with the technical experts and can conclude that he is superior. But this new form of thinking exists alongside strong existing mental networks of personal regulation formed by years of choosing to respond in a submissive fashion. This does not mean that Paul is now asserting himself apart from an attitude of submission. Instead, Paul has discovered a way of asserting himself in a manner that remains submitted to a higher law.

Today’s typical person, leader, or preacher does not grasp what this really means. But an apostle/legislator who wants to become a fellow citizen will know at a deep level what it means, and so will the sincere believer who is pursuing a path of personal transformation. For instance, ever since I was a child my mother drummed into me the principle that one must regard the situations of life as lessons from God to which one submits and learns. And my mother would back up this principle by continually pointing to people who were experiencing painful consequences because they did not submit and refused to learn. This kick-started me on a path of personal transformation—but it also created deep-seated mental networks that cannot be ignored.

The standard at which Paul excels is being ‘servants of Christ’. Servant is the familiar ‘deacon’ word. Christ refers to the abstract side of incarnation. Science is a partial servant of Christ, because it uses the abstract technical thinking of mathematics to understand how the natural world acts, and then performs actions that are guided by this understanding. A technical expert may focus more fully upon abstract technical thought, but when it comes to being a servant of incarnation, then Paul goes much further, because he has personally followed incarnation to an extent that the technical expert never does. A similar statement can be made about mental symmetry. The mathematician, philosopher, or theoretical physicist may be using technical thought more rigorously, but when it comes to being a servant of incarnation, then mental symmetry goes beyond other theories of personality in terms of integrated understanding in Teacher thought and personal transformation in Mercy thought.

Paul’s Personal Costs 11:23

Paul then provides a list outlining the personal costs that he has paid: “In more abundant labors, in more abundant imprisonments, exceedingly in stripes, often in danger of death” (v.23). (I am using the literal translations given in the footnotes.) The word more abundant means ‘further than the upper limit, going past what is anticipated’.

Looking at these four in detail, Labors means ‘laborious toil, involving weariness and fatigue’. Looking at this cognitively, scientific technical thought performs the ‘deaconing’ of supporting abstract technical thought with Server actions. Serving incarnation adds the additional component of emotional weariness. That is because one is using science-like thought to try to understand emotional issues, and that is emotionally draining. Speaking from personal experience, I spend much of my time trying to recover emotionally sufficiently so that I can continue to work further the next day. In addition, one can take a vacation from science but one cannot really take a vacation from serving incarnation, because incarnation takes universal principles of how things works and makes them both personal and universal. No matter where one goes, these principles will follow and they will apply personally in a way that leads to further understanding—and also further weariness. And this will ‘go past what is anticipated’ because being a servant of Christ means continually thinking outside of the box of some specialization in order to extend understanding to new areas.

The word imprisonments means ‘a guarding, guard, watch’ and comes from a verb that means ‘preserve by having an eye on’. Thus, ‘more abundant imprisonments’ is almost an oxymoron, because ‘more abundant’ means going ‘further than the upper limit’ while imprisonment implies being watched by guards so that one does not go further than some upper limit. But this combination does make cognitive sense. We saw in the first trait that it is emotionally draining to explore subjective topics and continually come up with unexpected results. This emotional, out-of-the-box thinking will be viewed by others as a questioning of mental networks of culture and convention. And anyone who questions the mental networks of society will be regarded as a loose cannon who needs to be watched over to make sure that the strange thinking does not go too far. Therefore, more abundant ‘laborious toil’ will lead naturally to more abundant ‘people keeping their eye on you’.

Moving on to the third point, the word beatings means ‘blow, stripe, wound’. The adverb here is exceedingly, which is used once in the New Testament. It is defined as ‘beyond measure’, but that is an interpretation based on this passage. It actually comes from a verb that means ‘to throw over or beyond’. ‘Beyond measure’ implies that one has lost count. ‘To throw over or beyond’ implies leaving the ‘ground’ of concrete experiences in order to travel through the ‘air’ of Teacher thought. (That is how we have interpreted this verb in other passages.) The word ‘beatings’ could be interpreted literally, and historically speaking, Paul was referring in this verse to literal beatings that he received, and it is possible that he lost count of how many times he was beaten. But if one interprets this word symbolically in a consistent manner, then this means that Paul is receiving ‘blows, stripes, and wounds’ that go beyond normal Mercy thought to include Teacher thought. This word ‘beatings’ is found twice in 2 Corinthians. The previous occurrence was in 6:5 in the middle of a list that described how society would respond to the spread of spiritual technology. We interpreted it there as people lashing out in a random manner to behavior that they find personally unacceptable. This same interpretation could apply here because society is already keeping a watchful eye on Paul the servant of Incarnation because of his socially disruptive breakthroughs. If Paul dares to take the next step of acting out his beliefs then one could naturally see people lashing out in a random manner.

And here one does not need to speculate, because the book of Acts describes various groups (which mainly appear to be groups emphasizing some aspect of technical thought) responding in precisely such a manner to the socially disruptive statements of Paul. That is because Paul keeps using rational technical thought to question the underlying system that technical experts are exploiting. In a similar manner, mental symmetry teaches many cognitive principles that apply to the working environment. But mental symmetry cannot be used to give corporate seminars because it questions the underlying motivations of the business world.

In chapter 6, the word ‘beatings’ was used by itself. In 11:23, ‘beatings’ is combined with ‘to throw over or beyond’. Spiritual technology would challenge primarily MMNs of concrete experience. Therefore, the beatings would be limited to concrete experience. In contrast, being a servant of Christ also challenges mental networks at the abstract technical level; one is challenging both existing technology and existing science. Therefore, the resulting beatings would also transcend normal concrete experience to include abstract thought. I am not quite sure what this would precisely mean in a future system of mind-over-matter, and if I try to speculate, then my guess will probably be wrong.

The NASB translates the final phrase as ‘often in danger of death’. That is because one can only physically die once. But the word ‘danger’ is not in the original Greek. Instead, the Greek is literally ‘in deaths often’, with ‘death’ being in the plural. The word death means ‘death, physical or spiritual’. And often means ‘many times, often, frequently’. Cognitively speaking, death implies a paradigm shift that affects personal identity. We have seen that being a servant of Christ means experiencing many paradigm shifts and that each paradigm shift will have emotional personal implications. The end result is that cognitively speaking, one dies many times. But cognitive death is never the end because one is a servant of Christ, and Christ is the incarnation of God who translates the Teacher life of God into precise language that applies to every context. Therefore, whenever one dies cognitively, one discovers a new facet of righteousness, a new area where a universal Teacher understanding of God can be applied in a manner that is specific enough to maintain personal life within Mercy thought.

Societal Disruptions Caused by Paul 11:24-25

Paul then uses numbers to describe experiences that are usually regarded as uncountable because they are too extreme: “Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep” (v.24-25). The general principle is that being a servant of incarnation makes it possible to use a form of technical thought to describe and analyze topics that the average person regards as beyond rational thought. Receiving 39 lashes is normally unthinkable. Paul puts a number on it, saying that he received it five times.

Looking now at this list in more detail, the first item is “Five times I received from the Jews 39 [lashes]”. As the NASB indicates, the word ‘lashes’ is not in the original. Instead, the original Greek says ‘from the Jews five times forty minus one I received’. The number forty comes from Deut. 25:1-3 which says that a guilty person may be given a maximum of forty lashes. Jewish law, in order to be on the safe side, administered one less than the maximum. Hence, forty minus one. Therefore, it makes sense to assume that Paul is referring to being physical flogged five times. Turning now to the symbolic meaning, the number 40 is found 22 times in the New Testament, and this is the only time that it refers to flogging. This suggests an alternate symbolic interpretation, which is that the Jews are throwing numbers at Paul. We saw earlier when looking at chapter 10 that technical thought tries to reduce everything to numbers.

But notice that it is the Jews who are administering this punishment, and not the official Roman authorities. The word Jew comes from the tribe and region of Judah. That is because after the death of Solomon, Israel split into the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Israel was eventually carried away into captivity by the Assyrians while Judah survived Babylonian captivity and returned to land of Israel. The word Judah means ‘praised’. Thus, Jew refers to a form of religion that is based in praise of God. The fundamental goal of praise is to assign emotional status to the person who is being praised. For instance, one can see this in praise-and-worship. Praise uses exciting music to make God feel important, while worship follows this with contemplative music which makes it feel that the now-important God is giving emotional comfort to personal identity. This is the only time that the word Jews is used in 2 Corinthians. Paul has just called himself a Hebrew, an Israelite, a descendent of Abraham, and a servant of Christ. But he does not call himself a Jew in 2 Corinthians. Instead he describes the punishment that he received from the Jews. And one sees in the book of Acts that it was usually the Jews who turned on Paul and incited the crowds against him.

Putting this together cognitively, an attitude of religious praise can lead to mysticism, but it can also lead to legalism, in which one focuses upon obeying the letter of the law in a technical fashion—and punishes those who do not follow the letter of the law. For instance, one can see this emphasis upon religious technical thought in fundamentalist Baptist churches. Technical thought is always based upon some foundation of axiomatic truths which are assumed to be true—with total certainty. Absolute truth provides such a sense of total certainty, because emotional pressure is mesmerizing Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ what is ‘true’. And praise provides the emotional pressure that generates this absolute ‘knowing’. (Technical thought can acquire its fundamental truths in other ways, but praise is one common starting point for technical thought.)

Summarizing, the first point describes Paul being attacked by religious legalism because he is not technically obeying the fundamentalist rules. For an example of Jewish technical religious prohibitions, please scan the Wikipedia article on Activities prohibited on Shabbat. The amount of technical detail far exceeds anything taught by fundamentalist Christianity. The initial opposition to Paul would tend to come from religious fundamentalism for two reasons: On the one hand, technical specialization tends to ignore core emotional issues. That is why Paul referred earlier to the technical apostles as wearing a disguise. They are using technical thought on the periphery but not with core emotional issues. On the other hand, mysticism declares itself to be above technical details. In contrast, religious fundamentalism is an intermediate form of thought which applies technical details to emotional issues.

The second item on the list is “Three times I was beaten with rods” (v.25). The word translated beaten with rods is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘to beat with a rod’. The other occurrence is in Acts 16:23. Summarizing this story, Paul was being followed by a slave girl possessed a spirit who made her owners rich by telling fortunes. Paul got annoyed at the girl and cast out the spirit. The owners realized that they could not make money anymore, dragged Paul and Silas before the local authorities and said “These men are throwing our city into confusion, being Jews, and are proclaiming customs which it is not lawful for us to accept or to observe, being Romans” (Acts 16:20-21). Notice the precise interplay. Secular thought is getting rich by taking advantage of religious bondage. When Paul releases this religious bondage, then secular thought loses its ability to get rich. Secular thought then complains to the secular authorities about interference from religion, claiming that Paul is violating secular rules.

This type of situation would naturally arise in an environment of technical apostles. Each would deal with some aspect of an emotional problem in a specialized, peripheral manner. This would lead to some relief while leaving the underlying emotional problem unaddressed. Going the other way, peripheral breakthroughs would not provide sufficient personal rewards for technical apostles, who would then look to their patients for some sort of remuneration. The end result would be an economy based upon perpetual personal need and the treating of symptoms: Patients would get some help but would continually have to return for more treatment because the underlying problem would remain. This would provide steady income for technical specialists who would use their technical knowledge to minimize personal suffering. For instance, a Goldman Sachs analyst recently asked ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’ In other words, if people get totally cured, then how will medical firms make money? This is the kind of statement that a false apostle would make who is only wearing the disguise of being a prophet.

A true apostle would ruin this economy by addressing and curing the underlying spiritual and emotional problems. This can be seen by the word translated throwing into confusion in Acts 16:21, which is found once in the New Testament. It combines a prefix that means ‘from the interior outwards’ with a verb that means ‘to set in motion what needs to remain still’. In other words, Paul is changing things that should remain the same by focusing upon the internal. Similarly, a true apostle would change factors that are expected to remain the same by focusing upon the internal. This verb is backed up by the statement in verse 21 which accuses Paul and Silas of being religious ‘Jews’ who are proclaiming customs that are not lawful for secular ‘Romans’.

The third item on the list is “once I was stoned” (v.25). The verb stoned means ‘to throw stones, to stone’. Paul is referring to the incident in the city of Lystra mentioned in Acts 14:19-20: “But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having won over the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead. But while the disciples stood around him, he got up and entered the city.” Acts 14:8-18 relates the background story. Paul healed a lame man, and the crowds concluded that “the gods have become like men and have come down to us” (v.11). The priest of Zeus tried to offer a sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas, and Paul responded by saying, “We are also made of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them” (v.15).

Looking at this cognitively, Paul the apostle is curing problems that the secular world regards as incurable. In the previous situation, Paul cured a psychological problem by casting out a spirit and secular society saw this as a threat to economics. Here, Paul cured a physical problem by healing a lame man and secular society saw this as something supernatural. Paul then implicitly attacked the religious worship of secular society by telling the crowds to stop worshiping him and worship instead the God who created the physical universe. Looking at stoning symbolically, a stone represents a Perceiver fact, and throwing a stone at a person would represent using solid Perceiver facts within the air of Teacher thought to attack some person.

One can decipher what is happening cognitively by imagining how current society would respond to some obvious, major miracle. The easiest reaction would be to regard it as something supernatural that transcended the natural laws of physics. Mentally speaking, one is jumping internally from scientific technical thinking directly to religious mental networks. But suppose that normal thought was then used to build connections between natural law and this supposedly supernatural event: ‘we are also men of the same nature as you’. On the one hand, this would extend the rational thinking of scientific thought to include God and morality. On the other hand, this would add content to religious feelings, generating feelings of moral culpability. Spirituality would no longer make me feel better but rather would show me up as a sinner in need of salvation. The natural ‘solution’ would be to kill living religion with the stones of legalistic religion, reducing the need for me to be transformed into a set of legalistic rules that I can follow without being transformed. In the language of verse 19, the Jews win over the crowds, who then stone Paul and drag them out of the city, supposing him to be dead.

Applying this to a future time in which Paul the legislator/apostle is dealing with technical apostles, the technical apostles would want a ‘safe’ incarnation of technical specialization, in which one becomes partially transformed by learning to follow rigorous thought in some limited aspect of existence. Paul, the real apostle, would be taking religion too far by following incarnation at the fundamental level of personal regeneration. Saying this another way, putting on the disguise of an apostle would be applauded, while actually being an apostle would be repressed. Anything that went beyond this peripheral transformation would be regarded as something transcendent belonging to a divine realm which the technical apostles would regard as unreachable by humanity. A real apostle would threaten this religious dichotomy by bringing the divine realm down to humanity, making it clear that the technical apostles are only wearing the disguises of being apostles. In order to maintain their façades, technical apostles would have to use their technical truth to eliminate any personal mental networks of a truly transformed personal life. But this transformed life would continue to live as a fellow citizen within the group of true believers: ‘but while the disciples stood around him, he got up’.

The fourth item on the list is ‘three times I was shipwrecked’. The word shipwrecked is used twice in the New Testament and combines the word for ‘ship’ with the verb ‘to break’. The other occurrence is in 1 Timothy 1:19 where Paul uses the verb symbolically: “Keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.” Looking at this symbolic interpretation further, a ship is a solid structure manned by a group of people which floats on a ‘sea’ of Mercy experiences, making it possible for people on the ship to breathe the ‘air’ of Teacher understanding without being submerged within a sea of Mercy experiences. In other words, it is some kind of organizational structure that allows a group of people to maintain Teacher order-within-complexity within an environment of unstructured Mercy experiences. A ‘shipwreck’ occurs when this solid organizational structure falls apart, plunging the group of people as individuals into the surrounding sea of Mercy chaos.

The story of Paul being stoned finished with Paul getting up in the midst of the disciples. The implication is that a new form of society emerges in miniature form, similar to a ship upon the sea. Being shipwrecked implies that these small new societies will not continue intact but rather be overwhelmed by various storms of society.

The fifth item on the list follows naturally from being shipwrecked: “A night and a day I have spent in the deep” (v.25). The word deep is found once in the New Testament and means ‘the bottom, the depth’. It can refer to the bottom of the sea but can also refer to some other form of bottom, such as the bottom of a ditch or trench. The verb spent is a common verb that means ‘to make, do’. The phrase ‘a night and a day’ is a single word in the Greek which is also found only once in the New Testament. It combines a prefix which means ‘night’ with the word day, which means primarily ‘from sunrise to sunset’. If a sun represents the light of a general Teacher understanding that shines upon the earth of human society, then ‘a night and a day’ represents a period of time without general understanding followed by a period of time with general understanding.

Putting this together, what normally happens is that a person struggles through some night-time of being submerged in the depths of some ocean and then becomes lifted up when the sun finally arises. In Paul’s case, this is not happening. On the one hand, the verb ‘spent’ does not suggest a struggle but rather describes the actions of normal life. On the other hand, ‘night-and-day’ tells us that the day may bring relief to others but it does not bring relief to Paul who still remains at the bottom living a normal life.

Looking at this from a personal experience, many of the core ideas of mental symmetry which used to be undiscussable are now accepted as plausible by both society and academic thought. Despite this, I keep finding myself ignored at the bottom. Using an analogy, people are willing to accept the pieces of the puzzle, but they are not yet willing to put the puzzle together. I can live a reasonably normal life because most people see that I am working with legitimate puzzle pieces. But I am still at the bottom because people do not want to accept that these puzzle pieces need to be assembled. Thus, living at the bottom continues past the night into the day.

Paul’s Dangers 11:26

Verse 26 describes yet another list: “[I have been] on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from [my] countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren.” This list mentions eight dangers. The word translated danger, which means ‘danger, peril, risk’, is used nine times in the New Testament: eight times in this one verse, and once in Romans 8:35. Romans 8 describes ‘danger’ as one of a list of threats that cannot ‘separate us from the love of Christ’.

The word journeys is used twice in the New Testament: here, and in John 4:6, which talked about Jesus resting by a well in Samaria because he was ‘wearied from his journey’. It means ‘to travel’ and comes from a noun that means ‘a traveler’. I have stated several times that the theory of mental symmetry is both a cognitive theory and a path of personal transformation. Similarly, being an apostle is also simultaneously an abstract path of coming up with new legislation and a concrete path of following a personal journey. Verse 26 describes the potential dangers that arise when one adds this personal journey to the process of developing new understanding as an apostle.

Verse 26 begins with the phrase ‘on frequent journeys’. Frequent means ‘many times, often’. Thus, this goes beyond traveling on a single journey of personal discovery. Instead, one is going upon journey after journey of personal transformation, with each journey uncovering a new facet of personal transformation and encountering a different kind of danger. For instance, I have gone on several journeys with the theory of mental symmetry, applying it in depth to major fields including neurology, psychology, music, theology, scientific thought, and sociology. Each of these applications meant taking a personal journey and encountering various potential threats.

The first danger is rivers. A river symbolizes going through some form of personal rebirth, such as crossing the Jordan River. Whenever one goes through some river, there is always the danger that one may not emerge on the other side. The danger here is that MMNs of personal identity may be swept away when attempting to cross some stream of Mercy experiences.

The second danger is robbers. A robber ‘steals out in the open… exploiting the vulnerable without hesitating to use violence’. A robber steals possessions. In Paul’s time, this described an armed thug taking possessions from vulnerable travelers. In today’s society, what happens more commonly is that professors with academic status steal breakthroughs from graduate students, large corporations steal products from struggling inventors, and bosses steal ideas from employees. For instance, when I began research on mental symmetry, I feared that others would steal my ideas. I gradually realized that thieves steal ideas because they are not willing to pay the personal price that is required to acquire ideas legitimately. Therefore, an intellectual thief will not steal an idea which has an inherent personal cost.

The third danger is literally ‘from race’. (The word ‘my’ is not in the original Greek.) From means ‘from, from out of’. Race means ‘offspring, family, race, nation, kind’. Thus, Paul is not referring specifically to being in danger from his fellow Jews, but rather referring generically to MMNs of childhood and physical upbringing.

The fourth danger is ‘from Gentiles’. The word from is the same preposition used in ‘from race’. The word Gentiles means ‘people joined by practicing similar customs or common culture’. This is a more social version of the family mental networks referred to by ‘race’.

The fifth danger is ‘in city’. In means ‘in the realm of’, while city means ‘a city, the inhabitants of the city’. This describes TMNs of societal order that form when people function together in a structured manner.

The sixth danger is literally ‘in wilderness’. In means ‘in the realm of’, and wilderness means ‘a solitude, a wilderness… uninhabited region’. Thus, the primary emphasis is not upon the stark topography but rather upon being alone away from other people. The challenge here is to maintain one’s personal mental networks without being emotionally propped up by other personal mental networks. For instance, both my parents passed away this last year at the age of 97. For several years they lived in the apartment across the hallway from me and I helped my sister take care of them. I am now learning what it means to continue living in their absence.

The seventh danger is ‘in sea’. The same preposition ‘in’ is used, while sea refers generically to ‘the sea, in contrast to the land’. Here one is struggling to stay intact in a social realm which lacks the stability of stable mental networks.

The eighth danger is ‘in false brethren’. The same preposition ‘in the realm of’ is used. False brethren is found twice in the New Testament: here, and in Galatians 2:4. It combines the prefix ‘pseudo’ with a word that means ‘a brother, member of the same religious community’. This same prefix was used to describe the false apostles in verse 13, which related the idea of ‘false’ to wearing a disguise. Thus, a false brother is someone who is a brother peripherally but not when it comes to core emotional issues. Galatians 2 describes Paul holding on to his apostleship to the Gentiles without watering it down in order to satisfy the demands of the false brothers. Similarly, when one follows a path of personal transformation for a long time and finally reaches the stage of having some fellow travelers, then it is tempting to make one’s message less radical in order to avoid offending and possibly losing these fellow travelers. This does not mean that one should use Mercy status to impose one’s message upon others or refuse to learn from others. Instead, it means remaining true to the TMN of the message and not being shaped by the personal MMNs of others.

If one steps back and looks at the big picture, one can again see that this list forms a cognitive sequence. The first struggle is with self, being willing to follow a path of personal transformation rather than a safer path of personal growth that does not challenge personal identity. The second struggle involves vulnerability to others. When one goes through a river, then one will make personal breakthroughs, and one will come up with new developments that others will want to steal. How will one respond to this danger? The third danger comes from family mental networks. A new personal breakthrough will challenge one’s concept of family and proper upbringing. This will be followed by a fourth danger from societal mental networks in which one begins to question larger mental networks of social convention. Successfully questioning mental networks of society will uncover deeper mental networks of societal order. The struggle will move from Mercy thought to Teacher understanding, from social convention to the underlying societal structure that social convention is attempting to preserve. Addressing these deeper Teacher questions of societal order will make it possible emotionally to walk a different path. But now one will discover a different kind of danger, which is the sixth danger of walking alone. If one is simply rebelling from society, then it will not be possible to walk alone, because a counterculture is always counter to some existing culture. The seventh danger comes from the disordered Mercy experiences that one will encounter when attempting to follow Teacher understanding in a new area where it has not been applied. For instance, mind-over-matter is typically regarded as a realm that would be totally free of any constraints of scientific structure and societal order and structure: ‘Imagine, I could think whatever I want and live within that environment. I would be free from any restrictions!’ Instead, we have been seeing that mind-over-matter would be governed by its own inescapable, universal principles of moral cause-and-effect. And when one finally reaches the point of laying the foundation for a new society, then the eighth danger emerges, which is that of the false brother, because many will want to experience the benefits of this new breakthrough without paying the personal cost that is required.

Paul’s Struggles 11:27-28

Verse 27 describes yet another list: “[I have been] in labor and hardship, often in wakefulness, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and nakedness” (As usual, I am using the NASB footnotes, and ‘I have been’ is in italics because it is not in the original Greek.) This list describes Paul’s personal struggles, and begins with the general description ‘in labor and hardship’. Labor means ‘laborious toil, involving weariness and fatigue’ and was seen in verse 23 where Paul described himself as being a servant of Christ in more abundant labors. Before, Paul was saying in a general way that he was a servant of Christ in a manner that involved more personal weariness than the typical technical apostle. Here, Paul is explaining in more detail the type of weariness and fatigue that he has endured. The word hardship is used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘wearisome, difficult effort, psychologically or physically’. ‘Hardship’ is found three times in the New Testament, and in each case it occurs together with ‘labor’. The phrase ‘labor and toil’ emphasizes that the weariness and fatigue is coming from performing the task and not being imposed by other people. The job itself is emotionally draining.

Each of the four items on this list is prefaced by the preposition in, which means ‘in the realm of’.

The first toil is ‘often in wakefulness’. The word wakefulness comes from a verb which means ‘no sleeping; staying vigilant without any unnecessary time off’. This sleeplessness is described as often.

The second toil is ‘in hunger and thirst’. The word hunger means ‘hunger, famine’ and is usually translated as famine. In other words, the problem is not that food exists and I have no access to it, but rather that there is no food. One would think that the word thirst is a common word, but it is only used once as a noun in the New Testament. In contrast, it is fairly common in verb form as ‘to thirst’. Being ‘in the realm of thirst’ implies something longer-term than merely thirsting. Thus, what is being described is being in a long-term state of having hunger and thirst.

The third toil is ‘often without food’. A more literal translation would be ‘in fastings often’. The noun fasting is found six times in the New Testament and is combined with prayer three of these times. Jews normally fast twice a year, on Yom Kippur and on Tisha B’Av, which commemorates the destruction of the Temple. Paul describes his fastings as ‘often’.

The fourth toil is ‘in cold and nakedness’. The word cold means ‘cold’ and is found three times in the New Testament. In the other two occurrences, people are standing beside a fire because they are cold. Naked rarely means stark-naked, but usually means ‘wearing only the under-garment; bare, open, manifest’. Nakedness is the noun form of the adjective ‘naked’. This implies being in a state of lacking clothing, similar to being in a state of thirst.

Notice how in each of these cases a normal psychological and/or physiological need is being prolonged without being satisfied. The general cognitive principle is that the mind will only pursue a higher strategy if it is blocked from pursuing a lower strategy. In other words, if someone is attempting to break through to a higher form of personal existence, then there will be a personal cost of basic needs remaining unsatisfied. Paul probably experienced these needs physically. But there is also psychological sleeplessness, famine, fasting, and nakedness.

Looking at this in more detail, a person dare not fall asleep when responsible for something that is incapable of taking care of itself and there is no one else to stay awake. For instance, cars are currently incapable of driving themselves. Therefore, a car driver has to remain awake and alert or else transfer responsibility to another car driver. When one is trying to break through to a new level within some personal realm involving mental networks, then these new mental networks will initially be cognitively fragile and will need to be protected from being hurt by existing mental networks, similar to the way that a baby is physically fragile and needs to be protected from being hurt by existing physical matter. In both cases, this will lead to frequent sleeplessness.

Moving on, food represents content that satisfies abstract thought while drink represents experiences that satisfy concrete thought. If a person is in a mental state of famine and thirst, then this means that psychological needs are not being met. I mentioned earlier that each breakthrough of righteousness satisfies some slice of human need, and that many breakthroughs are required to fulfill human need in a three-dimensional manner. When one is exploring some breakthrough in Teacher thought, then this will tend to lead to a narrow existence in which many psychological needs remain unmet. Something similar happens when one tries to live in some new physical region. Conditions for many years will remain rather spartan.

Fasting is a voluntary state of hunger. The idea is to avoid easy immediate answers in order to encourage the mind to seek out deeper solutions. Looking at this personally, there are occasions when I have felt that I am at a dead-end, and I have found that physical fasting has made a difference. However, there are other forms of fasting that do not involve physical food.

Finally, cognitive warmth comes from an environment that keeps mental networks warm and active. This warmth normally comes from the ‘sun’ of a compatible Teacher understanding. When this sun is not ‘shining’, then mental networks have to be activated themselves without being encouraged by any ‘sun of righteousness’. Similarly, clothing represents mental networks of social interaction that cover and protect personal identity. A lack of clothing implies the absence of a compatible culture. Putting this together, new mental networks of personal identity are trying to continue functioning without any outside help from either the TMN of a societal understanding or MMNs of social interaction.

Verse 28 discusses a different kind of need: “Apart from [such] external things, there is the daily pressure on me [of] concern for all the churches.” The phrase ‘apart from such external things’ implies that the previous verses have all been talking about physical problems, which would contradict the idea of interpreting these various lists from a cognitive perspective. But a footnote gives an alternate translation that seems to match the original text more closely, which is ‘apart from the things unmentioned’. The Greek phrase is composed of two words connected by ‘the’. The first word means ‘separately, separate from’. For instance, Matthew 14:21 concludes the story of the feeding of the 5000 by saying that “there were about five thousand men who ate, besides women and children.” The women and children are being counted ‘separately from’ the 5000 men. The second word means ‘in addition, except’. It is used three times in the New Testament. In Matthew 5:32, Jesus says that “everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity...” In Acts 26:29, Paul wished that his audience “might become such as I am, except for these chains”. In verse 28, ‘except for’ is preceded by a definite article. So Paul is saying, ‘In addition, the except for’. Using cognitive language, Paul is referring to a distinct kind of need that involves exceptions to the rule. Verse 27 talked primarily about personal feelings. Verses 28-29 discuss Teacher problems involving exceptions to the rule.

One can tell that this is the case from the rest of verse 28: “There is the daily pressure on me [of] concern for all the churches”. The word translated pressure is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘a gathering, concourse, tumult’. The other occurrence is in Acts 24:12, where Paul says literally that he is not ‘making a tumult of a crowd’. In other words, he is not transforming an ordered group of people into a disordered mob. Applying this to verse 28, a more literal rendition would be ‘the tumn a general way that he was a servant of Christ in a manner that involved more personal weariness than the typical technical apostle. Here, Paul is explaining in more detail the type of weariness and fatigue that he has endured. The word hardship is used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘wearisome, difficult effort, psychologically or physically’. ‘Hardship’ is found three times in the New Testament, and in each case it occurs together with ‘labor’. The phrase ‘labor and toil’ emphasizes that the weariness and fatigue is coming from performing the task and not being imposed by other people. The job itself is emotionally draining.

Each of the four items on this list is prefaced by the preposition in, which means ‘in the realm of’.

The first toil is ‘often in wakefulness’. The word wakefulness comes from a verb which means ‘no sleeping; staying vigilant without any unnecessary time off’. This sleeplessness is described as often.

The second toil is ‘in hunger and thirst’. The word hunger means ‘hunger, famine’ and is usually translated as famine. In other words, the problem is not that food exists and I have no access to it, but rather that there is no food. One would think that the word thirst is a common word, but it is only used once as a noun in the New Testament. In contrast, it is fairly common in verb form as ‘to thirst’. Being ‘in the realm of thirst’ implies something longer-term than merely thirsting. Thus, what is being described is being in a long-term state of having hunger and thirst.

The third toil is ‘often without food’. A more literal translation would be ‘in fastings often’. The noun fasting is found six times in the New Testament and is combined with prayer three of these times. Jews normally fast twice a year, on Yom Kippur and on Tisha B’Av, which commemorates the destruction of the Temple. Paul describes his fastings as ‘often’.

The fourth toil is ‘in cold and nakedness’. The word cold means ‘cold’ and is found three times in the New Testament. In the other two occurrences, people are standing beside a fire because they are cold. Naked rarely means stark-naked, but usually means ‘wearing only the under-garment; bare, open, manifest’. Nakedness is the noun form of the adjective ‘naked’. This implies being in a state of lacking clothing, similar to being in a state of thirst.

Notice how in each of these cases a normal psychological and/or physiological need is being prolonged without being satisfied. The general cognitive principle is that the mind will only pursue a higher strategy if it is blocked from pursuing a lower strategy. In other words, if someone is attempting to break through to a higher form of personal existence, then there will be a personal cost of basic needs remaining unsatisfied. Paul probably experienced these needs physically. But there is also psychological sleeplessness, famine, fasting, and nakedness.

Looking at this in more detail, a person dare not fall asleep when responsible for something that is incapable of taking care of itself and there is no one else to stay awake. For instance, cars are currently incapable of driving themselves. Therefore, a car driver has to remain awake and alert or else transfer responsibility to another car driver. When one is trying to break through to a new level within some personal realm involving mental networks, then these new mental networks will initially be cognitively fragile and will need to be protected from being hurt by existing mental networks, similar to the way that a baby is physically fragile and needs to be protected from being hurt by existing physical matter. In both cases, this will lead to frequent sleeplessness.

Moving on, food represents content that satisfies abstract thought while drink represents experiences that satisfy concrete thought. If a person is in a mental state of famine and thirst, then this means that psychological needs are not being met. I mentioned earlier that each breakthrough of righteousness satisfies some slice of human need, and that many breakthroughs are required to fulfill human need in a three-dimensional manner. When one is exploring some breakthrough in Teacher thought, then this will tend to lead to a narrow existence in which many psychological needs remain unmet. Something similar happens when one tries to live in some new physical region. Conditions for many years will remain rather spartan.

Fasting is a voluntary state of hunger. The idea is to avoid easy immediate answers in order to encourage the mind to seek out deeper solutions. Looking at this personally, there are occasions when I have felt that I am at a dead-end, and I have found that physical fasting has made a difference. However, there are other forms of fasting that do not involve physical food.

Finally, cognitive warmth comes from an environment that keeps mental networks warm and active. This warmth normally comes from the ‘sun’ of a compatible Teacher understanding. When this sun is not ‘shining’, then mental networks have to be activated themselves without being encouraged by any ‘sun of righteousness’. Similarly, clothing represents mental networks of social interaction that cover and protect personal identity. A lack of clothing implies the absence of a compatible culture. Putting this together, new mental networks of personal identity are trying to continue functioning without any outside help from either the TMN of a societal understanding or MMNs of social interaction.

Verse 28 discusses a different kind of need: “Apart from [such] external things, there is the daily pressure on me [of] concern for all the churches.” The phrase ‘apart from such external things’ implies that the previous verses have all been talking about physical problems, which would contradict the idea of interpreting these various lists from a cognitive perspective. But a footnote gives an alternate translation that seems to match the original text more closely, which is ‘apart from the things unmentioned’. The Greek phrase is composed of two words connected by ‘the’. The first word means ‘separately, separate from’. For instance, Matthew 14:21 concludes the story of the feeding of the 5000 by saying that “there were about five thousand men who ate, besides women and children.” The women and children are being counted ‘separately from’ the 5000 men. The second word means ‘in addition, except’. It is used three times in the New Testament. In Matthew 5:32, Jesus says that “everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity...” In Acts 26:29, Paul wished that his audience “might become such as I am, except for these chains”. In verse 28, ‘except for’ is preceded by a definite article. So Paul is saying, ‘In addition, the except for’. Using cognitive language, Paul is referring to a distinct kind of need that involves exceptions to the rule. Verse 27 talked primarily about personal feelings. Verses 28-29 discuss Teacher problems involving exceptions to the rule.

One can tell that this is the case from the rest of verse 28: “There is the daily pressure on me [of] concern for all the churches”. The word translated pressure is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘a gathering, concourse, tumult’. The other occurrence is in Acts 24:12, where Paul says literally that he is not ‘making a tumult of a crowd’. In other words, he is not transforming an ordered group of people into a disordered mob. Applying this to verse 28, a more literal rendition would be ‘the tumult on me’. Paul finished verse 27 by saying ‘in addition, there are the exceptions’. Paul clarifies in verse 28 that these exceptions are a ‘tumult on me’. This describes the Teacher discomfort of experiencing exceptions to the rule.

Verse 28 continues by explaining that the source of this tumult is “concern for all the churches”. The word concern means ‘a part, separated from the whole; figuratively worry or anxiety, dividing and fracturing of persons being into parts’. The word for all ‘focuses on the parts making up the whole – viewing the whole in terms of the individual parts’. And ‘the churches’ is in the plural. In other words, the various churches are threatening to fragment into parts, leading to continual exceptions to the general rule that feel like a tumult to Teacher thought. This would be a major problem for any legislator/apostle attempting to form a new group within which he himself can live. That new society must not fragment into pieces.

All of the English translations seem to mangle this verse. That may be because this verse is referring to Teacher thought and Christian thinkers generally do not understand how Teacher thought functions.

Paul and the Group 11:29-31

Verse 29 describes how Paul takes on the feelings of the group: “Who is weak without my being weak? Who is made to stumble and I do not burn?” (This comes again from the footnotes.) The word weak means ‘to be weak, feeble’. In other words, when some person within the group is unable to carry out their tasks, then Paul himself feels as if he is unable to perform his task. The word translated made to stumble means ‘to put a snare in the way, to cause to stumble’. Burn means ‘to set on fire, to burn’. This tells us that Paul has strong feelings when someone else takes advantage of one of his followers.

This is an interesting twist on the feeling of ‘I am the state’ discussed earlier. In verse 20, the leader was imposing his own personal identity upon the group and trying to make them feel inferior. In verse 29, Paul is personally taking on the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of individuals within the group. This may be emotionally draining, but it also means that Paul-the-legislator has become emotionally integrated with Paul-the-citizen, because Paul feels Teacher pain when a citizen functions inadequately or is abused. This is the opposite of the pseudo-apostle of verse 13 who feels Teacher pain whenever a citizen functions independently or is not abused.

Paul summarizes his new attitude in verse 30: “If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness.” Boast is the normal word that means ‘having the right base of operation’. Have to means ‘it is necessary’. The NASB says ‘If I have to boast’, but the personal pronoun is not mentioned either explicitly or implicitly. Instead, this is stated in the original Greek as an abstract concept: ‘If boasting is necessary’. This is an important distinction because ‘if I have to boast’ suggests that Paul is still struggling to reconcile an attitude of humility with the desire to exalt himself. ‘If boasting is necessary’ indicates that Paul is no longer thinking in personal terms; he is solving a problem without automatically inserting his personal identity into the situation. For instance, President Trump illustrates what it means for a leader to automatically insert his personal identity into every situation. For Trump, the only question that seems to matter is ‘Do I have to boast?’

Paul clarifies in verse 30 what type of boasting he will do: “I will boast of what pertains to my weakness”. The word weakness was just used in verse 29 and means ‘weakness, frailty’. Paul has gone through five lists (according to my counting) summarizing various ways in which he has suffered personally. These are normally viewed as Paul temporarily setting aside his disguise of apostleship in order to reveal to his readers the real Paul. But we have seen that these are not random lists. Instead, each list describes a cognitive progression in which one step of personal weakness leads to cognitive growth that makes the next step possible. In other words, Paul’s weaknesses as an individual have worked together to transform Paul’s legislation into a new society within which Paul and others can live. Paul is not boasting in his weakness because he is choosing with great religious fervor to deny self in order to continue following God. Instead, he is boasting in his weakness because it has caused him to become more successful than the pseudo-apostles with their façades of professionalism.

Paul emphasizes in verse 31 that he is not wearing a façade: “The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.” The word translated lying ‘comes from pseudo, to falsify, lie’. Paul is literally saying that he is not pseudo-ing. Going further, the word knows here is ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. In other words, Paul does not just feel inside that he is not being a fake. Instead, the physical evidence proves that he is not wearing a façade. The rest of the verse may initially appear as if Paul is piling on the religious adjectives in order to swear that he is telling the truth. But that is not the case. Instead, both of these phrases describe critical cognitive transformations that have occurred within the mind of Paul the legislator.

Looking at the first cognitive transformation, ‘the God and Father of the Lord Jesus’ is an accurate rendition of the Greek text. Notice that two aspects are being combined in this single phrase. ‘the God’ refers to the concept of a universal God in Teacher thought, while ‘the Lord Jesus’ describes the concrete, human side of incarnation. Paul’s goal as a legislator has been to become a fellow citizen, which means moving from the general Teacher realm of ‘the God’ to the specific Mercy experiences of ‘the Lord Jesus’. ‘The God’ is described as father of ‘the Lord Jesus’, which means that the concept of God in Teacher thought has ‘fathered’ a finite citizen of Jesus in Mercy thought. Saying this another way, Paul is a genuine legislator-become-citizen because one can examine the facts guided by a concept of God as legislator-become-citizen.

This is not a trivial requirement, because I keep finding that systems fall apart when one steps back and applies the thinking of that system to the system (or author) itself. Paul is saying that you can turn his apostleship into a general system and apply this general system to Paul himself.

The second cognitive transformation is found in the phrase “He who is blessed forever”. The word blessed means ‘speak well of’. Forever is literally ‘to the ages’. An age is ‘a cycle of time, especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age. Paul has just finished describing all of the personal suffering that he has experienced as an apostle of Christ. If Paul were just letting down his guard in order to express his true feelings, then Paul would not be able to ‘speak well of’ a concept of God as legislator-become-citizen. Instead, he would be roiling internally with a desire for divine vindication, especially if one age was followed by another and divine justice was not meted out. The fact that Paul can speak well of God-become-incarnate means that Paul has really—really—worked out the emotional implications of following a path of legislator-become-citizen.

Escaping in a Basket 11:32-33

The chapter finishes by describing an incident that appears to be totally unrelated: “In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me, and I was let down in a basket through a window through the wall, and so escaped his hands” (v.32-33). This is thematically intrusive because a specific example is being inserted into the middle of a discussion phrased in generalities. It is also biographically inappropriate because of this event happened at the beginning of Paul’s ministry as described in Acts 9:25, but Paul is inserting it in the middle of his biographical summary. Whenever this happens I have consistently found that these supposedly unrelated details are actually symbolically relevant. (For instance, Revelation 16:15 appears so parenthetic that the NASB actually puts this verse in parentheses. But it is thematically appropriate if one interprets the passage cognitively.)

At this point, we will examine a number of features of this story which suggest how it should be interpreted. Later in the essay, we will refer back to this story and refine this interpretation. The preceding verses have been describing natural events. The beginning of chapter 12 discusses the supernatural. This means that some sort of breakthrough is happening. Escaping through a hole in a wall definitely represents breaking through some sort of barrier. This idea of breaking through some kind of barrier can be seen in a mistranslation of the NASB. In verse 33 the NASB says that Paul escaped ‘through a window in the wall’, but then points out in a footnote that ‘in’ is literally through. In other words, the Greek text is using inappropriate grammar to emphasize the idea of breaking through a barrier.

Going further, the word basket is used once in the New Testament and means ‘a plaited rope, hence a hamper, basket’. A rope represents Teacher thought because Teacher thought works with strings and sequences. We saw this symbolism when looking at the shape of a serpent, because a serpent is basically a living rope. In this case, a rope is being intertwined (the word ‘basket’ probably comes from a Hebrew verb that means ‘to be intertwined’) in order to form a container within which a person can sit. I have mentioned that each act of righteousness affects a slice of human existence and that many elements of righteousness need to be intertwined in order to construct something within which humanity can exist. Exactly this kind of interweaving is happening in verse 33 because a rope is being intertwined in order to form a basket within which Paul can escape through the wall.

Continuing with this idea, Paul is being released ‘through a window’. Again one sees the preposition ‘through’. The word window is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘a small opening, window’. It is the diminutive form of the word door. In other words, this hole in the wall is not large enough for a person to walk through. Instead, one would normally look through a window and Paul probably had to squeeze through the window. Paul has talked several times about being low, and the word Paul means ‘small’. It is probably significant that Paul is being let down in the basket, which represents a form of personal lowering. This might refer to descending from the height of being a legislator down to the ground of being a citizen.

Turning now to verse 32, the meaning of the name Damascus is uncertain, but Damascus could mean ‘a sack full of blood; the similitude of burning’. Damascus also claims to be the world’s oldest continually inhabited city. A city forms when a group of people organize themselves into a Teacher structure. The world’s oldest continually inhabited city would represent the prototypical Teacher structure that emerges naturally from living together as humans. This is illustrated by the phrase ‘a sack full of blood’, because a human being is fundamentally a sack full of blood. I mean this in two ways: Physically speaking, ‘a sack full of blood’ summarizes human vulnerability. A significant portion of human organization is motivated by the human need to keep blood flowing—and contained—within the sack of the human body. When human blood spills, then people die. People organize themselves into cities in order to prevent their human blood from being spilled. Cognitively speaking, blood represents MMNs (Mercy mental networks) of personal identity. Thus, a sack full of blood represents an MMN of personal identity that is distinct from other mental networks. And this MMN of personal identity must remain encapsulated if a person is to remain an individual. Many of the laws of the city are designed to organize people in a manner that preserves distinct MMNs of personal identity.

Paul is escaping this fundamental human organization through a hole in the wall in a basket constructed out of intertwined Teacher ‘strings’. This matches the context because human organization and human need can be seen strongly in the preceding verses while the next section describes Paul experiencing something supernatural.

That is as far as we will go with this illustration at the moment.

Paul’s Visions 12:1-6

Paul begins chapter 12 by describing a new attitude regarding boasting: “Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable”. In 11:30 Paul said that he would boast if it was necessary. Four verses later he is saying that boasting is necessary. But Paul adds that ‘it is not profitable’. The word profitable means ‘combine in a way that brings a profit or gain, especially by a concurrence of circumstances’. This word is found twice in 2 Corinthians. It was used previously in 8:10, where Paul talked about something being profitable for others. Here he is describing profitability in general terms that apply also to him. This means that Paul has reached the point of being a citizen where he can start to seek personal gain. But notice what kind of profit that Paul is seeking. He is looking for profit that comes as a result of Teacher thought; circumstances are combining in a way that brings a profit. Thus, Paul is still seeking profit as a private citizen in a manner that reflects Teacher thought.

Referring back to chapter 11, Paul’s search for profit reflects ‘the God and Father of the Lord Jesus’. Looking at this in more detail, incarnation is rooted in technical thought, and Jesus refers to the concrete side of incarnation. Concrete technical thought is based in cause-and-effect. Profit is a form of personal cause-and-effect: I pursue some cause in order to gain a greater effect. If profit is an expression of Teacher thought, then this means cognitively that Jesus is the son of God the Father, because a concept of God is based in Teacher thought. (This type of cognitive symbolic reasoning may sound convoluted when stated verbally, but it happens naturally within the mind. That is because a concept of God that forms into a TMN will naturally impose its structure upon the mind, causing a person to behave in a manner that is consistent with the kind of God in which one really believes. I refer to this as an implicit concept of God.)

Paul’s next topic is “visions and revelations of the Lord” (v.1). The word visions means ‘a vision, supernatural appearance’. It is used four times in the New Testament and always refers to seeing something supernatural. Revelations is the word ‘apocalypse’, which means ‘an unveiling, uncovering, revealing’. The phrase ‘of the Lord’ could also mean ‘from the Lord’. The point is that these supernatural visions are not occurring independently of incarnation.

Looking at this more generally, I suggest that two errors are commonly made when attempting to break through to the spiritual. The first mistake is to seek spiritual encounters independently of incarnation. The second mistake is to think that following incarnation rules out all spiritual encounters. Using religious language, the first mistake tries to contact spirits outside of the framework of the name of Jesus Christ, while the second mistake thinks that being a Christian rules out spiritual encounters. Using scientific language, the first mistake views the supernatural as a violation of natural law and embraces the supernatural by transcending rational thought, while the second mistake thinks that following natural law means denying the supernatural. In contrast, I suggest that both the natural and the supernatural are expressions of Jesus Christ the incarnation of God. Similarly, Paul is having visions and revelations but they are ‘of the Lord’.

Paul describes his experience in verse 2: “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven.” The word know is used seven times in verses 2-3, and in each case it means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. This tells us that Paul is not talking about a mystical experience, because if it were a mystical experience then Paul would use the word know that means ‘experiential knowledge’. A mystical encounter can only give the feeling of encountering God and does not convey any content; there is no ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. Paul, in contrast, uses ‘seeing that becomes knowing’ seven times. And he says twice that ‘God knows’. For mysticism, it is blasphemy to suggest that God can have any form of ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. Mysticism always describes God as a mysterious being who transcends all empirical knowledge. Notice also that Paul refers to himself as ‘a man in Christ’, emphasizing the fact that this spiritual vision is happening within the context of incarnation.

But there is also a fundamental ambiguity in this vision: “whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know”. The word body, which is used four times in these two verses, means ‘the physical body’. In other words, Paul does not know if he experienced this physically or spiritually. One finds a similar ambiguity in many UFO encounters, because an individual will not know if something is happening physically or spiritually. In a similar manner, many of the concepts of mental symmetry have turned into Platonic forms within my mind and these mental networks behave as if they are intelligent beings with whom I can interact. I do not know if this interaction is happening purely within my mind at the level of mental networks or if there is also an additional spiritual component. It is ambiguous. (It appears that one has to enter the spiritual in order to move between the natural and the supernatural.)

Paul deals with this ambiguity by saying that ‘God knows’. Saying this cognitively, one may not know in Mercy thought whether one is dealing with something physical, cognitive, or spiritual, but whatever it is, it is still subject to the same general concept of God in Teacher thought: ‘God knows’. Similarly, my general hypothesis is that just as humans within the physical universe can be mentally represented by MMNs of personal identity, so angels within the angelic realm can be mentally represented by TMNs of specialization. Going further, it appears that the spiritual realm interacts with the cognitive realm through mental networks. When one interacts socially with another human being, then some of this interaction is happening physically, guided by physical sensations, while some of this interaction is happening cognitively, guided by mental networks. Exactly what is physical and what is cognitive is ambiguous. Similarly, when one interacts with spirits or angels/aliens, it is usually ambiguous what is cognitive and what is spiritual or supernatural. However, both sides of this ambiguity can be described using the same Teacher theory of mental symmetry. Thus, there may be an experiential ambiguity but there is no theoretical ambiguity. A similar kind of ambiguity exists within physics between wave and particle. Here too there is an experiential ambiguity, because one does not know if one is dealing with a wave or a particle. But there is no ambiguity within Teacher thought, because the same mathematical equations continue to apply.

The word caught up means ‘seize by force; snatch up, suddenly and decisively’. It is used twice in 2 Corinthians: here, and two verses later. This also brings to mind a common trait of supernatural encounters. One does not choose to enter the supernatural. Instead, an abductee will usually talk about being pulled by some form of supernatural force.

I am not suggesting that Paul was abducted by a UFO, because that brings Christianity down to the level of a UFO encounter. In contrast, I suggest that Paul was being ‘caught up’ from one dimension of existence to another and that a similar kind of inter-dimensional transition happens in a UFO encounter. In other words, Jesus is not a UFO alien. Instead, Jesus Christ is the Incarnation of God who created the physical universe, the supernatural realm, and the spiritual realm. (I am reasonably certain that these three realms exist, and I am not aware of any evidence for other realms.)

Now let us think of this verse in terms of legislator-become-citizen. Presumably, this heavenly vision was the source of much of what Paul taught as an apostle. After all, Paul says in Galatians 1:11-12 that “the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” And the word ‘revelation’ is the same word that was just used in verse 1. Notice also that this is described as a revelation of Jesus Christ, emphasizing the central role of incarnation.

In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul is looking back at this episode as if it happened to another person. He remembers the facts, but he no longer identifies emotionally with his previous identity as legislator/apostle. And he refers back to his former self as a man, which means ‘a man, one of the human race’. He is not Paul the mega-apostle, but rather a man, one of the human race.

Verse 3 is basically a repeat of verse 2, but verse 4 mentions something new: “was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. The Greek is literally ‘into the paradise’, suggesting that a specific realm is being described. The word paradise means ‘a park, a garden, a paradise’ and is found three times in the New Testament. The first time is in Luke 23:43 where Jesus tells the thief on the cross that ‘today you shall be with Me in paradise’. The last time is in Revelation 2:7, which talks about eating “of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God”. In each case, the word ‘paradise’ is preceded by the definite article.

Heaven appears to describe a realm based in Teacher words peopled by angels (angel means ‘messenger’), as opposed to earth which is a realm based in Mercy experiences peopled by humans. I have mentioned that Platonic forms are imaginary images of ideal perfection that form within Mercy thoughts as a result of Teacher understanding. Similarly, I suggest that paradise is a place of ideal perfection that emerges within the Mercy realm as a result of Teacher understanding. This is basically another expression of the three stages of personal transformation. A human starts in physical reality and constructs a concept of God. A human then acquires an angelic nature of righteousness by allowing this concept of God to guide behavior. This then makes it possible for a human to become reborn within a transformed Mercy environment. Thus, the sequence is earth → heaven → paradise, or in cognitive terms, Mercy → Teacher → transformed Mercy. Similarly, Jesus became incarnate on earth, ascended to heaven, and will eventually return to Earth. Humans have physical bodies, they die and go to heaven as disembodied spirits, and they will eventually be resurrected with spiritual bodies. Similarly, Jerusalem began as a physical city, but there is currently a spiritual Jerusalem in heaven which will eventually descend to earth as the New Jerusalem. Likewise, there is a spirit of this world, but if one submits to God the Father, then one becomes filled with the Holy Spirit. Looking at the Old Testament, one see the same sequence in Egypt → wilderness → promised land. And God refers to himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which portrays a similar three-stage sequence. (I am not exactly sure how paradise relates to the new heavens and earth. But the progression of Mercy → Teacher → transformed Mercy appears to be a general principle.)

Paul does not describe what paradise is like, but rather mentions the relationship between humans, paradise, and words: “and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak”. Paul doesn’t say that he is forbidden to speak these words but rather that mankind in general is not allowed to speak these words. Words in this case refer to ‘a spoken word made by the living voice’, as opposed to logos, which we been connecting with a TMN based in words. This is a fairly common word but it is only found twice in 2 Corinthians: here, and in 13:1. The word permitted means ‘permitted, lawful’. And the word speak means ‘chatter in classical Greek’. Finally, the word inexpressible is used once in the New Testament. It combines the prefix ‘not’ with a word that means ‘expressly, explicitly, in so many words’ (which is also used only once in the New Testament).

Putting this all together, a more literal rendition would be ‘heard spoken-word that cannot be expressed explicitly in words, which humanity is not permitted to chatter’. This is similar to what Jesus says in Matthew 12:36: “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.” The word careless means ‘inactive, idle’. And accounting means ‘to return, especially as a payment’. A more literal rendition of this verse would be: ‘I say to you that every idle spoken-word that men chatter, they will return-as-a-payment a logos in judgment day’. Saying this more carefully, talk is currently cheap. Humans can chatter spoken-words. But human chatter will not always be cheap. Instead a time will come when one has to pay for one’s verbal chatter. And this payment will come in the form of the logos of TMNs. In paradise, the spoken-word goes beyond mere speech. It is forbidden for humans to chatter about the spoken-word of paradise. Why? Because eventually one will have to pay for present chatter. What is this payment? Words will become solid and powerful; they will go beyond mere speech.

One can gain a partial understanding of what this means from current politics. The average citizen can say whatever he wants—within limits. But if a person gets elected to public office, then any idle words that were spoken as a citizen which were recorded (or written down) will get played back. A politician will be asked to account for his idle words with some mental network: ‘Why did you say those words? Is that what you really believe? If you don’t believe that, then why did you say those words?’ Going further, these idle words from the past will affect the ability of a politician to legislate in the present: ‘How can we accept your legislative proposals if you said something quite different in the past?’

It is quite possible that Paul did see things in paradise that he was instructed not to talk about. But there is no point in trying to speculate what Paul might have said. Instead, we have attempted to analyze what Paul did say.

And I suggest that there is also a cognitive principle. Paul talks both about being ‘caught up to the third heaven’ and about being ‘caught up into paradise’. The prohibition about talking is mentioned with paradise and not with heaven. Heaven relates to Teacher thought, which is guided by universal principles that apply everywhere at all times. Therefore, one can safely talk about heaven while remaining rational, similar to the manner that this essay is discussing prophecy in a rational manner by being guided by the general Teacher theory of mental symmetry. But human Mercy experiences are far more specific; my Mercy experiences are not the same as someone else’s. Therefore, it is dangerous to talk about my spiritual experiences, especially if I do not know whether they were real or just in my head. Physics faces a similar dilemma, because the Teacher equations of physics are clear while the Mercy interpretations of these equations are often quite ambiguous. Thus, some physicists follow a philosophy informally known as shut up and calculate. In other words, use Teacher thought to analyze the equations, but do not use Mercy thought to try to imagine what these equations mean.

Going further, suppose that what one has spiritually encountered is not just in one’s head but actually reflects some form of spiritual reality. Chattering about these spiritual experiences will cause them to become stillborn. Instead, it is important for them to grow and develop internally guided solely by Teacher understanding without being being contaminated by idle chatter, until they have matured to the point of being able to express themselves within reality in an integrated manner.

Paul returns in verse 5 to the idea of boasting: “On behalf of such a man I will boast; but on my own behalf I will not boast, except in regard to [my] weaknesses.” This accurately translates the original Greek, except that ‘my’ is in italics and is not in the original. Because Paul-the-citizen no longer identifies emotionally with Paul-the-legislator, Paul can boast (which means ‘place confidence in’) in what he did previously as a legislator. But Paul-the-citizen will continue to maintain the attitude of placing confidence in his weaknesses.

This gives Paul greater emotional freedom as a citizen: “For if I do wish to boast I will not be foolish, for I will be speaking the truth” (v.6). Until now, Paul has been holding back emotionally in order to avoid overturning his legislation. The word wish means ‘to desire, wish, or will’. This is an emotional term indicating personal desire. We have seen the word foolish several times and it means ‘without an inner perspective that regulates behavior; properly, lacking perspective because short-sighted’. Idle chatter is an example of foolishness, because words are being expressed that are unregulated by any inner perspective, without any concern for their long-term impact. Paul is saying that he will not be a fool if he wants to boast. That is a huge cognitive progression from what Paul said in 11:17, where he regarded boasting as foolishness. The primary difference is that Paul will now ‘be speaking the truth’. The word speak is common in the Gospels but used only twice in 2 Corinthians: here, and three verses later. In the past tense it is usually translated as ‘having been spoken’ or ‘it was said’. The word truth means ‘true to fact, reality’. In other words, Paul’s boasting will now be backed up by an environment that reflects these words, within which everyone—including Paul—lives. For instance, this would be like Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, talking about the Internet today, as opposed to him talking about the Internet back in 1989, when he proposed the idea of the World Wide Web and set up the first Web server.

But Paul still refrains from boasting: “but I refrain [from this], so that no one will credit me with more than he sees [in] me or hears from me” (v.6). The word refrain is the verb form of the adverb sparingly that we saw in 9:6 when looking at the phrase ‘he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly’. We saw there that it does not mean doing only a little but rather means having an attitude of avoiding areas. In other words, Paul is not limiting his boasting to occasional name-dropping. Instead, he is generally avoiding the very act of boasting, as if boasting makes him feel uncomfortable.

The word credit means ‘reason to a logical conclusion’. Sees means ‘to see something physical, with spiritual results’. Similarly, hears means to ‘comprehend by hearing’. In other words, Paul wants to interact with others on the basis of what he appears to be now as a citizen, and not have people think of him in terms of what he did in the past as a legislator/apostle. This may sound unnecessarily humble, but that is because we are thinking in terms of current matter-over-mind, in which people accomplish things in the prime of life and then grow old physically and only have the past to look back on. In contrast, mind-over-matter would make it possible to continue living in the present within what one accomplished in the past. If some legislator/apostle created the rules for some new reality and then embodied those rules, it makes sense that such an individual would find it natural to live within those rules and be successful in the present. Thus, Paul does not need to talk about the past because he can embody the past in the present.

This also means that Paul no longer thinks of himself as ‘the apostle who has suffered more than anyone else for Jesus’. He no longer has to rehash all of his pains as he did at the end of chapter 11. This implies that Paul has become cognitively reborn; he has mentally escaped through a hole in the wall. We will return to this concept later.

Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh 12:7-9

The next verse mentions Paul’s proverbial thorn in the flesh: “Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to beat me—to keep me from exalting myself!” (v.7). The word revelations is the same word ‘apocalypse’ that was seen in verse 1. The word translated surpassing greatness means ‘a throwing beyond’. We interpreted this previously as something which travels further by going through the air of Teacher thought. The original Greek is literally ‘the surpassingness of the revelations’. Paul is not just receiving a revelation, but rather receiving a revelation that involves going through the realm of Teacher thought.

Using the language of technology, Paul is not just coming up with a new technological innovation. That would be a revelation. Instead, Paul is coming up with an innovation that involves a brand-new scientific discovery. That would be a revelation with surpassingness. And Paul has done this several times, because verse 7 talks about ‘the surpassingness of the revelations’ in the plural. In other words, Paul has discovered an entirely new branch of science and developed a series of innovations based upon this new form of science. This description applies literally to the historical Paul because Paul invented theology, and theology was an entirely new form of thought that eventually laid the foundation for scientific thought itself.

Moving on, the word exalting myself means ‘to uplift oneself’. It is found three times in the New Testament: twice in this verse, and once in 2 Thess. 2:4, which describes the antichrist “who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship”. This implies that what Paul has done is so fundamental that he could turn into an antichrist.

The word thorn is used once in the New Testament and means ‘anything with a sharp point’. This thorn is ‘in the flesh’, and flesh refers to the physical body. Paul does not describe the exact nature of his thorn in the flesh, and many have tried to speculate. What matters is that it pokes and it affects the physical body.

This ‘thorn in the flesh’ is described as a “messenger of Satan”. The word messenger means ‘messenger, angel’. It refers sometimes to humans and sometimes to angels. The word Satan means ‘adversary’ and the pseudo-apostles were described in 11:13-15 as servants of Satan. The purpose of this ‘messenger of Satan’ is “to beat me, to keep me from exalting myself!” (v.7). The word beat means ‘to strike with the fist’.

Putting this all together in the most general way possible, Paul is having to contend with something physical. Concrete thought is experiencing this as something sharp that pokes. Abstract thought regards this as something alive which actively maintains an adversarial position. Looking at this cognitively, the antichrist in 2 Thessalonians is ‘exalting himself above every so-called god or object of worship. In other words, he is performing a political version of mysticism, in which he is equating himself with an overgeneralized Teacher theory that rules over everything. Similarly, the danger for Paul is to equate Paul-the-citizen with Paul-the-legislator who was the Teacher source of the environment in which people are now living. But Paul-the-legislator really was the Teacher source of the environment in which people are now living. That is a fact. Therefore, something has to continue poking Paul-the-citizen to keep reminding him that he is a finite person who is distinct from other people. As long as Paul keeps remembering that he is different from others, he will not make the intuitive leap of asserting that he is one with everyone. In other words, he will be prevented from saying l’état, c’est moi (I am the state) by the presence of something physical which pokes him and says ‘but you are not me’.

This is a general principle that would apply to any legislator-become-citizen, but it would apply especially to a mega-apostle such as Paul the apostle. I think that this passage was deliberately kept vague because these cognitive requirements could be satisfied in various ways. The point is that something has to fulfill this role.

In verse 8, Paul describes his response to the ‘thorn in the flesh’: “Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me.” The word translated implored is actually the familiar ‘comfort’ word that is both legal and emotional, which is used to describe the operation of the Holy Spirit in John 16. ‘Implored’ gives the impression that Paul asked with deep emotions. However, Paul is actually requesting in a manner that reflects the operation of the Holy Spirit, which express emotions within a legal setting. The word might leave means ‘to lead away, to depart from’. In other words, Paul is asking that this personal poking go away.

Verse 9 gives the answer: “And He has said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.’” The word said is the same unusual word that is found only twice in 2 Corinthians: here, and previously in verse 6. In verse 6 Paul ‘said’ that he would be saying the truth if he boasted about his revelations. The reply in verse 9 uses the same version of ‘said’. The implication is that both of these statements are based upon the same concept of truth. It is because Paul is saying the truth when he is boasting about having been a legislator that he has to receive the thorn in the flesh. This is consistent with the cognitive reason that we gave for Paul receiving the thorn in the flesh. In brief, the purpose is to prevent Paul from turning into an antichrist—because Paul could become an antichrist and still be consistent with the truth: he did come up with the legislation within which everyone now lives. I say ‘everyone’ because when it comes to the real, historical Paul, then all of Western civilization currently lives within the concept of theology that Paul initiated as an apostle. (Christianity in general may be abandoning the idea of theology, but it still remains very much alive in the guise of science.) Within a system of mind-over-matter, there would be a danger for the real Paul to become an antichrist.

Looking now at the response, sufficient means ‘be content, be enough, suffice’. Grace means ‘leaning towards to share benefit’ and usually describes God helping people. One can tell that this is the case because both pronouns are present in this verse: ‘suffices you the grace of-me’. One could interpret this two ways. This could mean that Christ is giving enough grace to Paul. But it could also mean that the path of ‘Christ giving grace to Paul’ is enough.

Going further, power can refer to either natural or supernatural power. Looking at this cognitively, power describes Perceiver thought as an active force. Power is a multiplier of strength which becomes available when the technical thinking of incarnation translates universal laws into concrete objects. For instance, a person can use a shovel to dig a ditch. But a person can use a machine to dig a ditch much faster. That is because a digging machine, such as an excavator, multiplies the strength of the worker. The worker pushes a lever and the digging machine translates this into the movement of a massive metal arm. Designing and constructing a digging machine requires translating the laws of science into technology.

The word weakness means ‘weakness, frailty’. And perfected means ‘to bring to an end, complete, fulfill’. Putting this together, power becomes perfected in human weakness. Using the example of an excavator, there would be no need to design and build excavators if humans had sufficient physical strength to dig large ditches. However, because humans are too weak to dig massive ditches, this provides a motivation to design and build excavators. Of course, this assumes that the scientific principles behind excavators are well understood and that the technology exists to transform these scientific principles into real machines. But that describes precisely the situation of Paul-the-apostle-become-citizen. Paul knows the general principles behind his current society because he came up with these principles as a legislator/apostle. And Paul also knows how to translate these general principles into real life because Paul has followed a path of moving from legislator to citizen. Therefore, Paul’s physical weakness ensures that he will continue to transform general principles into real life. In other words, Christ is not making Paul weak in order to keep him humble, but rather because Paul’s weakness perfects Paul’s power. The path of grace from incarnation to Paul is sufficient. Paul does not have to rely on his own strength, because as legislator-become-citizen he can transform general laws into personal power. Saying this another way, by making a lower strategy inadequate, Christ is forcing Paul to continue following the higher strategy that he has developed and not revert back to the lower strategy.

Stepping back now to look at the big picture, notice again that we are seeing a two-step response: In the first step, Paul chooses consciously to behave in some manner. In the second step, God imposes a situation upon Paul which causes him to behave in that manner. First, Paul is choosing to view himself as a citizen who used to be a legislator. Second, God is giving Paul a thorn in the flesh so that he has to view himself as a citizen who used to be a legislator.

Stepping back now to look at the very big picture, the same principle would apply to God and incarnation. If God wants to live with creation then God himself has to go through a version of legislator-become-citizen. Saying this in terms of incarnation, Christ the Incarnation who created natural law has to become incarnate in the flesh and live within natural law. And the incarnate Christ has to live a life of lowliness. One normally views the incarnation of Jesus as something which God did for humanity. But it is also something which God did for himself, in order to make it possible to experience fellowship with created life and not just be the creator of life. That is a huge topic, and we will not be exploring it any further here. Some of the implications are discussed in the essay on physics.

Paul’s response tells us that he grasps this at an emotional level: “Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast in my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me” (v.9). The word most gladly is only found twice in the New Testament: here, and 6 verses later in verse 15. It means ‘most sweetly… emphasizing an action done with full gladness and no regret or reservation’. In other words, Paul is not embracing religious self-denial with pure fervor. Instead, he is emotionally convinced that this is best for him.

This is borne out by the rest of the phrase. Rather means ‘prioritizing or ranking to elevate the better for the good’. Boast is the standard ‘having the right base of operation to deal successfully’. The NASB says that “I will rather boast about my weaknesses”, but then points out that it is literally ‘I will rather boast in my weaknesses’. And in means ‘in the realm of’. These two phrases are totally different. ‘Boasting about my weaknesses’ reflects an attitude of religious self-denial in which one is happy about being weak. In contrast, ‘boasting in my weaknesses’ sees personal weakness as an opportunity to gain power through grace. Paul explicitly states this reason: “so that the power of Christ may dwell in me”. The word dwell means ‘to dwell in a pitched tent’, and is only used once in the New Testament. A person who lives in a solid house does not need extra help. But a person who ‘dwells in a pitched tent’ will need continual help. A normal citizen would want to be self-sufficient and live in a solid house. But Paul is not a normal citizen. Instead he is a legislator-become-citizen. Therefore, he wants to live in a temporary home that continually requires government assistance, because this state of perpetual need allows Paul-the-citizen to continually access—through incarnation—the power that was developed by Paul-the-legislator. That is why Paul decides that it is better to ‘boast in my weaknesses’.

I should point out that this principle does not really work in matter-over-mind. That is because the government can only redistribute existing physical resources. Therefore, if some person continually requires government assistance, then this assistance has to come from other people. However, within mind-over-matter it would be possible to gain additional benefits without taking from one’s neighbors.

Paul the Masochist? 12:10

Paul summarizes this apparent contradiction in verse 10: “Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” The word well content means ‘to think well of, to be well pleased’. This tells us that Paul is not shutting off his mind in order to follow God in self-denial. Instead, he is rationally concluding that this is a good alternative. However, one gains the impression that the translators of the NASB do believe in religious self-denial. That is because the word translated with occurs five times in this verse, but it is actually the word in, which means ‘in, inside, within, in the realm of’. (The KJV accurately says ‘in’.) ‘With’ gives the impression that Paul is a masochist who likes to wear a cilice. In contrast, ‘in’ (or ‘in the realm of’) indicates that Paul is an opportunist who views personal limitations as an opportunity to exhibit higher power.

Looking at this list, the first item is weaknesses, which we already know means ‘weakness, frailty’. In other words, Paul is willing to live in a physical body that has limitations. This does not necessarily mean a crippled body but merely one that is weaker than a normal body.

The second item is insults, which is ‘reproach that adds insult to injury’. This describes attacking a person personally in Mercy thought as well as saying something unpleasant in Teacher thought. This word ‘hubris’ is only used once in 2 Corinthians. A legislator-turned-citizen like Paul would not be troubled by normal problems in Mercy thought, because he could simply use his power as a legislator to handle the personal threat. But a problem that involved both Mercy experiences and Teacher words would require intelligent thought.

The third item is distresses, which describes ‘a compelling need requiring immediate action’. This provides the motivation for change. Motivation would be a problem for someone who is very successful, because the temptation would be to rest in the achievements of the past. A ‘compelling need requiring immediate action’ would force such a person to stop resting upon their laurels.

The fourth item is persecutions, which means ‘literally, the hunt to bring someone down like an animal’. This word is used only once in 2 Corinthians. A general Teacher theory covers many specific Mercy situations. Therefore, fully developing a new Teacher theory means exploring many specific Mercy situations. Being hunted down would provide the motivation to do this necessary exploratory work.

The fifth item is difficulties, which means ‘narrowness of space, difficulty’. As we have seen several times in this essay, this kind of personal squeezing forces a person to live within a higher strategy. The previous items have motivated Paul-the-citizen to develop a comprehensive Teacher theory that can now be applied by Paul-the-legislator. Narrowness of space would remove the option for Paul to continue living as a citizen, forcing him to function as Paul-the-legislator.

Notice how Paul is being driven by others in this sequence to come up with new legislation. He is not choosing to act as Paul-the-legislator the way that an antichrist would. Instead, he is being forced to act as Paul-the-legislator by responding in a humble fashion to pressure being exerted by others. This makes it possible for him to act as Paul-the-legislator without turning into an antichrist.

Paul mentions two other factors at the end of the verse. First, he is doing this ‘on behalf of Christ’. In other words, he wants to reach the level of abstract technical thought as used by incarnation. For instance, a technician functions at the level of concrete technical thought, following recipes, handbooks, and official procedures in order to solve concrete problems at the level of cause-and-effect. In contrast, a scientist functions at the level of abstract technical thought, coming up with new general equations that can be used to solve many kinds of similar problems at the abstract level of precise definitions. We saw this kind of thinking earlier when talking about problem-solving from first principles.

The second factor involves Paul himself: “for when I am weak, then I am strong” (v.10). The original Greek is slightly different. Weak is the standard word that indicates human frailty. But it is in the subjunctive tense. Therefore, Paul is actually saying ‘for when I might be weak’. The word translated then is fairly common in the New Testament, but it is only used once in 2 Corinthians. It means ‘then, at that time’. And the word translated strong means ‘pre-eminent ability or power in something’. We saw this word in verse 9 when talking about ‘the power of Christ’. Thus, a more accurate translation would be ‘for when I might be weak, then at that time I am powerful’. In other words, when it looks like Paul-the-citizen might fail, then Paul-the-legislator steps in and gives power to Paul-the-citizen. Within current matter-over-mind, the best illustration of this would be using technology to overcome personal weakness. Within future mind-over-matter, the best illustration might be Clark Kent the timid journalist turning into Superman.

Living as ‘Clark Kent’ 12:11-13

Paul then describes what sort of person he has become: “I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me” (v.11). Have become means ‘to come into being’. The word foolish is the familiar word that means ‘lacking perspective because short-sighted’. In verse 5, Paul said that ‘I will not be a fool’. Here he says that he has become a fool. The NASB says ‘become foolish’, implying that Paul is merely acting foolish. But the original Greek is ‘I have become a fool’. The word compelled is used once as a verb in 2 Corinthians and means ‘to compel, doing so with urgency as a pressing necessity’. It is the verb form of the noun translated ‘distresses’ in verse 10.

In other words, Paul did not choose to become a fool. Instead, he was forced to become a fool by others. But exactly what kind of fool has Paul become? A person who does not think about long-term consequences; someone who is not guided by an inner perspective that regulates behavior. This brings to mind the Christian believer who decides to ‘live by faith’ by not preparing for anything but rather relying for everything upon God. That kind of mindset could accurately be described as being this kind of fool. But there is a major difference between Paul and the typical foolish Christian believer. Paul-the-foolish-citizen can always be bailed out by Paul-the-legislator. The real Paul is Paul-the-foolish-citizen plus Paul-the-legislator. In contrast, the typical Christian who ‘lives by faith’ is nothing but a foolish believer backed up only by blind faith in God.

I suggest that this kind of living by blind faith qualifies as tempting God. Satan in the wilderness tempted Jesus to jump off the temple to prove that he was the Son of God through the exhibition of supernatural power. Jesus answered by saying that one should not tempt God. Jesus was given a name that is above all names after death and resurrection. But exhibiting this divine power earlier on would have short-circuited this process. The problem with relying on supernatural power too early on is that it creates a mental dichotomy, because one will think that following God means shutting down rational thought. Something similar happens with technology because, as Arthur C Clarke said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” In other words, if one uses technology without understanding the underlying principles, then a mental dichotomy emerges between technology and common sense.

Paul emphasizes in verse 11 that in his case there is more to the story: “Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody.” The word commended refers ‘to facts lining up with each other to support or commend something’. In other words, if the believers had viewed Paul from a Teacher perspective, they would have seen that everything holds together. The word should have is used twice in 2 Corinthians: here, and three verses later. It ‘expressed initially one’s legal and economic, and then later one’s moral, duties and responsibilities to the gods and to men’. That is because Paul-the-legislator is responsible for creating the structure in which the believers now live. Thus, the very structure of society should guide the believers to view Paul from a Teacher perspective.

Similarly, if one views the book of 2 Corinthians from a Teacher perspective, one sees that everything holds together. However, if one interprets the book of 2 Corinthians from a Mercy perspective, then one concludes that Paul is losing his mantle of apostolic respectability and trying to defend his right to be an apostle in a somewhat confused fashion. But I suggest that we have a legal and moral obligation to view 2 Corinthians from a Teacher perspective, because Paul invented theology—which bases religion upon Teacher thought.

Paul then mentions his former existence as Paul-the-legislator: “for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody.” Notice that he compares himself to the apostles in the past tense while stating that he is a nobody in the present tense. The word in no respect means ‘not one, none, and categorically excludes’. The word inferior means ‘coming behind and therefore left out’. It was used in 11:5 where Paul said that “I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles”. 12:11 is almost identical to 11:5, except that in chapter 11 Paul was saying this on the basis of rational thought, while in chapter 12 Paul is stating this as a fact. We saw in 11:5 that the word eminent actually means ‘conferring benefit, i.e. for the sake of betterment’. This describes the functioning of technical thought, which improves and optimizes rather than coming up with something original. Thus, an ‘eminent apostle’ could also be described as a technical apostle, someone who focuses upon using Thomas Kuhn’s ‘normal science’. Technical thought typically views other less rigorous forms of thought as ‘coming behind and therefore left out’. Paul is saying that he does not fall behind the technical apostles in any way. That is because he is functioning at the level of Thomas Kuhn’s ‘revolutionary science’. Instead of merely optimizing within some paradigm using technical thought, he can use his ability as a legislator to come up with a totally new paradigm for technical thought.

The preposition translated ‘even though’ is actually if. Nowhere in the definition page is ‘even though’ given as a possible translation. It is found 508 times in the New Testament and translated almost universally as ‘if’. ‘Even though’ gives the impression that Paul is being a nobody and no longer an apostle, consistent with an attitude of religious self-denial, in which one follows God by denying self. Going further, the word nobody is exactly the same word ‘not one, none’ which was used earlier in the verse.

Therefore, the only way I know how to interpret ‘even though I am a nobody’ is in terms of existence itself. Paul is presenting the possibility of ‘If I don’t exist at all’. For a normal person, this would be unthinkable, but Paul has an alternate persona within which he can reside. In other words, even if Paul cannot exist as a citizen, Paul is still superior in every way to the technical apostles. This statement may relate to an inherent limitation of objective specialization. A technical apostle focuses upon some specialization and then uses technical thought to optimize this area. This combination of specializing and following technical thought to the exclusion of normal thought and mental networks means that a technical apostle can never place himself within his specialization. In contrast, the apostleship of Paul is large enough to contain him as a person. Even if Paul ceases to exist as a person, he can still exist and function within his apostleship. We saw this idea in symbolic form with Paul being let down through the wall in a basket of intertwined rope.

Verse 12 describes what it means to be a true apostle: “The attesting miracles of the apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by attesting miracles and wonders and works of power.” (Again, we are using the footnotes.) The word translated attesting miracles means ‘a sign, typically miraculous, given especially to confirm, corroborate or authenticate’. The verb performed means ‘work down to the end-point’. And the word apostle is prefaced by the direct article. In other words, Paul is not just claiming to be an apostle. Instead, he demonstrated that he was an apostle by performing the extraordinary. After all, if an apostle goes beyond the ordinary to explore something new involving God and humans, then this should result in the extra-ordinary. And Paul did not just perform some extra-ordinary miracle. Instead, he continued to function in the extra-ordinary until he reached his goal. The word perseverance means ‘remaining under’, while ‘with all’ is more literally in each part of a totality. In other words, Paul did not use his extra-ordinary abilities to run away from problems. Instead, he stuck with the situation and saw it through to the end.

Verse 12 finishes by adding two other words to attesting miracles. Wonders means ‘a miraculous wonder, done to elicit a reaction from onlookers’. This word is only used once in 2 Corinthians. Finally, works of power is the same word ‘power’ that was mentioned in verses 9 and 10.

Putting this together, Paul is setting a high standard for what it means to be ‘the apostle’. On the one hand, one has to stick with a process and see it through to the end. On the other hand, one has to exhibit powers and abilities that are extra-ordinary. Modern technology provides a partial illustration of this juxtaposition. On the one hand, technology perfects processes of manufacturing. On the other hand, technology constructs devices with extra-ordinary powers and functions.

Verse 13 then turns to the church to which Paul is writing. Presumably, this is the church of Achaia, which is following God with the right mental networks but lacks the technical thought that is required to transform these mental networks into reality. “For in what respect were you treated as inferior to the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not become a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong!” This verse is typically portrayed as sarcasm, and even the interlinear translation adds a big red ? and ! to imply sarcasm. However, we will attempt to come up with an interpretation that does not involve sarcasm. Sarcasm uses the surface appearance of technical thought to convey an emotional message of belittling. A technical apostle naturally becomes a master of sarcasm.

The word translated treated as inferior means ‘I am defeated, am overcome, am made inferior’. This feeling of being treated as inferior is not absolute but rather relative to the other churches. In other words, Paul picked this church because they had the right mental networks, and he decided to work with his church so that he could become a fellow citizen with the members of this church. This caused him to treat this church in a different manner than other churches.

The word translated become a burden to means ‘stupify, literally, make numb, paralyze’. This word is found only in 2 Corinthians, where it is used three times: in 11:9, here, and in the next verse. It is an intensified form of a Greek word from which we get the English word ‘narcotic’. Interpreting this cognitively, Paul did not use emotions to overwhelm their thinking. He did not mesmerize his audience. This is a rather strong statement in the light of the previous verse. Somehow, Paul managed to perform all sorts of miracles without overwhelming his audience. This is quite different than the typical faith healer or televangelist who relies heavily upon methods of hypnosis and crowd manipulation, and who uses miracles and/or the appearance of miracles in order to mentally overwhelm the audience.

Now comes the supposedly sarcastic addendum: “Forgive me this wrong!” The word forgive means ‘to exercise grace, freely show favor’. It is one of a family of ‘char-’ words that indicates help from God. Wrong means ‘the opposite of justice; unrighteousness’. In other words, one major consequence of not overwhelming his audience is that they did not acquire a proper appreciation of God in Teacher thought. They did not recognize that they were seeing righteousness because it appeared too ordinary to them. Therefore, they now need to make up for this lack by acknowledging God in Teacher thought as the source. Summarizing, it appears that Paul is saying something significant and not just being sarcastic.

The Principle of Existence 12:14-18

Paul then talks about a third visit: “Here for this third time I am ready to come to you, and I will not be a burden to you” (v.14). Looking at this historically, Paul was hoping to visit the Corinthian church a third time. Looking at this symbolically, the Achaian believers have encountered Paul in two forms: first as an apostle/legislator introducing new theology/legislation, and then as a legislator/apostle wanting to become a fellow citizen. Paul seems to be saying that he is ready to appear to them in a third form. The word ready is used once as a noun in 2 Corinthians and means ‘the state of being ready or prepared’. In other words, Paul is not just prepared, but he has become the sort of person that is required to make this third visit.

The word translated be a burden to you is the same strange word ‘make numb, stupefy’ that was found in verse 13. If Paul will be appearing in a different form, then it is important for him to promise that this new form will not overwhelm them mentally.

Paul then explains his motivation: “for I do not seek what is yours, but you” (v.14). The word seek means to seek by inquiring… getting to the bottom of a matter’. Paul will not be searching for something objective but rather for subjective identity: ‘not what is yours, but you’. This is a contrast from a technical apostle who focuses upon ‘what is yours’ while tending to ignore ‘you’.

The next phrase emphasizes this personal relationship: “for children are not responsible to save up for [their] parents, but parents for [their] children” (v.14). ‘Their’ is not in the original Greek, telling us that Paul is describing a general principle and not just referring to a specific incident or a specific group of people. The word responsible ‘refers to being morally obligated or legally required’, and we saw this word three verses earlier where Paul said that the believers were ‘morally and legally obligated’ to evaluate him from a Teacher perspective. The word translated save up is used once as a verb (and once as a noun) in 2 Corinthians and means to ‘lay aside treasure, built up for the day of future recompense’.

The word child means ‘a child living in willing dependence’. This corresponds to the modern idea of being a dependent. The word parents emphasizes being a source of life. Putting this together, Paul is saying that parents who are a source of life have a moral and legal publication to build up treasure for their children who depend upon them, and not the other way around.

Verse 15 expands upon this theme by clarifying that Paul really is referring to life: “I will most gladly spend and be expended for your souls”. The word translated most gladly is the same word that means ‘most sweetly’, which was used back in verse 9 and is found nowhere else in the New Testament. In other words, Paul is doing this because he is fully convinced at an emotional level that this is best for himself and others.

What Paul will do ‘most gladly’ is spend, which means ‘to spend, spend freely’. Going further, he will be expended. This word is found only once in the New Testament and means ‘to expend wholly, to exhaust’. Putting this together, Paul is going to take all of his wealth and spend it on the church, making them rich, because that is what parents do for their dependents. And he will be doing this ‘for your souls’. The word ‘soul’ is psyche. I define the soul as the integrated combination of mental networks, normal thought, and technical thought; it is the structure of the mind which ultimately defines a person as an individual. This word is only found twice in 2 Corinthians: here, and way back in 1:23 where Paul called God as witness to his soul.

This sounds rather melodramatic in today’s matter-over-mind, but looking at this cognitively, Paul is going to expend everything that he owns in order to bring these believers mental wholeness. In mind-over-matter, mental wholeness would be the ultimate source of personal wealth. Why would Paul do this? I have mentioned the general principle of righteousness, in which one becomes righteous by performing actions that are guided by a TMN of God and not by MMNs of culture or personal approval. There appears to be a similar principle that functions at an even deeper level, which one could call a principle of existence. One becomes a person of character by behaving in some manner simply because of who one is, and not motivated by any other mental networks. Paul is about to give them all his wealth for the sake of their souls, simply because of who he is as a parent. He is their parent; that is what parents do. At a cognitive level, I know that the principle of existence is valid, because when I have applied this principle I have sensed that there are deep implications involving personal identity which go beyond becoming righteous.

I should emphasize that one cannot do this out of the blue. Righteousness is only possible if one first constructs the TMN of a concept of God. Similarly, the principle of existence only becomes relevant if one first constructs a system within which a person can live. We have seen Paul doing this in the preceding sections. In my case, I have chosen to behave in a certain manner purely because that is how mental symmetry defines mental wholeness, and I choose to be mentally whole. Thus, it is relevant that Paul talks about expending himself for their souls. He too is doing something purely for the sake of mental wholeness motivated only by who he is. This also throws some possible light on verse 11, where Paul describes himself as not existing. In some way, Paul feels totally excluded as if no place for him exists anymore. This feeling of having no place to exist appears to be a prerequisite for following the principle of existence. Similarly, I have often felt as if there is no place within present society for me to exist, and I said to someone the other day that I felt as if I belonged in a different civilization.

Paul finishes verse 15 by saying, “If I love you more, am I to be loved less?” The two words translated love are both ‘agape’. The word more means ‘beyond expectation; further than the upper limit’. The word less means ‘less, worse’. In other words, it is quite possible that the believers will misinterpret Paul’s behavior in some way.

Paul addresses this by saying that it is ultimately irrelevant: “But be that as it may, I did not burden you myself” (v.16). Be that as it may is actually a single verb in the Greek which means ‘it exists’. In other words, Paul is now thinking at the fundamental level of existence. This also seems to be a characteristic of the principle of existence, because feelings and motivations all fall by the wayside and all that remains is existence itself.

The word burden in this verse is not the strange word that was used in verses 13 and 14. Instead, it is another unusual word which means ‘to burden all the way down to a critical or oppressive degree’. It is found one other time in the New Testament in Mark 14:40, which describes Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane finding his disciples sleeping because their eyes were ‘burdened’. In other words, Paul may be experiencing an existential crisis, but he will not impose his deep feelings upon others. Similarly, I try not to impose my personal crises upon others, because they are fighting their own battles and do not have the internal resources that I have to fight my own battles. This is also an important characteristic of the principle of existence, because it ceases to operate if one emotionally unloads oneself upon others, similar to the way that the principle of righteousness ceases to function if one does one’s righteousness before people.

The next phrase is translated as “nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit” (v.16). This is not an accurate translation because Paul does not say that ‘I am crafty’. The word crafty is not a nice word because it means ‘a person doing anything to get their way’. It is only used once in the New Testament as a noun (and five times as a verb). For instance, 11:3 described the serpent deceiving Eve by his craftiness. The verb that is translated I am actually means ‘to begin, to be ready or at hand, to be’. This describes possessing a skill or a tool rather than referring to identity itself. Thus, a more literal translation would be ‘but crafty being at hand’. The general principle is that when one functions of the fundamental level of existence, then one uses tools that are normally used only by those who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. But one is being motivated by a deeper purpose. For instance, a surgeon functions at the level of physical existence. Therefore, a surgeon performs actions that are normally performed only by murderous thieves. But a surgeon is using these skills and tools in order to achieve a deeper goal of preserving personal existence.

These unusual tools make it possible to generate unusual results: “I took you in by deceit” (v.16). The word translated deceit means ‘using bait to alure or hook people’. It is found 11 times in the New Testament and all other occurrences are negative. Took you in means ‘actively lay hold of to take or receive’, and we have seen this verb several times before. Looking at this cognitively, when one functions at this deeper level of existence, then it becomes possible to manipulate and guide implicit mental networks of which others are not even consciously aware. One no longer pays any attention to what a person or group is saying. Instead, one observes core mental networks and then manipulates these core mental networks in order to generate the desired response. This sounds manipulative, and it is. Dictators who are effective function at this level. But as far as I can tell, God also functions at this level, guiding the course of history by manipulating core mental networks of societies—as well as those of key individuals. One can see why I suggested earlier that Paul could become an antichrist. When one functions at this deeper level of existence itself then one must be guided by strong inherent moral guidelines to avoid turning into an antichrist.

In verse 17 Paul clarifies that even though he is functioning at this deeper level of existence, he has not taken advantage of others. “[Certainly] I have not taken advantage of you through any of those whom I have sent to you, have I?” The word taken advantage of ‘shows inordinate desire, especially lusting for what belongs to someone else’. And the word sent means ‘send forth, send as a messenger, commission’. A dictator who manipulates mental networks will usually ignore concepts of identity and ownership. He ‘lusts for what belongs to someone else’ and he manipulates mental networks in order to achieve goals that would not be possible in a system of law-and-order. Similarly, he treats his servants as pawns and gets others to do his dirty work for him. Paul, in contrast, is functioning at the deeper level of identity while still preserving and respecting personal identity.

And Paul’s partners also behaved similarly: “I urged Titus [to go], and I sent the brother with him” (v.18). The word urge is the familiar comfort word used to describe the work of the Holy Spirit. The NASB adds ‘to go’, assuming that Paul is talking about a specific trip, but the Greek simply says generically ‘I urged Titus’. We interpreted Titus earlier as symbolic of a prototype. This implies that when Paul got to the prototype stage, he treated his prototype the way that the Holy Spirit functions, guided by Platonic forms of ideal perfection.

The verb sent with is only used once in the New Testament. It combines the prefix ‘together with’ with the verb ‘sent’ that was used in the previous verse. Looking at this symbolically, Paul did not just send them a prototype, but also along with the prototype he included the research and development that makes it possible to interact with this prototype in an intelligent manner. Using the language of electronics, Paul did not encase the device in potting compound in order to make it impossible to examine the device, he did not cause the device to shut down if it was repaired by an independent shop, and he did not make it illegal to repair the product. Instead, he actually included schematics with the product, making it possible to understand and modify the prototype.

Paul then asks the question again: “Titus did not take any advantage of you, did he?” (v.18). The word advantage is the same verb used in verse 17, which means ‘lusting for what belongs to someone else’. Interpreting this symbolically, when development reached the stage of real concrete products, then Paul did not change his method of operation. He did not hand over the project from engineering to marketing. A professional apostle would usually make such a transition, because technical thought de-emphasizes mental networks. Therefore, technical thought will be used to design and build the product, and then another mental strategy which emphasizes mental networks will be used to market this product. Going further, marketing often makes inflated claims about a product while portraying competing products as inadequate. This also is a version of ‘lusting for what belongs to someone else’.

Paul then summarizes what we have been discussing: “Did we not walk by the same Spirit [and walk] in the same steps?” (v. 18). (The first ‘walk’ comes from a footnote and the second ‘walk’ is not in the Greek.) The word walk means ‘walk around, i.e. in a complete circuit’, and refers to one’s way of life. In other words, when Paul reached the concrete level of ‘walking around’, he was guided by the same spirit that had guided him during the previous stages. Going further, the word steps means ‘the impression made by the sole of the foot—foot-step’ and is used once in 2 Corinthians. ‘The same spirit’ means being guided by the same Platonic forms in Mercy thought. ‘The same steps’ means following the same Server sequences. In other words, when Paul moved from abstract to concrete thought he was guided by the same Platonic forms and he followed the same Server sequences that he did when functioning in abstract thought. The situation may have appeared totally different, because he was now dealing with real objects rather than abstract theories. But his mindset and his behavior were still the same.

Expanding from Core to Peripheral 12:19-20

Paul explains in verse 19 that he is not trying to defend himself: “All this time you have been thinking that we are defending ourselves to you.” The adverb all this time is only used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘long ago, of old’. Thinking means ‘forming an opinion, a personal judgment’. And defending ourselves means ‘to make a compelling defense with sound logic’. The English word ‘apologetics’ comes from this word and it is used once as a verb in 2 Corinthians (and once as a noun). In other words, they are probably viewing Paul as a technical expert, who uses technical thought to make a breakthrough in some peripheral area, and then uses this peripheral expertise to try to promote various mental networks. For instance, one sees this in Christian apologetics, which uses rigorous logic to prove various philosophical and moral points about Christianity, and then encourages a person to make a subjective leap of faith into believing Christian doctrine as a result of this logic. (One would think that Christian apologetics would find the theory of mental symmetry quite attractive, but I have interacted with apologists and they do not see value in the theory of mental symmetry. This tells me that they are using a different form of thought. Mental symmetry uses normal thought to build an integrated understanding while apologetics uses technical thought to encourage a leap of faith into mental networks. This does not mean that the field of apologetics is wrong or useless, but rather that it is incomplete)

Paul points out that he is addressing a different audience: “[Actually,] it is in the sight of God that we have been speaking in Christ” (v.19). The word translated in the sight of means ‘over against, opposite’. The word speak is the colloquial term that means ‘chatter in classical Greek’. Even though Paul is now carrying out normal conversations as a fellow citizen, he is still being guided by a concept of God revealed through incarnation. Notice that Paul refers to Christ and not Jesus. Jesus is the concrete person of incarnation revealed in history. One does not chat about Jesus, because Jesus made specific statements as recorded in the Gospels, and chattering about these specific statements would belittle them. However, Christ describes general principles that can be expressed in many different ways. Thus, one can chatter and still express the general principles of God revealed through Christ. Saying this another way, it is obvious when one is quoting from the Bible, because one will say specific sentences that others will recognize. However, it is not obvious when a person’s words reflect general principles, because general principles can be described in many different specific ways, and most of these ways will probably sound like chattering to the person who does not know the underlying principle.

And because one is expressing Christ, one is exhibiting the salvation of Jesus in some manner, because Jesus is a concrete expression of Christ: “and all for your upbuilding, beloved” (v. 19). The word upbuilding means ‘A building serving as a home’. And all means ‘each part of the totality’. This relates to Paul’s goal of providing treasure for their souls. He wants to build them a home in Mercy thought, and he is chattering in order to fill out the various aspects of what it means to apply general principles in real life. One could compare this to usability testing, in which some new product is given to users in order to determine how well it meets their needs. Quoting from Wikipedia, “Usability testing involves watching people trying to do something for its intended purpose.” Going further, “Anyone but project designers and engineers can be used (they tend to act as ‘expert reviewers’ because they are too close to the project).”

Looking at this more generally, Paul has now entered the peripheral realm previously occupied by the technical apostles. In verse 11 he said that he was not inferior to the technical apostles in any way. In verse 14, he talked about building up treasure for his spiritual children, while in verse 19 he mentions building a house. Thus, it would be natural for his audience to view Paul through the lens of technical apostles, because he has now invaded their turf. But his motivation is totally different. He is filling out what he has been doing in the subjective, applying the same principles. Thus, even though he may be invading the turf of others, he is not stealing from others, but instead is expanding what belongs to him.

Because Paul is now expanding to meet peripheral needs, there is a danger that he may trigger inadequate motivations in the believers. “For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish” (v.20). The word afraid means ‘to fear, withdraw or flee from’. The word fear is only used twice as a verb in 2 Corinthians: here, and in 11:3, where Paul feared that the believers would be led astray ‘as the serpent deceived Eve’. In both cases, Paul is responding emotionally with respect to the believers. This tells us that he is emotionally invested in them, which means that they have the power to hurt him personally.

The verbs find and ‘found’ both mean ‘discover, especially after searching’. In 11:3, Paul was afraid that the believers were deceived at a fundamental level. Here he is afraid of something more concrete. He is afraid that they will not meet his expectations and that he will not match their expectations. This is like two people who have known each other from a distance wondering if they can actually handle living together.

More specifically, Paul is afraid “that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances” (v.20). Looking at this list in more detail: Strife means ‘a readiness to quarrel; having a contentious spirit’. Jealousy means ‘inner feeling boiling over’. Angry tempers means ‘an outburst of passion’. Disputes means ‘work done merely for hire as a mercenary’. Slander means ‘evil-speaking, backbiting’. Gossip means ‘whispering to quietly spread malicious gossip’. Arrogance means ‘inflated, like an air-bellow’. And disturbances means ‘things being out of control, i.e. when up for grabs’.

These can be viewed as a cognitive progression. When one follows God more fervently than other individuals, then it is easy to view others as opponents who are spiritually inferior. Even if this statement is true, focusing upon this distinction will create a contentious spirit, which is the first trait in the list. If one is still waiting for the blessing of the Lord, then physical reality will tend to keep these emotions in check. But suppose that one finally does experience success. Then these inner feelings will tend to boil over, which is the second trait, because one lacks the skill and experience required to handle these feelings. The natural response will be to try to suppress these desires, because that is what one has been forced to do while waiting. This will lead to outbursts of passion, because suppression is always an inadequate strategy. These passions will become the real motivation while one continues to pretend, like a mercenary, to be doing the right thing for the right motives. These inadequate motives will start to express themselves in speech, resulting in backbiting. And because the average person is being driven by hidden motives, there will be a lot of gossip and a lot to gossip about. Eventually, this hidden gossip will turn into an open seeking of personal status. And when this point is reached, then chaos will ensue and everything will be up for grabs.

One often sees this sort of progression when groups who have been excluded from personal prosperity start to experience success and wealth themselves. If Paul came in as a rich donor, he could trigger such a progression.

Paul’s Implicit Concept of God 12:21

Verse 21 explains why this might happen: “[I am afraid that] when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced.” (‘I am afraid that’ is not in the original Greek.) The word humiliate means ‘to make low, to humble’. The first phrase contains the strange juxtaposition ‘the God of me’. ‘The God’ implies a monotheistic concept of God in Teacher thought, while ‘of me’ suggests a concept of God that is specific to me. I scanned through the rest of the New Testament and this juxtaposition is definitely not in 2 Corinthians and it also does not seem to appear anywhere else in the New Testament. (Scanning for common words such as ‘God’ or ‘my’ is difficult to do on biblehub.com because it only shows the first several hundred occurrences of a Greek word.) Jesus says something similar right after the resurrection: “I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God” (John 20:17), but in the original Greek ‘God’ does not have the definite article as it does in verse 21.

Looking at this cognitively, a distinction needs to be made between an explicit concept of God and an implicit concept of God. This distinction was briefly mentioned before. An explicit concept of God is the one that someone talks about verbally, based in theology. One can learn about Paul’s explicit concept of God by studying his epistles. In contrast, an implicit concept of God comes from the universal TMNs within the mind that guide thought and behavior. The explicit concept is the one I talk about; the implicit concept is the one I obey. These are not necessarily the same. When Paul says ‘the God of me’, this implies an implicit concept of God. Paul’s implicit concept of God is easy to determine because he has been talking about serving this God throughout the book of 2 Corinthians. The single universal principle that has been guiding Paul is the concept of ‘being low’. He tries to fit everything that he does or says into the general theory of ‘being low’. In fact, the name Paul itself means ‘small’.

It is interesting to read verse 21 with this in mind: “I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you.” The word ‘humiliate’ means to ‘make low, to humble’. A concept of God forms within the mind when a general theory in Teacher thought applies to personal identity in Mercy thought. What has Paul repeatedly stated as a general theory that applies to his personal identity? ‘I will be low’. Therefore, what does Teacher thought within the mind of Paul predict will happen when he visits the Corinthians? It predicts that ‘I will be low’. And one can tell that a TMN is functioning because Paul is being driven emotionally to feel that he will be made low.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, because Paul has accomplished so much as an apostle that there is a real danger for him to turn into an antichrist. If Paul has managed to construct a universal concept of God based upon the principle ‘I will be low’, then Paul himself will not become an antichrist because the concept of humility in his mind is more general in Teacher thought than any concept of Paul himself being a god. In fact, Paul has actually managed to co-opt the cognitive basis for being an antichrist. The antichrist in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 is described as a “man of lawlessness… who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” Saying this cognitively, the antichrist is a finite human in Mercy thought who claims to be a universal concept of God in Teacher thought which is more general than existing concepts of God. One does not have to make any sort of symbolic interpretation to come to this conclusion, because that is precisely what the text says.

Like the antichrist, Paul is also making a connection between a universal concept of God in Teacher thought and personal identity in Mercy thought when he makes the statement ‘the God of me’. But instead of exalting himself by saying that I am ‘the God’, Paul is lowering himself by constructing a universal concept of God that applies to his personal identity. He has a unique concept of God because he has fulfilled a unique role as an apostle. Paul has to do something like this in order to avoid the temptation of being a potential antichrist (or another Lucifer of Isaiah 14:12-14).

One might think that the apostle Paul would never turn into an antichrist, but if mind were to rule over matter, then cognitive principles would rule supreme, and what we have just described is based in fundamental cognitive principles. This does not mean that Paul is condemned to an eternity of worm theology. As we have seen in 2 Corinthians, there are many different ways in which one can be low. The general principle is that one must always be less than someone or something else.

However, there may also be a deeper sense in which the apostle Paul really did give birth to worm theology. I have said several times that Paul invented theology (echoing the claim of NT Wright). If one applies the principles of 2 Corinthians to historical Christianity, one concludes that at a spiritual level, present-day Christianity is functioning within the theology constructed by the apostle Paul. This is obviously true at a historical level. But we are talking here about it being true at a spiritual level. In some way, present day Christianity is functioning within the concept of God that was constructed by Paul. In some way, Christianity has an inherent spiritual bias towards self-denial. Cognitively speaking, self-denial is a natural byproduct of absolute truth. But we are talking here about spiritual powers that enable mental networks.

This also is not necessarily a bad thing, because the idea of ‘being low’ was completely alien to the religion of Paul’s era. Roman gods dominate and fight, they do not exhibit humility. Similarly, a Jewish Messiah is a national, conquering hero, not a suffering servant. Paul stood this religious arrogance on its head. There have been many arrogant Christian antichrists over the centuries, but the ideal has still remained ‘being low’. I am not exactly certain how far one should take this argument, but I know enough about the spiritual realm to be convinced that something is there.

Moving on, there is also a legitimate basis for Paul’s concern, which is mentioned in the second half of verse 21: “and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced.”

The word mourn over is used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘grieve over a death’. It ‘refers to manifested grief so severe it takes possession of a person and cannot be hid’. This goes beyond feeling bad about something to feeling bad about a loss of existence. Something or someone is dying. The rest of the verse makes it clear what is happening.

The word translated have sinned in the past is found twice in the New Testament: here, and in 13:2. It combines the prefix ‘before’ with the word for ‘sin’, and sin means ‘to miss the mark’. Thus, the problem is not present sin but rather sin from the past. The word repented is used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘to change one’s mind or purpose’. It is based upon the word that means ‘to perceive, think’. In other words, this is not feeling bad for what one has done in the past, but rather thinking things through in order to change the mindset that motivated the sin of the past.

The word impurity means ‘not pure because mixed’. Looking at this cognitively, an impure mind contains inconsistent mental networks, resulting in cognitive dissonance. Eliminating this means thinking things through in order to remove internal inconsistencies. Such internal inconsistencies will become apparent if one is following God in some narrow area of existence and then this area expands. For instance, a situation that is portrayed on a television screen may appear self-consistent. But if one were to pan the camera or pull back and look at the entire scene, then one would usually find that the rest of the image would be quite different than the limited view being shown on the screen. If Paul is expanding from personal character to peripheral wealth, then this would be like pulling the camera back and viewing the whole room.

Immorality means ‘a selling off or surrendering of sexual purity’, and comes from a verb that means ‘to sell off’. A variation of this word is used to describe the prostitute of Babylon in Revelation 17. Cognitively speaking, one is giving up core personal integrity in order to gain peripheral wealth—one is selling one’s soul in order to gain money. This can be done in many ways, and physical prostitution is only one of them. Going further, a mental network will only be activated if it is triggered. Therefore, if one focuses upon following God while avoiding peripheral wealth, then one will largely avoid triggering these mental networks of prostitution. But if the kingdom of God expands to include peripheral wealth, then the old habits of prostitution will become triggered, and it will be easy to slip back into these old habits of acquiring wealth at the cost of one’s soul.

Sensuality is used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘outrageous conduct, conduct shocking to public decency’. In other words, one is not just focusing upon sensual pleasure but behaving sensually in a public manner that is meant to shock others. For instance, gay sex is a matter of sensual pleasure, but a gay pride parade often portrays sexuality in a public way meant to shock others. (Not all gay pride parades are this way, but if one googles ‘gay pride parade’, one can see that most of the images portray in-your-face expressions of sexuality which would be deemed as socially inacceptable.) I suggest that the common thread is the idea of ‘coming out of the closet’. Initially one is ‘in the closet’, which means being driven by potent mental networks which one cannot express openly. When one comes out of the closet, then these hidden mental networks can express themselves openly. The temptation is to flaunt these once forbidden mental networks in a manner that attacks existing cultural MMNs.

Finally, have practiced means ‘the active process in performing a deed, and implying what is done as a regular practice’. This refers to habits which have acquired mental stability through repeated Server actions and have turned into a practical form of TMN.

Summarizing, Paul is not talking about present sin. Instead he is referring to sinful habits from the past that would become triggered if following God in the subjective expanded to include objective reality. Cognitive dissonances would become apparent, old habits of selling one’s soul in order to get rich would come back to life, and if one were focusing upon Mercy feelings of being oppressed by others, then there would be a natural tendency to impose one’s newfound freedom upon society. The solution is to carefully rethink things through before one experiences freedom.

It is easy to think of these three attitudes as gross sins that others might commit. However, these responses emerge naturally whenever one is pursuing some major goal in the midst of a society that is not. First, it is natural to be one kind of person in private and another kind of person in public. Second, it is easy to compromise one’s true character in order to survive in society. And third, one will naturally view the situation as a struggle in Mercy thought between ‘us’ and ‘them’.

One can now see why Paul is ‘grieving a death’. If believers who have been following God with religious fervor have not thought things through beforehand, then they will tend to go down the progression described in verse 20, and they will die cognitively.

Paul’s Third Visit 13:1-4

Chapter 13 begins by describing Paul’s third visit as happening in the present: “This is the third time I am coming to you.” Historically speaking, we are not aware of Paul making a third journey to Corinth, and some commentators suggest that Paul is talking about the future. But the Greek text is in the present. If one looks at this symbolically, then I suggest that Paul is describing a third form in which he is appearing to the believers. The first form was as a legislator/apostle. The second form was as a legislator-become-citizen. And Paul described how he was preparing for his third form in 12:14-15. Chapter 13 will describe how Paul interacts with the believers in this third form.

Paul then adds something which does not make sense if one thinks literally in terms of three visits: “Every word shall be confirmed by the mouth of two or three witnesses” (v.1). This is a quote from Deuteronomy 19:15 which says that two or three witnesses are required to legally establish some fact. The obvious interpretation is that the three witnesses refer to Paul’s three visits. But the commentators agree that this interpretation does not make sense, and their conclusion is correct if Paul is talking about literal visits, because the same person is making all three visits. However, if Paul is referring symbolically to three different forms of appearance, then one is dealing with three independent witnesses. Paul-the-apostle is not the same form as Paul-the-citizen, because Paul-the-apostle is speaking from the basis of abstract Teacher theory, while Paul-the-citizen is talking guided by concrete Mercy experiences.

A similar principle applies to mental symmetry. Even if this theory is being developed primarily by a single person, it combines radically different forms of thought which act as independent witnesses. Mental symmetry itself is inherently a combination of two different kinds of thinking, being both a theory of cognition and a path of personal transformation. These are cognitively independent. Going further, mental symmetry is also a methodology for interpreting the Bible. If the biblical text continues to make sense at the level of the original Greek, then this provides an additional independent witness of the validity of mental symmetry. Saying this another way, when statements are prefaced by phrases such as ‘cognitively speaking...’, ‘speaking from personal experience...’, this actually indicates various viewpoints which provide independent corroboration.

Looking at the sentence “Every word shall be confirmed...” in more detail, the NASB gives the impression that Paul is talking about factual information, but as the footnotes point out, the emphasis is upon speech. The word mouth means ‘mouth, speech, eloquence in speech’. Word means ‘a spoken word, made by the living voice’. It is only used one other time in 2 Corinthians which is in 12:4, where Paul heard inexpressible words in paradise. Finally, confirmed means ‘to make it to stand, to stand’. This verb is used twice in 2 Corinthians: here, and back in 1:24, where Paul talked about ‘standing firm in faith’.

This suggests the following interpretation. Words currently have no power in matter-over-mind. I can say whatever I like, and reality will not change. But living words would have power in paradise. That is why it is not permissible for humans to chatter about living words. This chatter degrades verbal content that needs to be treated with care. In contrast, Paul is trying to give stability to living words, which a human can do by expressing them in different forms. Talk is normally cheap. But my spoken word becomes much more solid when it is backed up by my personal experience. Saying this another way, Paul wants to bring his spoken word up to the level of spoken word that exists within paradise. This desire should always be true at a cognitive level. But this passage is also looking forward to a future time within mind-over-matter during which words would become more powerful.

In verse 2, Paul warns the believers that his words are going to become more powerful: “I have previously said when present the second time...” The word translated previously said means ‘to say beforehand, to predict’. In the original Greek, this verb occurs twice in a row, first in the past and then in the present. A more literal rendition would be ‘I have predicted and I predict’. In other words, Paul spoke words in the past which sounded at that time like mere talk, but those words will acquire substance. Going further, the phrase ‘when present the second time’ is not totally accurate, because ‘when’ is actually the comparative as, which means ‘like as, even as’. In other words, Paul did not give these predictions when he was present with them the second time. Instead, he is giving these predictions similar to the way that he spoke when he was present with them in his second form. The second form was Paul-the-citizen. This means that Paul is saying something like ‘speaking to you as a citizen, I have predicted and I am predicting that such and such will happen’. Paul adds that he is now absent, indicating that he is no longer in his second form but has not yet appeared in his third form.

The next phrase tells us who Paul is addressing: “those who have sinned in the past and to all the rest” (v.2). The word translated have sinned in the past was seen in 12:21 where Paul stressed the need to change the thinking that motivated past sins. Paul feared that many would follow a personally damaging progression if they experienced physical prosperity. At the end of chapter 12, Paul predicted what would happen to these individuals. But in chapter 12, Paul was giving this warning as a rich private citizen giving away his wealth. Paul then adds that he is also addressing everyone and not just this crowd.

The final phrase of verse 2 tells us that Paul in his third form will carry out the warnings that he gave in his second form: “that if I come again I will not spare [anyone]”. The word spare was discussed previously when looking at sowing sparingly and reaping sparingly. It does not mean doing something only a little, but rather avoiding certain areas. The word ‘anyone’ gives the impression that Paul is talking about people, but it is not in the original Greek. This means that Paul is talking about a mindset that is not sparing. This tells us that Paul’s third form will be guided by Teacher thought, because Teacher thought wants universal principles to apply without exception. Going further, I have mentioned that a new paradigm is usually applied in a two-stage process. The first is to give stability to the new paradigm, similar to the way that a new regime consolidates its hold on power. During this first stage, a new regime will conduct itself sparingly, allowing exceptions to its rule. But once a new regime or paradigm has been established, then the second stage is to apply this new Teacher system universally by eliminating all of the exceptions. During the second stage, the regime no longer behaves sparingly. Paul’s third form will behave similarly.

Verse 3 emphasizes that Paul’s third form will involve a power that was not previously present: “Since you are seeking for proof of the Christ who speaks in me, and who is not weak toward you, but mighty in you.” The word seeking means ‘to search, getting to the bottom of a matter’. Proof means ‘proof of genuineness; approval through testing’. This word will show up several times in the next few verses. The cognitive principle is that all Perceiver facts and Server sequences are known with a certain level of confidence. For instance, I may know that I should not eat too much junk food, but not have sufficient confidence to know that this is true when staring at a crunchy, spicy bag of potato chips. Similarly, I may know how to put one foot in front of another, but not have sufficient confidence to carry out this skill when walking on a narrow bridge over a tall ravine. Therefore, facts and sequences have to be tested to see if they are genuine, and this testing involves getting to the bottom of a matter. Many facts and sequences have to be tested, and this testing takes time.

The believers are seeking for proof ‘of the Christ who speaks in me’. The word speaking is the version that means ‘chatter in classical Greek’. For a normal person, chatter is empty talk with no substance. But Paul is claiming that his chatter is ‘of Christ in me’. He is not saying empty words, but instead his words are a personal expression of the general equations of abstract incarnation. For instance, many of my comments to others are guided by the theory of mental symmetry. But I make these comments using the language of normal thought and not the vocabulary of mental symmetry. What usually happens is that other people ignore these words as if they are merely chatter, and I usually allow this to happen. But even though these words appeared to be normal chatter, they were actually an expression of the general principles of the theory of mental symmetry, spoken in the everyday language of a normal citizen rather than in the legislative terms of academia.

Paul then adds that Christ “is not weak toward you, but mighty in you” (v.3). In other words, the believers are learning that there are potent general principles of incarnation. Similarly, the average person now knows that there are solid principles of psychology, and that these solid principles become powerful if one applies them personally.

Verse 4 tells us that Paul really is talking about a change of form: “For indeed He was crucified because of weakness, yet He lives because of the power of God.” This is the only mention of crucifixion in 2 Corinthians. Paul is saying that incarnation died out of physical weakness. Looking at this historically, Jesus spoke many words and made many predictions that were an expression of the divine words of incarnation. But these did not come true during the physical life of Jesus because Jesus was physically weak. Like Paul, Incarnation also started existence as the legislator of the universe. And just as Paul-the-legislator adopted a second form of legislator-made-citizen, so Jesus adopted a second form of Word-made-flesh. In both cases, the goal was to live as a citizen within a realm that had been created as a legislator. But in both cases, the second form was physically weak, and even though this second form was an expression of universal law, the words that were spoken in this second form were largely ignored because they were spoken by a physically limited person. However, that was not the end. Even though Christ ‘was crucified because of weakness, yet he lives because of the power of God’. Thus, the second form of physical weakness was followed by a third form of ‘living out of God’s power’. However, moving from the second form to the third form meant going through a form of death and resurrection. That is why we are talking about three forms of personal existence. Moving from legislator to citizen—or from creator to human—involved a form of rebirth. Similarly, crucifixion and resurrection is also a form of rebirth. These three forms of personal existence do not just blend into one another in an evolutionary manner. Instead, they really are three different forms of personal existence, separated by episodes of rebirth.

Notice also that we see another illustration of first choosing to behave in a certain manner, and then having God manipulate circumstances so that one must behave in that manner. Going from the first form to the second form is largely voluntary. Paul chose to take the steps that were necessary to move from legislator to citizen. In contrast, going from the second form to the third form is being done by God. Christ ‘lives because of the power of God’.

Moving from Jesus to Christ universalizes what Jesus did in human form. At the most basic level, this means that the physical death and resurrection of Jesus becomes a universal cognitive principle that applies to everyone. Paul emphasizes this at the end of verse 4: “For we also are weak in Him, yet we will live with Him because of the power of God [directed] toward you.” Jesus went through death and resurrection. Therefore, Paul will also go through death and resurrection, because the death and resurrection of Jesus has become a universal principle that applies to everyone, including Paul. On the one hand, ‘we also are weak in him’, which means treating the life of Jesus as a universal path which one follows. On the other hand, ‘we will live with him’. With means ‘together with’. Teacher thought wants order-within-complexity. This is not produced when many things are identical but rather when many things are similar. Thus, Paul uses the phrase ‘living with him’, telling us that he still has an independent existence, but this existence is similar to the existence of incarnation. This is like the way that a musician in an orchestra plays an individual part, but this specific part combines with other specific parts to produce a harmonious sound.

And in the same way that Christ lives because the power of God, so Paul will also live because the power of God. Paul refers to ‘the power of God toward you’, which implies that they are already experiencing this power. This is consistent with verse 3 which says that Christ is ‘mighty in you’.

Paul’s Third Form

Now that we have talked a little more about Paul’s third form, I would like to look more closely at what this third form exactly entails. I suggest that Paul’s account at the end of chapter 11 of escaping at Damascus in a basket illustrates symbolically what is involved in entering this third form. We have seen that Paul has continually been holding himself back guided by the general principle of being small. The problem with this general principle is that it is a negative statement; it prevents Paul from behaving in certain ways. Saying this symbolically, it locks Paul into a cognitive city walled in by ‘do nots’. This symbolic interpretation is consistent with chapter 11 because Paul precedes his story of escaping Damascus by stating that ‘I will boast of what pertains to my weakness’, and then reinforces this statement by saying that ‘God knows that I am not lying’.

However, this negative theory is like the shadow of a person. It is not alive, but it does indicate the outline of a living person. By following this shadow of personal restrictions, Paul has built up the shape of what it means to behave in the correct manner. The next step is to fill in this shape or shadow with the life of a TMN. This can only happen cognitively if these restrictions can be described by a Teacher theory that is capable of holding life. Saying this symbolically, the ‘rope’ of Teacher thought must be intertwined into a basket that is capable of holding a person.

In addition, the mental climate must change from focusing upon prohibition to focusing upon goodness. This can be seen symbolically in 11:32: “In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me.” The word ethnarch is only found once the New Testament and means ‘tribal lord, a subordinate ruler. The name Aretas is also found only once in the New Testament and means ‘agreeable’. When one is following prohibitions then one is actually being governed by the mental networks that one is trying to avoid. Saying this another way, one is responding passively to the environment rather than actively pursuing some goal. Saying this symbolically, one is trying to avoid being seized by some tribal lord. In order to escape this mental climate one must realize that this tribal lord is actually a subordinate leader underneath a higher ruler who is ‘agreeable’. It then becomes possible to escape through the wall out of a window.

I will try to illustrate this from personal experience. I have tried for years to follow the principle of not pushing myself upon others. I knock on doors, but if they do not open, then I do not try to bash them down. I talk to people about what I am doing, but if they are not interested, then I do not push the subject on them. This has eventually turned into the general principle of ‘do not force’. Intertwined with this general principle is the idea that God is using providence to lead me, and looking back I can see the hand of providence. This idea of providence often expresses itself within my mind as a feeling that I cannot fight the hand of God. That is because whenever I have tried to force some issue, bash some door down, or pursue some method of marketing, then I have found that it does not work. When one experiences this enough times, one eventually gives up and stops trying to force things. Looking back I can see a positive and a negative result from this. On the positive side, what has emerged is the shape of mental wholeness—a shadow of how one should live. But on the negative side, I am still ultimately responding to my environment, and not actively living within this shape of mental wholeness.

This does not mean that I am driven by a desire to avoid prohibitions. As an individual person, I have been attempting for years to replace a mindset based upon prohibitions with one guided by a desire to pursue mental wholeness, and this quest has transformed the way that I think and behave. But my interaction with the environment still tends to be guided largely by prohibitions, and I think that 2 Corinthians 11-13 is also referring to Paul’s interaction with his environment. (In contrast, Paul describes his internal conflict in Romans 7-8.) Similarly, my current struggle also involves primarily my interaction with my physical and social environment, trying to escape interaction that is based by the negative shadow of a set of prohibitions (from me, from others, from my physical body, and from providence) with one that is based upon the positive force of some TMN.

This kind of transformation would have several characteristics: First, it would appear to others to be unstructured and spontaneous while in fact being highly ordered. That is because one is being driven emotionally by some TMN rather than being restricted legalistically by some set of walls. Second, it would create an aura of excellence and simplicity. That is because Teacher thought is emotionally disturbed by any exceptions to the rule. A TMN of mental wholeness that turned into an aura would make it difficult for surrounding people to assert an attitude of mental fragmentation. Third, it would simultaneously attract and repel people. The attraction would come from the beauty and elegance of the TMN being projected, while the repulsion would come from the discrepancy between this projected TMN and inadequate personal MMNs.

These are the kinds of characteristics that we are seeing described in Chapter 13. One can explain what is happening cognitively in terms of living within a TMN. But this TMN is no longer confined to Paul’s mind but rather being extended from Paul’s mind like an aura upon his environment. Using the language of legislator and citizen, the first form is legislator, the second form is legislator-become-citizen, and the third form is ‘citizen projecting an aura of legislator’.

Finally, I should point out that the principles that we have just discussed set up the framework for making a transition from the second form to the third form. The actual transfer of identity occurs by applying the principle of existence discussed earlier. Because so many factors have to be combined in the right way, this means that these principles could also be abused by combining them in an inadequate manner. I do not know the various ways that this process could be abused. I can barely comprehend the process itself by extrapolating from personal experience and then connecting this with cognitive theory, the history of science, and the text of 2 Corinthians.

Test Yourselves 13:5

Moving on, verse 5 talks about testing: “Test yourselves [to see] if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!” The New Testament uses two words for testing: temptation and testing. The distinction between these two is discussed in a previous essay. In brief, temptation comes from some opposing force in Mercy thought. For instance, Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness. The goal of a tempter is to have a person fail temptation. But if one survives temptation without failing then one becomes stronger inside by gaining more confidence. In contrast, the goal of testing is to have something survive intact, and testing occurs within a context of Teacher thought in which the goal is to construct order. The word tempt is found 39 times in the New Testament, and this is the only case where a person is instructed to tempt himself. The sentence is more literally: ‘Tempt yourselves if you are in the faith; test yourselves’.

This strange usage makes sense if one looks at the final stage of cognitive transformation. The path of personal transformation culminates with personal identity being reborn in a mental grid held together by a concept of God and incarnation. When one reaches this final stage, then it is no longer possible to keep on sinning. One can still sin, but the structure of the mind within which personal identity now resides ensures that one cannot keep on sinning.

1 John 3:9 describes this happening at the level of mental networks: “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” When one becomes reborn of God, then one can no longer practice sin because of the new life that now exists inside. This does not mean that one never breaks a set of divine technical rules. The male Contributor person, who is conscious in technical thought, often views human perfection as never breaking any technical rule of morality. Instead, it means that a concept of God has now become the strongest internal mental network and that this mental network will emotionally override other mental networks. One can choose temporarily to ignore or rebel against God, but this rebellion will eventually fail.

2 Corinthians 13 is describing at least this and possibly more because the emphasis goes beyond being born of God to being in Christ and experiencing the power of Christ. Chapter 12 finished by describing a sequence of sin. Sin is not mentioned any more in chapter 13. The one indirect reference to sin is in verse 2 which says that sinning in the past will not be spared. Thus, one gains the distinct impression that the power of Christ has become a pervasive force which cannot be ignored. This describes a powerful form of mental network that includes the general structure of incarnation.

This does not mean that everybody is automatically perfect. Instead, the challenge in such an environment would be to remain active and not go passive in the face of the pervasive force of Christ. This explains why there is such an emphasis upon testing. The purpose of testing is to remain in one piece while functioning within an atmosphere of divine holiness. If one fails temptation, then the devil or some other opposing force is the victor. But if one fails testing, then one remains in the presence of God but becomes passive.

This explains why verse 5 talks about tempting and testing oneself. The enemy is not Satan anymore but rather a lack of personal integrity. When one lives in a society that is controlled by fundamental mental networks, then one is usually not even aware that one is being controlled by these mental networks. One simply thinks that one is behaving naturally. One only becomes aware of these underlying mental networks if one visits another society that is guided by different mental networks. For instance, people who have never traveled to another country usually do not even realize that there are other ways of doing things, but rather simply assume that the way that they are doing things is the way that everyone should do things. Visiting another country can be a real eye-opener for such people, because they will realize that their behavior is not necessarily rational but rather driven by underlying mental networks. Saying this more simply, the best way to learn about my culture is by visiting another culture.

This provides a possible interpretation for the first part of verse 5: “Tempt yourselves if you are in the faith”. Using cultural language, try behaving according to a different set of standards and see if you actually can. The purpose of this tempting is not to fall into temptation but rather to bring subconscious mental networks to light. That is why ‘tempt yourselves’ is followed by ‘test yourselves’. If you realize that you have no choice but to follow Christ at this point, then this means that you are actually following God passively. The response to this realization should not be more temptation in which one attempts to rebel from Christ, because one has just realized that this is no longer possible. Instead, the response should be to test oneself in order to gain the ability to follow Christ intelligently and actively and not just passively.

I should emphasize that tempting oneself is not a wise thing to do in current society, because we do not live in a society in which Christ imposes his rule upon people. However, I suggest that this principle can apply within some technical specialization. Suppose that one becomes an expert in some field. One will then naturally behave in a professional manner. But is one still thinking actively or is one only being passive? One can address this question by comparing the brain activity of a beginner with that of an expert. A person who is learning a skill actually uses much more of their brain than an expert performing the same activity. That is because the beginner has to consciously think about every step, while the expert simply has to mentally coordinate a collection of well-rehearsed routines.

One way to reveal if an expert is behaving passively is for an expert to try to do a non-professional job. If a professional finds that he actually cannot continue to do a poor job, then this indicates that his mind is being controlled by powerful mental networks of expertise. These help to maintain professional standards, but suppose that some new development occurs within this field of expertise, or that there is a paradigm shift. If the professional is mentally coasting on his professional skills, then there will be insufficient mental confidence to adapt to this new development. A passive professional may be incapable of doing a rotten job, but he is also stuck in a professional rut. Thus, it is important for such a person to realize that he has become culturally bound in the same way that a person who never travels to another country is culturally bound. Saying this another way, a TMN eventually turns into a mental prison. This prison may be a wonderful mansion, but it is still a prison from which one cannot leave. Thus, if one wants to maintain free will in such an environment, it is important to test oneself.

Looking at another example, airplane parts have to be constructed out of strong materials to exacting specifications in order to handle the stress of flight. Problems have occurred using aircraft parts that are not genuine. They may look the same but if they are made out of inferior material or are past their rated lifespan, then they may fail when subjected to the stress of flying. Similarly, a mind that is passively responding in the right manner is mentally constructed out of inferior material and will fall apart when subjected to stress. The purpose of the testing is not to make a person fail but rather to ensure that the mental content can survive stress without falling apart.

Verse 5 continues, “Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you are unapproved?” Recognize is an intensification of the word for experiential knowledge which means ‘experiential knowing through direct relationship’. And the word unapproved is the word ‘test’ with a negative prefix. The emphasis of this sentence is not upon whether or not ‘Jesus Christ is in you’ but rather upon recognizing this consciously. A person who is unapproved will not recognize this, but rather be like the passive professional who does the right things out of habit. Such a person is like a counterfeit airplane part. Counterfeit automobile parts are not a major problem, because a car does not have to handle the same level of stress that an airplane does. Similarly, personal integrity would become a major factor in an environment full of God’s power, because one would no longer be traveling merely along the ‘earth’ of normal human reality but also ‘flying through the air’ of divine power.

Living Spontaneously in the Third Form 13:6-7

Verse 6 then applies this to Paul: “But I trust that you will realize that we ourselves are not unapproved.” The word unapproved is the same ‘failing the test’ that was used in verse 5. Again, the emphasis here is not upon falling into temptation, but rather upon failing a test of genuineness, which means being unable to respond in an active manner but rather falling apart into passivity. The word realize is the normal word for ‘experiential knowledge’. Looking at this cognitively, Paul is hoping that the believers will know from personal experience that Paul himself is not behaving in a passive manner. Why will the believers think this? My guess is that Paul would be behaving in a way that would look as if it was passive and lacking purpose and direction.

Paul’s bottom line is that the believers do not do anything that leads to painful Mercy results: “Now we pray to God that you do no wrong”. This version of the word pray is only used twice in 2 Corinthians: here, and two verses later. It ‘is used of wishes not necessarily God-birthed’. The word do refers here specifically to physical action. And wrong means ‘inner malice flowing out of a morally rotten character’. Putting this together, Paul is praying to God from a human perspective that the believers will not do anything that is motivated by childish MMNs. Looking at this further, the average person at this stage would probably be struggling to get from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ while staying in one piece, somewhat like driving a car in hurricane. Meanwhile, the apostle Paul would be jumping from one situation to another, trying to deal with peoples’ personal problems. It would be easy for the average person to conclude that Paul is unapproved and does not have ‘the right stuff’.

For instance, I play violin professionally, but I have also learned to improvise. When one improvises, there is always the risk that one might play a wrong note. The other day, another musician gave me an unusual compliment, saying that my improvisation was amazing because I was taking musical risks without messing up. A beginning musician who plays by ear does not know what it means to take a risk, because the ear has not been sufficiently trained to know the difference between a right note and a wrong note. The professional musician learns the difference between right and wrong notes and develops the skill of playing right notes rather than wrong notes. As a result, a professional musician learns not to take musical risks in order to minimize the possibility of playing wrong notes. Chapter 13 has been talking about living life at the professional level of ‘Jesus Christ in you’ and Paul has just prayed to God that the believers will not play any wrong notes. Therefore, if Paul comes along and starts to improvise, then it will feel as if Paul is not being a professional musician because he is taking so many risks. Why would Paul improvise? Because Paul has been making a transition away from a second form of ‘do not violate the rules’ to a third form of ‘live a joyful life within the shape set by the rules’. This third form will feel like pure improvisation to someone who is trying to follow ‘Jesus Christ in you’ at a professional level. But it takes mental confidence to be able to improvise without messing up.

Paul emphasizes that he is not thinking in terms of testing: “Not that we ourselves may appear approved” (v.7). The word approved is the positive version of ‘testing’, which means ‘what passes the necessary test; hence acceptable because genuine’. And appear does not indicate personal opinion rather means ‘to bring to light, to cause to appear’.

Instead, he wants them to experience good personal results: “but that you may do what is right”. The word right means ‘beautiful, as an outward sign of the inward good’. Paul, in contrast, is following a path that is like being disapproved: “even though we may be as unapproved”. The word as is a comparative, and disapproved means ‘fail the test’. Teacher thought wants a general principle to apply without exception. Therefore, when one is motivated by Teacher thought to live a life of improvisation, one will not live randomly, but rather be guided emotionally to explore all the various aspects of the general theory.

Something similar is done when testing a new aircraft. A test pilot will take the new airplane through many different unusual maneuvers in order to explore all of the capabilities of the aircraft. This exploration may look like pure random flying, but the underlying purpose is to make sure that those who use this aircraft will have pleasant experiences and not encounter any nasty surprises.

The personal illustration that I gave of playing violin by ear may give the impression that verses 6-7 are describing a trivial problem. However, I keep finding myself running into manifestations of this conflict which are not trivial. I have mentioned that my goal is to replace staying within a set of walls with being guided by a TMN that lives within these laws. One can view this as a version of replacing the letter of the law with the spirit of the law. In my case, most of these conflicts have involved common sense colliding with official rules.

We currently live in a system of matter-over-mind, in which people inhabit vulnerable bodies subject to natural law. This means that people must submit to the laws of nature or else suffer painful personal consequences. But how does one translate the abstract laws of nature into a set of rules that can guide behavior in concrete thought? The standard method used in Western society is the official regulation. The laws of nature will be codified by experts into some list of rules and regulations that must be obeyed. These official regulations will then be enforced by official workers. These various rules and regulations define the general outline of natural law. The average person on the street avoids painful physical consequences by following these rules, while official workers reinforcing these rules feel that they are doing a public service by enforcing rules that preserve personal safety. But what is actually being applied is not natural law but rather a compendium of rules and regulations which approximate the shape of natural law.

Now suppose that one tries to replace the negative path of staying within a set of official regulations with the positive path of being guided by a TMN of understanding of ‘how the world works’. This is not trivial because one must gain an understanding of natural law, translate these laws into everyday circumstances, and then live emotionally within the resulting structure. In other words, one must follow a version of the three stages of personal transformation. For me personally this has meant combining the practical understanding of natural law that I gained in engineering with what I have learned about the mind through mental symmetry, and then embodying this understanding by following the process that we have been analyzing in 2 Corinthians.

The personal result is mental freedom and spontaneity. But the societal result is that I sometimes find myself colliding with petty officials. This conflict consistently seems to involve small rules and small officials. When it comes to major rules and major physical consequences then there is no conflict, because here it is obvious what leads to physical harm and what does not. However, when dealing with small issues, then one will occasionally encounter situations where common sense contradicts official rules. And this is where I run into a problem. I am trying to follow common sense based in natural law in an intuitive, emotional manner. The petty official who is observing this behavior will interpret my spontaneity as a disregard for the law and will typically respond with a prohibition: ‘Stop doing that!’ This statement will then be backed up by the claim that the prohibition being enforced is based in natural law—which is a valid claim. If I respond by saying that I am not trying to rebel from natural law but rather using common sense to apply natural law, then I find that this gets nowhere. If I point out that I am an engineer who is professionally trained in using common sense to apply natural law then this also gets nowhere. Instead, I have found that the only acceptable response is to submit immediately to the prohibition. But that is precisely the mindset which I am trying to transcend.

Submitting to official rules and regulations the way the average person does is not the answer, because I do not want to become that type of person. I have paid a huge personal price to become mentally whole and I want to live within this mental wholeness. But running roughshod over petty officials is also not the answer. First, every encounter is emotionally draining and troubles me for days. Second, the punishment for violating minor regulations may be small, but there still can be consequences. Third, I do not want to become the kind of person who rebels from authority. The incidents may be trivial, but when an incident affects a person emotionally for days, then this will have an impact upon personal character. Fourth, most official regulations and petty officials are performing the public service of protecting individuals from harm. This public service needs to be respected. The only solution I know of is to extend the Teacher ‘aura’ described in previous paragraphs, in order to gain an intuitive sense of how to maneuver through the regulations of daily life in such a way that maximizes Teacher order and minimizes Mercy harm. Using the language of 2 Corinthians, these petty—but emotionally disruptive—collisions actually perform the useful service of helping Paul complete the transition from Paul-the-citizen to the third form of Paul-the-citizen with a Teacher aura.

Projecting an Aura of Submission to Truth 13:8-10

Paul explains his reasoning in verse 8: “For we can do nothing against the truth, but only for [the] truth.” The word can do actually means ‘to have power’. Verse 7 used the verb ‘doing’ twice, which refers to Server actions. Power, in contrast, involves Perceiver facts, which explains why truth, which means ‘true to fact’, is mentioned twice in verse 8.

The last time that the word ‘truth’ was used was in 12:6, where Paul said that he would be speaking the truth if he boasted. In other words, Paul was suppressing the truth in order to avoid turning into some kind of antichrist and was being given a thorn in the flesh to make sure that he did not turn into an antichrist. Here in verse 8, truth is no longer something dangerous that Paul the apostle has to avoid, but rather something which places limits upon Paul against which he is powerless to resist.

Speaking from personal experience, I have found that when I respond to these petty conflicts by seeking greater Teacher understanding, then this increases my emotional sensitivity, making me increasingly powerless to rebel against the truth. And by truth I do not just mean the objective facts of the situation, but rather the objective facts placed within a larger context of the social situation combined with levels of cognitive development. Saying this more clearly, if one is living within the TMN of Teacher understanding, then greater understanding will lead to greater personal emotional sensitivity, making it increasingly painful to violate one’s understanding.

Verse 9 describes the emotions that are involved: “For we rejoice when we ourselves are weak but you are strong”. The NASB translates both ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ as factual statements, but in the original Greek they are both in the subjunctive tense, which describes something hypothetical: ‘we rejoice when we might be weak and you might be strong’. The word rejoice means ‘to delight in God’s grace’, which means being happy about receiving help from God in Teacher thought. And strong actually means ‘powerful’. In other words, when one responds in a sensitive fashion guided by Teacher understanding, then this may look like weakness to others. But if one interprets these encounters from a Teacher perspective, then one will experience Teacher joy, because this apparent weakness in the face of apparent strength makes it increasingly possible to embody Teacher understanding. In 12:6, the emotional response was something like, ‘Don’t they know that I am Paul the apostle? I wish that I could tell them all the facts about everything that I have accomplished, but I dare not tell them these facts because I don’t want to become a dictator.’ In 13:9 the emotional response is ‘I like what is happening inside of me. These encounters may be annoying, but they are increasingly giving me the ability to project what I have done as an apostle as an aura of intuitive, spontaneous expertise and understanding. I can actually live as Paul-the-citizen while expressing the nature of Paul-the-apostle.’

The second part of verse 9 elaborates how one responds to others: “This we also pray for, your completion”. The word pray is the same verb that was used in verse 7 which ‘is used to wish what is not necessarily God-birthed’. The word translated completion is only used once in the New Testament, and means ‘a particular type of adjustment—overcoming mental dislocations brought on by arrogance or refusal to repent’. This is different than the normal idea of ‘completion’ as reaching some goal or becoming whole. In other words, when one follows understanding with emotional sensitivity, then this will reveal the inflexibility and arrogance of following rules and regulations.

Paul responds to this unrepentant arrogance by praying to God. As I have learned from personal experience, there is no point in trying to talk with a person enforcing some petty regulation. Instead, one must respond by addressing God in Teacher thought. Looking at this purely cognitively, focusing upon God in Teacher thought will lead to increased understanding which will express itself as greater emotional sensitivity. This sensitivity will make it easier to recognize potential conflicts and maneuver through them in an intelligent manner. But this sensitivity will also be recognized by others as an aura of Teacher confidence which will encourage them to respond in a less abrasive manner. And when one successively conveys such an aura, then Paul will feel that he is conveying to others what it means to be Paul-the-apostle while still remaining Paul-the-citizen.

This approach already works to some extent within current matter-over-mind and can be applied by anyone who is attempting to apply understanding in real life. However, it would be most applicable to an apostle attempting to live as a citizen within mind-over-matter.

Verse 10 specifically talks about this idea of projecting a Teacher aura: “For this reason I am writing these things while absent, so that when present I [need] not use severity”. Writing describes the work of a legislator. In 10:10, people were saying that Paul’s letters were weighty but his personal presence was unimpressive. Paul was doing this deliberately in order to become a citizen and not just remain a legislator. Now the situation is reversed. Paul is writing as a legislator in order to avoid using severity in person. In other words, Paul is now projecting some sort of personal power that is not present when he communicates from a distance through words. People can avoid experiencing this personal power by listening to the words.

Looking at this in more detail, the adverb severity is only found twice in the New Testament. It combines the prefix ‘away from’ with the verb ‘to cut’. The other example is in Titus 1:13 which talks about sharply reproving rebellious men, empty talkers, and deceivers, so that they may be sound in the faith. Cutting involves Perceiver thought, because one is separating the connection between one thing and another. ‘Cutting away from’ describes using Perceiver thought to eliminate what is not desired. In Titus 1:13, those who lack Perceiver content are being cut off in order to preserve the Perceiver facts of the faith. The verb translated use means to ‘use, make use of’. Putting this together, Paul does not want to ‘make use of’ the believers with ‘cutting away from’. This is not a matter of Paul choosing to be harsh or imposing himself upon others. Rather, it is a byproduct of Paul himself being powerless against truth. Truth, by definition, is independent of people and personal opinion. Therefore, if Paul has become powerless against truth that applies to himself, he is also powerless against truth that applies to others. This truth will ‘cut away from’ when it encounters error.

And if the truth that applies to Paul himself is backed up by Teacher understanding, then this same truth that applies to others will also be backed up by Teacher understanding. Paul explains this in the second half of verse 10: “in accordance with the authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not for tearing down”. The word building up means ‘a building serving as a home’ and was used in 12:19. Paul is no longer a citizen trying not to tell others that he was legislator. Instead, he is now a citizen with the authority of a legislator. But this authority is for building homes for people. That is a natural result of Paul himself embodying his understanding in order to create a personal home within which he can live. The Teacher aura of authority that he projects will also be one which creates personal homes within which people can live.

Final Instructions 13:11-14

Paul summarizes in verse 11: “Finally, brethren, rejoice, put yourselves in order, be comforted, be like-minded, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.” Rejoice means ‘to delight in God’s grace’. This was a common Greek salutation, but it also makes sense within the context. Paul is finding personal happiness in a Teacher concept of God. He wants others to do so as well. The word translated (in a footnote) as put yourselves in order is used once in 2 Corinthians and means ‘to be in good working order, .i.e. adjusted exactly down to fully function’. This also conveys the idea of Teacher order-within-complexity expressing itself in human personal form. Comforted is the familiar word which combines legal evidence with personal emotions. This describes rational Teacher-based thought expressing itself in personal emotional form.

The word translated minded is only used once in 2 Corinthians. It ‘essentially equates to personal opinion fleshing itself out in action. This idea is difficult to translate into English because it combines the visceral and cognitive aspects of thinking.’ In other words, Paul really is talking in this passage about embodying understanding in personal form, because he uses a Greek word that means precisely this. (I should emphasize that I do not mean embodiment in the postmodern sense of physical experience defining truth. Rather I mean embodiment in the spiritual sense of internal character expressing itself through the physical body.) This word is preceded by the Greek pronoun auto, which means ‘self, or the same’. Thus, believers are supposed to form a society based upon embodying understanding.

The phrase translated live in peace is the verb form of the noun which means ‘to join, tie together into a whole – properly, wholeness, i.e. when all essential parts are joined together. This corresponds to the Hebrew word ‘shalom’ which also conveys the concept of wholeness. This word is only used once as a verb in 2 Corinthians. (It is used twice as a noun in 2 Corinthians: at the end of this verse, and in the greeting in 1:2.) One could interpret this merely as Paul saying ‘hello’ and ‘goodbye’, but Paul must mean more than this because the next phrase is “and the God of love and peace will be with you”. In other words, love and peace are not just human characteristics but rather universal expressions of the nature of God.

Looking at this in more detail, agape love describes interpersonal interaction in Mercy thought guided by the character of God. Saying this another way, the Mercy person wants love and talks a lot about love, but people become capable of truly loving one another as they live within the TMN of a rational concept of God. Similarly, peace is an expression of Teacher thought because personal wholeness comes from applying Teacher order-within-complexity to personal identity. Both of these describe aspects of embodying Teacher understanding in personal form.

Putting these various pieces together, verse 11 says that when people find personal delight in Teacher understanding, allow Teacher understanding to make personal identity function properly, embody understanding at a gut level, and pursue wholeness, then they will be guided by a concept of God that brings peace to Teacher thought and love to Mercy thought. This is always true, but it would be especially true as a conclusion to 2 Corinthians.

Verse 12 gives the social impression that one is living in a Latin culture: “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” The noun kiss is found seven times in the New Testament. Luke 7:45 talks about a sinful woman kissing Jesus’ feet while the host did not give Jesus a kiss of greeting. Luke 22:48 describes Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss. Paul mentions the phrase ‘holy kiss’ four times in his epistles, and Peter refers in 1 Peter 5:14 to a kiss of love.

One might ask what the difference is between a kiss and a holy kiss. According to the standard joke, the answer is ‘about two seconds’, implying that a kiss can only be holy if it remains short. But the word kiss is actually derived from the Greek word phileo which means ‘to show warm affection in intimate friendship’. Agape describes the love of God, while phileo refers to human friendship. Thus, ‘greeting one another with a holy kiss’ would mean placing human friendship within a context of being set apart to God. Saying this cognitively, one allows human interaction to be lifted up by the TMN of a concept of God rather than allowing it to be dragged down by common MMNs of culture. Going further, one kisses with the mouth and one also speaks with the mouth. A kiss adds Mercy feelings of personal interaction to Teacher feelings of verbal dialogue. A long physical kiss is usually an unholy kiss because Mercy feelings of physical intimacy are overwhelming Teacher feelings of verbal communication. What matters cognitively is what happens when Mercy feelings of friendship get added to Teacher words of understanding. Will the TMN of a concept of God rule through holiness, or will MMNs of culture and personal desire be in charge? Greeting one another with a holy kiss means establishing an initial social context of being guided by the TMN of a concept of God.

Verse 13 provides a motivation for greeting with a holy kiss: “All the saints greet you”. The word saints is the same Greek word as ‘holy’. Teacher thought is based in universal principles, while Mercy thought is rooted in specific experiences. If one brings human friendship up to the level of Teacher thought, then one will find that one can be greeted by others, because one is basing human friendship upon universal principles that apply universally. But if one brings human friendship down to the level of Mercy experiences, then one will encounter tribalism and social strife and not universal greeting, because one is basing human friendship upon personal experiences that cannot be universalized.

The final verse of the book combines the work of all three persons of the Trinity: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” The full title of Lord Jesus Christ indicates submission to an integrated concept of incarnation which combines abstract technical thought with concrete technical thought. But notice that incarnation is not acting like a dictator who imposes technical thought upon the rest of mankind or who pretends to follow rules while actually imposing personal will. Instead, incarnation is bringing grace from God in Teacher thought to humanity in Mercy thought. This translating work of incarnation makes possible the ‘love of God’. Love is normally associated with Mercy thought and not with Teacher thought. But when a fully developed concept of incarnation brings grace from God to humanity, then it becomes possible for humans to experience the love of God.

The final reference is to the ‘fellowship of the Holy Spirit’. Fellowship means ‘what is shared in common as the basis of fellowship’. A concept of the Holy Spirit emerges when Teacher thought integrates Platonic forms leading to Plato’s form of the Good. One can have a fellowship of the Holy Spirit when human friendship is brought up to the level of Teacher understanding through ‘a holy kiss’. This is quite different than the charismatic televangelist who uses personal authority in Mercy thought to slay believers in the spirit. This is not a spirit of fellowship, but rather a spirit of personal domination. I am not suggesting that being slain in the spirit has no redeeming factors, but one can state that this is not what Paul the apostle is trying to achieve.

Conclusion

2 Corinthians is typically portrayed as Paul expressing his personal emotions. In the words of Easton’s Bible dictionary, “This epistle, it has been well said, shows the individuallity of the apostle more than any other. ‘Human weakness, spiritual strength, the deepest tenderness of affection, wounded feeling, sternness, irony, rebuke, impassioned self-vindication, humility, a just self-respect, zeal for the welfare of the weak and suffering, as well as for the progress of the church of Christ and for the spiritual advancement of its members, are all displayed in turn in the course of his appeal.’—Lias, Second Corinthians.”

This essay has shown that this is not the case. 2 Corinthians is not merely a record of Paul venting himself emotionally in Mercy thought. Instead, it contains deep Teacher structure. Chapters 1-6 describe in detail the same prophetic sequence that can be found in other New Testament books, while chapters 7-13 outline the steps that are required for an apostle to go beyond proclaiming legislation to living as a fellow citizen within this legislation. This is not Paul emoting as a frustrated apostle, but rather Paul the wise apostle paying the emotional cost that is required to personally experience the benefits of his message.

It is possible that Paul himself was personally frustrated when he wrote this letter. But God, the ultimate divine author of the Bible, ensured that Paul’s words would convey Teacher order. Thus, 2 Corinthians should not be regarded as less divinely inspired because of its ‘wounded feeling, sternness, irony, rebuke...’ Instead, it should be regarded as divinely inspired precisely because of the deep Teacher structure that is contained within the apparent ‘wounded feeling, sternness, irony, rebuke...’

Finally, even if Paul was personally frustrated when he wrote this letter, he still personally paid the price that is required for an apostle to experience the fruit of his words. Therefore, even if Paul himself did not fully understand what he was writing, he still was the apostle who invented theology, and he will eventually experience the personal benefits of having introduced theology to mankind. In contrast, the repeated slight mistranslations of the English text give one the impression that the average modern theologian does not really understand what it means to go beyond talking about the Bible to living within the message of the Bible.

In a similar vein, I have felt over the years that the abstract task of studying the mind must be combined with a concrete journey of transforming the mind. 2 Corinthians makes it clear that this is not just a cognitive principle but also a spiritual and biblical principle.

I suggested at the beginning of this second essay how 2 Corinthians 7-13 correspond prophetically with the book of Revelation. I think that it is wiser not to try to line up the final chapters of 2 Corinthians in detail with the final chapters of Revelation. That is because the end of 2 Corinthians is dealing with fundamental topics that currently lie within the realms of fantasy and science fiction, which would become significant in a future realm of mind-over-matter. For instance, I made an allusion to Clark Kent and Superman. Does this mean that the apostle Paul will show up as a Superman during the millennium? I think that it is better not to try to answer such questions. Instead, we will simply point out that one book is like the other and leave it at that.

The first part of the essay is in another file:

Chapters 1-6