Psychology

History

Science

Neurology

Christianity

MBTI

Aliens

What's New?

HomeIndexForumLinksDownloadsContact

Bible1 Corinthians

Lorin Friesen, November 2016 (Edited July 2019)

(The original essay was inadequate, especially compared to the later essays. Even the Table of Contents was incomplete. Therefore, I have extensively edited the 2016 essay in order to bring it up to the level of the other essays. It is now twice as long. In order to ensure that I did not break any links, I have kept everything in a single file, which means that this file is unusually long. This revised essay adds a lot of detail which is consistent with the cosmic plan of redemption described in other essays.)

I recently asked a Bible translator which part of the New Testament he found most difficult to translate, and he answered that it was Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. The book of 1 Corinthians appears at first glance to be a collection of unrelated topics in which Paul is jumping from one subject to another. And it also contains a number of passages regarding the status of women which are usually regarded today as either quaint or prejudiced.

Passages such as these tend to be approached in one of two ways. The conservative interprets the text literally, while the liberal ignores the text as culturally outdated. Conservatives who apply the text literally often seem to do so in a legalistic manner that violates the spirit of the text, especially when applying the text means going against the norms of society. But liberals who ignore the text also violate the underlying spirit, because they are being guided by the spirit of current society to ignore the biblical text.

This essay will examine the book of 1 Corinthians using a third way, which is a cognitive perspective. A cognitive perspective is not purely literal because it goes beyond physical behavior to what is happening within the mind. But a cognitive perspective is also not purely symbolic because it recognizes that there is a strong connection between the way a person thinks and the way a person acts. A cognitive perspective is independent of culture because it is based upon the structure of the mind, which is the same for people in all cultures at all times. But a cognitive perspective does not ignore culture, because people of different cultures program the mind in different ways. Finally, a cognitive perspective tends to be humble rather than abrasive because it submits to unchanging principles of how the mind works rather than trying to proclaim standards of morality.

As usual, I will be quoting from the NASB. I have been using this version because I have found it to be faithful to the original Greek. However, I am disappointed with the NASB translation of 1 Corinthians, because in many cases it seems to be editorializing the original Greek rather than translating it faithfully. When the NASB adds explanatory words to the original Greek, it places these extra words in italics. I will indicate this by putting these words in [square brackets]. And when the NASB translation does not match the original Greek, the literal meaning is often mentioned in a footnote. If the text that I am quoting does not match the NASB, this is probably not a typo but rather means that I am using the literal translation. These literal translations help when one is attempting to analyze the text, but I still found in many cases when writing this essay that the theory of mental symmetry fits more closely with 1 Corinthians when one looks at the meanings of the words in the original Greek than when reading the English NASB text. I have compared the KJV with the NASB in some of these cases and have found that the KJV is often closer to the original Greek than the NASB. I suspect that this is because the KJV was translated before the development of a coherent Protestant theology, while the NASB was translated through the lens of a coherent Protestant theology. Thus, the differences between the NASB and the original Greek are actually useful for defining what it means to have a coherent Protestant theology. When looking at the original Greek, I will be using the Greek text and word definitions found at www.biblehub.com.

I try to keep my essays as simple as possible. However, Paul deals with a number of advanced cognitive topics in 1 Corinthians. Therefore, this essay will have to go beyond the basics in order to adequately analyze the biblical text. Almost all of the topics contained in this essay have already been discussed in previous essays, and I will provide links to other essays for those who want to read further. I am not sure if Paul himself understood all the implications of what he was writing, and the commentaries do not seem to understand the implications of what Paul was writing. However, it is quite apparent that Someone with a deep understanding of the mind was guiding Paul as he wrote this letter.

One final point before we begin. This essay will use abstract rational language to explain the biblical text. Just because I am using cognitive analysis guided by a rational theory, please do not conclude that abstract thought is sufficient. Paul makes it very clear in 1 Corinthians that rational understanding has to be combined with personal application, and I have found this to be a general principle. Therefore, when Paul talks about his personal life, then I will also be mentioning some of my personal experiences.

Summary

The book of 1 Corinthians makes sense as a single, connected, cognitive sequence, and this sequence is similar to the sequence found in the book of Revelation. I have tentatively placed one Corinthians within a prophetic timeline that includes other books of the New Testament. Because this essay is quite long, I have included a summary that can be used as a table of contents to jump to various sections of the essay.

1:10-17 MMNs are Inadequate

Paul begins by calling for unity: “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1:10). When people call for unity, this is usually an emotional appeal based upon common culture or feelings of love. Paul’s call for unity is based on something quite different.

First, it is based upon a name in Teacher thought rather than upon a culture or person within Mercy thought. The mind represents people and cultures as Mercy mental networks (MMNs) within Mercy thought. (The concept of mental networks is explained in another essay. In brief, a mental network is a collection of emotional memories that combine to function as a unit. When some memory within a mental network is triggered, then the entire mental network will become activated and it will then exert emotional pressure upon the mind to conform to the structure of the mental network.) A name, in contrast, is a verbal label given to a person in Teacher thought that describes the skill or character of a person. For instance, if I have problems with my teeth, I could go to Fred the dentist, or I could go to Fred the dentist. Focusing upon Fred brings to mind MMNs of personal identity and status, while focusing upon the dentist brings to mind TMNs of skill and understanding. Paul is appealing to the TMN of a name and not to an MMN of personal experience and status.

Second, it is based upon the name of ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’. ‘Our’ tells us that this name is relevant for an entire group and not just for some individuals within a group. ‘Lord’ indicates that this name is not just being talked about but is also being followed and obeyed. An incarnation is both God and man. This essay will be assuming that the term Jesus refers to the human side of incarnation, as portrayed in the Gospels, and that the term Christ refers to the divine side of incarnation. (The word Christ is a title that means ‘anointed one’ or Messiah.) This distinction between Jesus-as-man and Jesus-as-God figures prominently in the book of Revelation, and will also be discussed extensively in this essay on 1 Corinthians. (A later essay on the Gospel of John explores the interaction between these two sides of Incarnation in the physical life of Jesus.)

Third, Paul is making a rational appeal. He does not call for common experiences but rather for verbal unity. In the original Greek, Paul, calls for them to all ‘speak the same thing’. He also wants mental unity, where people have the same ‘mind or reasoning faculty’. And he wants people to have similar opinions and judgments. This is quite different than the typical call for unity which appeals to the emotions.

Finally, Paul is not calling for unison but rather for integration. On the one hand, people should avoid division and dissension. But on the other hand, they should not be identical, but rather ‘fit together’.

One might think that I am reading a lot into a single sentence, but we will find these various points repeated throughout the rest of the book of 1 Corinthians.

Paul then describes what people should not be like: “I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ.’” (1:11-12). Notice that the focus is not upon names in Teacher thought, but rather upon experts with emotional status in Mercy thought. People are not saying that they follow the name of Paul or the name of Apollos, but rather that they are of Paul or of Apollos, and this is leading to ‘quarreling or strife’.

Examining this cognitively, When Perceiver truth is based in MMNs of personal status, then facts that come from a good source will be labeled as true, while facts that come from a bad source will be labeled as false. This leads naturally to conflict because each group will claim that it is following the legitimate source of truth. In Paul’s day, the various church fathers were regarded as sources of truth. Similarly, each Christian denomination used to regard itself as the legitimate source of gospel truth. Conflict between denominations has become less of a problem, and the primary conflict is now between different holy books. For instance, is the Bible true or is the Quran the legitimate source of truth?

A cognitive perspective concludes that the attitude itself of basing truth in MMNs of personal authority is fundamentally flawed. Even if one’s holy book does contain accurate truth, one is still believing the right thing for the wrong reason. This principle applies to religious fundamentalism, but it also applies to the secular attitude of regarding certain political leaders or media spokesmen as sources of truth, as well as the academic tendency to view certain respected scientists as sources of truth. Whenever one starts learning about some subject, then it is natural to begin by learning from respected sources of truth. But if one remains at this level, then this will lead inevitably to conflict.

Paul shows the inadequacy of basing truth in personal authority by asking three questions: “Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1:13).

The first question addresses the unity of incarnation. Jesus Christ is both Jesus the man and Christ the God. Mercy thought thinks in terms of people and personal importance, while Teacher thought looks for order-within-complexity. A concept of God emerges within the mind when Teacher thought comes up with a general theory that includes personal identity. A Mercy perspective will view Jesus Christ as an important person within Mercy thought, while a Teacher perspective will view Jesus Christ as a universal person within Teacher thought. (These two perspectives are compared in this video. Using Teacher thought to say that Christ is a universal person is quite different than using Mercy thought to say that everyone will universally go to heaven. Similarly, the law of gravity is a universal law that applies to everyone, but it does not personally benefit everyone.) Paul is saying here that Jesus Christ is a universal person who cannot be divided into warring factions.

Clarifying, the concept of Jesus as God cannot be divided into fighting factions, but it can be subdivided into more specific aspects. It is important to make this distinction because a Mercy perspective will divide Jesus into warring factions, while a mystical perspective will describe the universality of Jesus Christ in vague, general terms, and will insist that it is not possible to add any specific details to this general description.

The second question looks at salvation and rebirth. Anyone who is a legitimate source of religious truth can only become that way by experiencing some sort of cognitive rebirth. Paul describes this principle later on in 1 Corinthians. When one thinks in terms of personal status, then it is easy to focus on the life and example of the visible expert while ignoring the original life and rebirth of Jesus the incarnation. A Teacher perspective, in contrast, will recognize that rebirth is not just a specific event carried out by Jesus the man in Mercy thought but also a universal principle that expresses the nature of Jesus the God in Teacher thought. Therefore, even if some religious expert, such as Paul, becomes an expert through some form of personal rebirth, this is still a specific example of the general principle of rebirth established by Jesus Christ the God/man.

The third question addresses the Teacher concept of name. Teacher thought thinks in terms of words and uses verbal labels or names to represent people, such as butcher, doctor, or apostle. Baptism represents personal rebirth, in which MMNs of personal identity are taken apart and reassembled. The mind must build itself around some set of core mental networks. Therefore, it is only possible for MMNs of personal identity to fall apart if the mind becomes built around the TMN of some general understanding. Using religious language, baptism is always in someone’s name. If one builds one’s mind upon an inadequate Teacher understanding, then the resulting rebirth will also be inadequate. A mind that looks for sources of truth will naturally experience rebirth that is incomplete because it will become reborn in the name of some religious expert and not in the name of Jesus the God/man. Even if such a baptism verbally states that it is ‘in the name of Jesus’, the word ‘Jesus’ will acquire its meaning from various exalted sources of religious truth.

Paul summarizes in verse 17 that he does not want to detract from the fundamental message of the rebirth of Jesus Christ the God/man, either by acting as a source of personal salvation or by acting as a source of truth: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void” (1:17).

Looking at verses 14-17 more carefully, Paul is emphasizing that he did not baptise anyone in his name. The name Paul means ‘little’. Baptism is a symbol of rebirth. An attitude of absolute truth will feel that following God means denying self. Symbolically, this is a baptism in the name of Paul. Paul says in verse 17 that God sent him to ‘announce good news’, and not to baptise. In other words, the goal of baptism is not to deny self and remain little but rather to submit to a verbal message in order to experience personal benefits. However, one also should not remain at the level of abstract technical thought. The phrase ‘cleverness of speech’ combines wisdom and logos. I have been interpreting logos as the TMN that lies behind a technical specialization. Focusing upon abstract technical thought will empty the cross of Christ, because the focus will shift from personal transformation to abstract theology. For instance, theology tends to be viewed today as dry, esoteric, technical dogma, when it should be viewed as an internal framework that is capable of providing the foundation for transformed personal existence.

Wisdom of God 1:18-1:31

The previous section stated that one should not focus upon religious experts in Mercy thought. In this section, Paul describes inadequate methods of being guided by words in Teacher thought. This passage is often used as a proof text to show that one should not use rational thought to analyze Christianity, but instead merely preach the words of the Bible, which will then have a magical effect upon the listener. This interpretation usually centers upon verse 27, which says that “God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe”. But those who quote this verse invariably neglect to mention that Paul says in the next section that “we do speak wisdom among those who are mature” (2:6).

Paul begins by talking about transformation: “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1:18). Growing up in a human body will naturally teach a person that 1) the physical body eventually decays and dies, 2) the mind of a child is innocent and becomes corrupted by living in the real world. This will lead to a general theory of ‘perishing’, which will then turn into a TMN (Teacher mental network), causing people to actually feel good when they talk about growing old and dying. That is because the Teacher emotion of understanding ‘the natural order of things’ is different than the Mercy emotion of experiencing growing old. The Facilitator filter will then naturally cause a person to reject anything that is inconsistent with this theory of ‘perishing’ as stupid or foolish. Saying this more simply, it will be obvious to everyone that it is natural to grow old and die.

My general hypothesis is that a concept of God emerges when a sufficiently general theory applies to personal identity. A concept of God will also naturally turn into a TMN that uses emotional pressure to impose its structure upon the mind. The mind cannot exist without a set of core mental networks. Therefore, the only way to escape an existing set of core mental networks is by mentally constructing an alternative set of core mental networks. Building one’s mind upon the TMN of a concept of God makes it possible for a person to allow childish MMNs to fall apart and be put back together by the TMN of a concept of God. Using the language of Paul, the ‘word of the cross’ is ‘the power of God’ to those ‘who are being saved’.

Summarizing, Paul is contrasting two concepts of God in Teacher thought. The first is an implicit concept of God based in the ‘natural order of living existence’. This implicit concept of God is to be distinguished from a general understanding of the natural laws of physics and science. Understanding the laws of physical nature does not lead to a concept of God because the laws of physics do not apply directly to personal identity. In contrast, the ‘natural order’ of ‘being born, maturing, growing old, and dying’ will lead to an implicit concept of God because it is a general understanding that applies to people. This implicit concept of God will emotionally reinforce the status quo of ‘perishing’. The second is an explicit concept of God based in a message of personal transformation. Because this concept of God goes beyond the status quo, it will exert emotional pressure on a person to become transformed from the status quo.

Continuing, Paul says “For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside’” (1:19). The word for wisdom is sophia, from which we get philosophy. If one examines the history of philosophy, one observes that it has largely self-destructed. The average philosopher today does not love wisdom, but rather is adept at dismantling systems of belief and cataloging how philosophers of the past used to love wisdom. Similarly, ‘intelligence that comes from correlating facts’ will find itself frustrated, because it will continually discover that the average person is driven by feelings and not by facts.

Paul asks further, “Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1:20). Paul refers to three kinds of earthly wisdom: the wise man, the scribe, and the debater. The modern equivalent would be philosophy, theology, and apologetics. The philosopher searches for wisdom, the theologian analyzes the written text, and the apologist debates truth. I have encountered these three forms of thought in my research and while each of them is useful, I have also observed that they are inadequate when it comes to understanding either the nature of God, or the message of personal transformation. In the words of Paul, ‘God made foolish the wisdom of the world’.

Looking at this more closely, philosophy is inadequate because it uses rigorous logic to analyze universal questions. Rigorous logic is appropriate when one is analyzing some limited field, but it breaks down when analyzing larger questions of personal identity, motivation, and universal existence. Similarly, analyzing the biblical written text is important, but it is more important to apply the biblical text, because the way that one acts will naturally affect the way that one thinks—including the way that one interprets the Bible. And debating truth can be useful for clarifying understanding, but the ultimate goal is not to talk accurately about the message of salvation but rather to apply the message of salvation in order to experience the personal benefits of salvation.

Summarizing, a person will not come up with a message of personal transformation by using methods of thought that naturally emerge. Instead, a message of salvation must be taught and applied. This means that a person must hear the message of transformation from an outside source and then act as if this message is true: “God was well pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe” (1:21).

Paul then describes how the typical religious or secular person responds to a message of personal salvation: “Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom” (1:22). The religious mind believes that truth is based in MMNs of experience and personal status. For instance, ‘the Bible is true because it was written by God, and God is an important person’ or ‘I am a Christian because I had an emotional encounter with Jesus’. This type of mindset will look for a sign, some kind of emotional experience in which to base Perceiver belief. The secular mind, in contrast, looks for thinking that is sufficiently rigorous.

Both mindsets will naturally reject a message of rebirth: “We preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness” (1:23). I suggest that a distinction can be made between preaching that Jesus is crucified and preaching that Christ is crucified. A mindset that bases truth in MMNs of personal importance will naturally feel that the MMN that represents the source of truth is far more important than any MMNs that represent personal identity, leading to the conclusion that I should deny myself for my source of truth. Thus, the story of Jesus the man being crucified will be naturally accepted as the ultimate illustration of religious self-denial. But a message about Christ being crucified turns the specific death of Jesus the man into a universal principle of rebirth. This threatens the underlying foundation for religious belief, because it means dying to the method of blind faith. Merely believing in rebirth is not enough. Instead, the reason why one believes in rebirth must itself become reborn. And that is a stumbling block. The fundamentalist is willing to deny self for God, but is not willing to deny the mindset of fundamentalism, which is based in the worship of selves.

The secular mindset finds a universal message of rebirth foolishness because it violates principles of embodiment and empirical evidence. Embodiment says that mental content is ultimately based in input from the physical body, while rebirth says that one should build one’s mind upon a foundation that is independent of the physical body. Similarly, empirical evidence demands that all facts ultimately be based in physical reality, while rebirth says that facts must ultimately be based in a foundation that is independent of physical reality. A secular mindset is willing to teach some rebirth and some personal transformation but it cannot accept total rebirth. It is willing to play with the idea that there is more than reality, but it is not willing to build its mind upon the principle that there is more than reality. That will be rejected as foolishness.

One cannot decide to build one’s mind upon such an unseen foundation. Instead, one must be attracted by the TMN of a concept of God. Because Teacher thought works with words, this attraction will be experienced as a ‘calling’: “but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1:24). One will find that the TMN of a mental concept of God is more powerful than MMNs of personal authority, and one will discover that the TMN of an understanding of God makes more sense than rational thinking that is based purely in physical reality. In the words of Paul, “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1:25). This is a universal principle that transcends the division between religious and secular thought; it applies to ‘both Jews and Greeks’.

Paul observes that God tends to choose those who do not build their intelligence upon physical reality, as well as those who lack personal status: “Consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble” (1:26). (Notice that Paul presents this as a heuristic that is usually true and not as a universal principle that is always true. In other words, there is some truth to the idea that following God involves denying self.) Paul concludes that God chooses that which lacks personal status and that which is not based upon physical reality: “The base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are” (1:28). This is a key principle that needs to be repeated, because Paul will be building upon this principle. In simple terms, God does not build upon important people or upon physical experiences. Instead, God builds upon that which is not regard as important and that which cannot be seen in order to replace existing reality.

The NASB says that this is “so that no man may boast before God”, but the NASB also explains that the word translated ‘man’ is literally flesh. As we shall see later, the flesh is the part of the human mind that interacts with physical reality. Paul is saying that God has constructed things in such a way that a mindset that is based upon concrete physical reality cannot ‘hold its head high’ before God.

When one has a concept of incarnation that is sufficiently general—a concept of Christ Jesus and not just of Jesus, then this can reach down from a concept of God in Teacher thought to transform personal identity in Mercy thought. In the words of Paul, “by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption” (1:30). There is ‘wisdom from God’ because combining Teacher theory with Contributor incarnation (a mental concept of incarnation forms as the two sides of Contributor thought become integrated) leads to a rational concept of God. There is righteousness because Server actions are being guided by the TMN of a concept of God (Server actions become connected with Teacher words when the two sides of Contributor thought become integrated), there is sanctification because personal identity is becoming connected to the TMN of a concept of God rather than to MMNs of culture and personal authority, and there is redemption because the MMNs of childish identity are becoming transformed by the TMN of a concept of God.

A mindset of religious self-denial feels that self should always be denied. But Paul does not stop by saying that one cannot boast in the flesh. Instead, he finishes by saying “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord” (1:31). The word translated boast does not mean personal arrogance, but rather ‘holding one’s head up high’ and ‘living with God-given confidence’. Paul is not teaching worm theology, but rather saying that self-confidence should be based in a mind submitted to a concept of God and not in a mindset that is based in physical reality.

Going Beyond the Seen 2:1-9

If the message of Christianity extends beyond intelligent words to personal salvation, then any person who is proclaiming this message must also go beyond merely speaking intelligent words. This explains why Paul was determined to apply his own message: “When I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (2:1-2). The word translated superiority means ‘superiority, preeminence, excellence, or authority’. In other words, Paul did not talk like an expert possessing great status in Mercy thought, and he also did not use the rigorous logic of wisdom. Instead, he spoke the testimony of God—universal principles that he had personally learned in the school of life. And his goal was to build a universal concept of incarnation combined with a message of re-birth.

Paul did not just apply his own message verbally, but also personally. Similarly, I have found that when I try to apply the knowledge that I learn, this application usually occurs in two stages. First, I choose consciously to apply the principle in some personal situation. I often assume that this first stage is enough, but I inevitably find that it is followed by a second stage of finding myself in a situation where the principle hits me personally. In the first stage, I choose to change my behavior, while in the second stage, I become personally changed. Paul describes this attitude of weakness: “I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling” (2:3). The trembling is literally a ‘trembling or shaking caused by great fear’, which means that Paul actually refers twice to fear. Fear and trembling imply that personal identity is being threatened by something larger than self that has the power to damage self. For instance, even though I am an electrical engineer, I approach high voltages with fear and trembling, because I know that high-voltage electricity has the power to injure or kill me. Similarly, when one truly acquires a general understanding in Teacher thought of the character of God, then one approaches theology and preaching with fear and trembling, because one knows how easy it is to become arrogant or self-deceived. (Notice that this paragraph is actually talking about the three stages of personal transformation: 1) personal honesty, 2) righteousness and application, 3) personal rebirth.)

For instance, one would think that it is obvious that a message that describes people applies both to the people listening to this message and to the person preaching this message, but I keep encountering systems of thought that fall apart when applied to the researchers themselves, because those who preach theories about people forget that they also are people to whom their theories apply.

Instead, Paul focuses upon applying the message “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God” (2:4). An empirical mindset is based upon evidence that comes from the physical world, while the Spirit is an invisible concept that forms as a result of Teacher understanding. Blind faith bases its truth in MMNs of personal status while the power of God is based in the TMN of a concept of God. Using an analogy, electricity has great power to injure people, but also has great power to transform human existence. Similarly, the TMN of a concept of God will only have internal power to transform MMNs of personal identity to the extent that it has the power to hurt personal identity. A concept of God that never makes me feel bad is incapable of transforming me. Saying this another way, the Teacher mental network of a concept of God can only change Mercy mental networks of identity if the mental network that represents God is more powerful than the mental networks that represent identity. C. S. Lewis conveyed this concept well in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: “‘Aslan is a lion- the Lion, the great Lion.’ ‘Ooh’ said Susan. ‘I’d thought he was a man. Is he-quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion’…‘Safe?’ said Mr Beaver …‘Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.’”

Paul mentioned earlier that the message of rebirth will seem like foolishness to those who follow human wisdom. However, the message of rebirth is a rational verbal message for those who are mentally whole: “We do speak wisdom among those who are mature” (2:6). The word for mature is ‘teleios’, which means complete in all of its parts. Using the language of mental symmetry, if one pursues the goal of having all parts of the mind functioning together in harmony, then both Christian theology and the Christian path of personal transformation will make sense. (This is described in detail in the book Natural Cognitive Theology).

The message of rebirth is based in eternal principles, while earthly wisdom is guided by the temporary nature of human physical existence: It is “a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away” (2:6). Paul will describe the passing away of this age in more detail later on. The goal of the message of rebirth is to bring personal benefits. It is a “wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory” (2:7). Those who have personal status within present society will not understand a message of rebirth, because they are climbing the wrong ladder of success. As Paul says, it is a “wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood” (2:8).

Instead, those who have personal status will naturally suppress a message of rebirth, and this rejection will force those who preach a message of rebirth to go through personal rebirth. The wisdom of God is a “wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (2:8).

This is typically viewed as a reference to the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus by Roman and Jewish authorities, and that is how Jesus-the-man experienced rebirth. However, we have just seen that it is important to go beyond thinking about important people and physical events, and we have also seen that specific events—especially in the life of Jesus—turn into universal principles when Jesus the man becomes reborn as Jesus Christ the God/man. Thus, I suggest that a general principle is being described here. Whenever someone is guided by Teacher understanding to preach a message of rebirth, this message will naturally be rejected by those who hold to the status quo. And this rejection of the message will force the person who is preaching a message of rebirth to stop talking and go personally through the process of rebirth. This is a significant general principle, so please reread it if it did not make sense.

There is an interesting modern twist to the next verse that illustrates the general principle of experts misunderstanding a message of rebirth. The NASB says that “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him” (2:9).

Compare this with the NIV translation: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” (2:9). The word that the NASB translates heart and the NIV translates mind is ‘kardia’ in the original Greek, which means heart. Thus, the NIV is actually a mistranslation that conveys a completely different message.

The original Greek says that the purpose of God transcends visual images that can be seen, words that can be heard, and MMNs of personal identity within Mercy thought. In other words, it does not come from physical evidence and is not based in MMNs of personal status. Instead, the purpose of God becomes apparent as one becomes emotionally attached to the TMN of a concept of God, which is consistent with what this essay has been saying. In contrast, the NIV conveys the impression that human intelligence is incapable of comprehending the work of God. I mentioned earlier that 1 Corinthians 1:27 is often used as a proof text to show that one should not use rational thought to analyze Christianity. The NIV literally mistranslates the original text to back up this misconception. Ironically, this mistranslation illustrates Paul’s statement that the message of rebirth is ‘a wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood’.

Spiritual Wisdom 2:10-16

Paul explains how one grasps something that transcends the status quo: “For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God” (2:10). In other words, the spirit makes it possible to go beyond surface appearance and status quo.

This section is traditionally used to prove that one should follow the Holy Spirit instead of rational thought. But Paul is not saying that spirit is irrational but rather that it goes beyond appearance. This is an important distinction because most religious systems are ultimately driven by a mystical concept of God that ‘transcends’ rational thought. Therefore, we will compare what the Bible says about God and spirit with what mysticism claims.

Looking at this further, Jesus says in John 16 that the Holy Spirit does not contradict the message of incarnation but rather expands upon the message of God revealed through incarnation: “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you” (John 16:12-15).

Paul contrasts the spirit of the world with the Spirit of God, and says that the Spirit of God makes it possible to know what ‘God has prepared for those who love him’: “Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God” (2:11-12).

The distinction between these two spirits is discussed in other essays. In brief, anything that is sufficiently universal will be regarded as divine. A concept of God emerges when Teacher thought forms a sufficiently general theory that applies to personal identity, and this theory can turn into a TMN. Finite people, in contrast, are represented as MMNs within Mercy thought based in collections of emotional experiences. A concept of divine spirit emerges when all of the specific MMNs within Mercy thought come together to form a universal image. A concept of divine spirit can be formed in one of two ways: First, a spirit of this world forms as one grasps the web of interactions that connect the various people and institutions of society. This means that a spirit of this world is a worldview based upon the status quo, an intuitive grasp of how existing societies and people behave and interact. (This is different than, but related to, the implicit understanding in Teacher thought of the ‘natural order of life’ discussed earlier.) Second, a Spirit of God forms indirectly as Teacher understanding leads to the formation of Platonic forms; that is why it is called a Spirit of God. Teacher thought forms general theories by looking for the idealized essence of situations. This Teacher understanding leads indirectly to imaginary images of the idealized essences of situations within Mercy thought, which we call Platonic forms. A concept of God emerges when general theories within Teacher thought are combined to form a universal theory. This also causes Platonic forms to combine within Mercy thought, resulting in what Plato called the form of the Good. (Paul talks about ‘combining spiritual with spiritual’ in verse 13.) Because the form of the Good ties many experiences together, it will be viewed as divine spirit. But because this concept of divine spirit is shaped and integrated by Teacher understanding, it will be a Spirit of God. A Spirit of God goes beyond the status quo because it is not based directly in reality but rather in Platonic forms, which are more perfect and ideal than reality. And because a Holy Spirit is integrated by understanding and not by the web of existing social interaction, it goes beyond a grasp of the status quo to an image of how the elements of life could work if they were put together in a more ideal manner.

Mysticism says that words cannot be used to talk about God or mystical experience. That is because mysticism forms a universal Teacher theory by using overgeneralization, which ignores all specific facts, including words and their meanings. In contrast, it is possible to use words to talk about the Holy Spirit, because a concept of the Holy Spirit is based in rational Teacher understanding. However, because one is talking about idealized situations that go beyond the status quo, one will not use words based in human wisdom. As Paul says: “which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words” (2:13).

Mysticism says that the spirit of God cannot be understood, and that it is impossible—and will always be impossible—for finite humans to understand the Spirit of God. Paul, in contrast, says that the Spirit of God cannot be understood by those who do not think in spiritual terms: “A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (2:14). Mysticism says that spirituality transcends all rational analysis. Paul, in contrast, says that spirituality makes it possible to practice rational analysis more extensively, including areas where others are not capable of thinking rationally: “He who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one” (2:15). The word translated ‘appraised’ is anakrino, which means ‘the process of careful study, evaluation and judgment’.

Verse 15 is a strange verse, but I think I know what it might mean. First, there is the matter of mindset. Someone who is spiritual will think in terms of appraisal—using careful thought to examine emotional issues. In contrast, the non-spiritual person will approach the same subjects from an emotional perspective: how does the topic make me feel and what do the experts say. In other words, the spiritual person will have a mental concept of the Holy Spirit that is consistent with the description of the Holy Spirit given in John 16—a spirit of truth that leads the mind to greater understanding. Second, there is the matter of success. When one starts from a spiritual perspective, one will find that one is able to dissect and analyze the systems and opinions of others, the way that we are doing in these essays. One will also find that this spiritual perspective can survive analysis by others without crumbling. I have found both of these principles to be true in my research.

Paul concludes with the following statement: “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ” (2:16). This verse makes sense if one looks at the original Greek and understands how the mind functions. A more literal translation would be “Who has personal experience of the thinking of the Lord? Who will tell him how to put things together? But we have the thinking of Christ.” Using cognitive language, a concept of God is based in Teacher thought, and Teacher thought forms general theories by putting things together. One cannot use personal knowledge based in Mercy experiences to tell Teacher thought how to form general theories. But finite humans can interact with Teacher thought through incarnation because the thinking of Christ (Jesus as God) is capable of interacting with Teacher thought.

This discussion about God and spirit may seem somewhat theoretical, so an example is probably appropriate. 100 years ago, no one talked about cell phones, no one could see a cell phone, and the idea of a cell phone was not part of culture. But gaining a Teacher understanding of the universal laws of nature made it possible to come up with the concept of a cell phone. (The cell phone was actually inspired by the science fiction of Star Trek. Science fiction tries to go beyond normal fiction by allowing imagination to be guided by scientific laws of nature.)

Cell phones now exist. Therefore, it is possible to think about cell phones in one of two ways. A spirit of the world views a cell phone as an aspect of existing culture. This leads to thinking guided by the status quo: What cell phones are available, and how does one cell phone compare with another? The thinking of such consumers can be influenced by appearance and personal authority. Thus, the emphasis will be upon designing cell phones that look good and marketing these cell phones with ads that feature well-known people.

In contrast, a spirit of God (as expressed in the universal laws of nature) will go beyond the status quo to discuss what cell phones could do and what they will do, using technical language that the average person on the street cannot comprehend.

Milk and Flesh 3:1-15

Mysticism often views the intuitive thinking of the child as an example to emulate, because the childish mind has not yet become ‘contaminated’ by rational thought with its categorizing and analyzing. Paul, on the other hand, equates childish thought with the flesh, and says that spiritual thought goes beyond childish thinking: “I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it” (3:1-2). Milk can be swallowed whole, while solid food has to be cut into pieces and chewed before swallowing. Going further, milk is a liquid that comes from females, and female thought emphasizes emotions and mental networks. Paul complains that his audience is unable to chew on what he says. Mysticism, in contrast, requires thinking that swallows whole without chewing, because ‘chewing’ subdivides the whole into more specific parts, and mysticism stops working when sweeping statements are subdivided into specific parts. Mysticism can coexist with the subdivisions of rational thought if mysticism is regarded as going beyond rational thought. In contrast, Paul describes thinking which cannot chew as ‘infants in Christ’, which is an accurate statement, because a mental concept of incarnation is based in technical thought, which by its very nature classifies and subdivides. (It is important to distinguish between untrained intuition and trained intuition. Peter talks about a higher level of ‘milk’ that is an expression of high-level female thought functioning at the level of trained intuition. And that kind of milk is capable of transcending male technical thought.)

For instance, reformed Christian theology teaches the doctrine of covenant, which is an important scriptural concept. However, reformed theology teaches that God’s plan of redemption is governed by a single eternal divine covenant that cannot be subdivided into different dispensations. Whenever reformed theologians have ‘chewed’ on the doctrine of covenant in order to add details, such as Old Testament versus New Testament, or grace versus works, then the mindset of mysticism has driven them to downplay these details and insist that there is only a single eternal vague divine covenant.

Paul adds that fleshly thinking is based in MMNs of personal status: “For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, ‘I am of Paul,’ and another, ‘I am of Apollos,’ are you not mere men?” (3:3)

Paul explains that what really matters is growth, and that people are only important to the extent that they enable and assist growth. And growth is guided by God: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth” (3:6-7). A concept of God transcends MMNs of human authority and ties them together: “For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building” (3:9).

Saying this more bluntly, those who discuss the Bible by merely quoting religious experts, such as church fathers and famous theologians, have not acquired the ability to analyze biblical content, but are still functioning at the level of childish thought. Religious experts are only significant to the extent that they assist the process of personal growth, and both religious experts and the process of personal growth are ultimately guided by the general Teacher understanding of a concept of God.

Paul goes further. Experts are not the ultimate sources of truth. Instead, one must begin by building upon the foundation of incarnation: “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (3:11). This is traditionally interpreted by evangelical Christians as ‘asking Jesus in your heart’, and this is an aspect of building upon the foundation of incarnation. But notice that Paul uses the full title of Jesus Christ, which implies that one is going beyond Jesus-the-man. This is an important distinction, because many Christians have a ‘personal relationship’ with the invisible person of Jesus-the-man while at the same time building most of their life upon foundations that contradict incarnation as a universal principle.

A foundation is the starting point, but it is not the entire building. The starting point is Jesus Christ the God/man, but one then builds upon this foundation. Using another biblical analogy, Jesus Christ is the head of the church, but the head is not the entire body. Revelation 5-9 appears to describe the type of society that emerges when people start with the concept of incarnation but then do not build further. (This is discussed in a two-part video.)

One can see these two stages in Paul’s phrase ‘I planted and Apollos watered’ (3:6). The word Apollos means ‘of Apollo’, and Apollo was the Greek God of truth and prophecy, healing, the sun and light, and music. Paul took what was then the Jewish sect of Christianity and transformed it into a religion for Gentiles based in theology. Using modern language, Paul reformulated religious fundamentalist belief into a general rational theory that could be understood by secular thought. Once religious belief has been transplanted into secular soil, it is then possible to water this belief using secular concepts of truth, prophecy, healing, sun, light, and music. Paul explicitly states that he is laying a foundation upon which others are building: “According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it” (3:10). (The word ‘master builder or architect’ only occurs once in the Bible.)

Looking at this symbolically, it is important to start with Paul and then move to Apollos. Paul means little. Thus, one needs to come to God in an attitude of personal humility in Mercy thought. But one then needs to view God and Christianity as something large in Teacher thought which includes truth, prophecy, healing, light, sun, and praise. The door to God’s kingdom may be small and narrow, but this leads to a fullness that is wide and full.

Notice exactly what Paul is saying. As an apostle, he is laying a foundation upon which others are building, and Paul will later describe the personal cost of being an apostle. However, Paul emphasizes that he is not building the foundation, because ‘no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ’. This distinction can be seen in physics. Laying the foundation is like discovering a new law of physics, while laying a foundation is like finding a new way to describe a law of physics that has already been discovered. For instance, Snell discovered the law of refraction, which describes how a ray of light bends as it travels from one medium to another. This is what causes a straw to look bent when it is inserted in a cup of water. Fermat discovered that Snell’s law could be stated in a different way: light travels one point to another following a path that takes the least amount of time.

The childish mindset views experts as the ultimate source of truth, while Paul says that the words and actions of experts will themselves be judged: “Each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work” (3:13). Notice that the focus is not upon doctrinal purity, rigorous logic, or following the right expert. Instead, the testing is by fire, which implies some sort of emotional stress. Using cognitive language, the core mental networks that drive a person become evident when a person continues to receive input that is uncomfortable. That is when a person discovers what he really loves and hates. The standard is integrity, which is revealed by observing what remains solid under pressure: “The fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which is built on it remains, he will receive a reward” (3:15). Paul talks about building “with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw” (3:12). When fire is applied to gold or silver, then they become more pure, while applying fire to wood, hay, or straw burns them up.

Saying this another way, what really matters is not how much a person knows or believes, but rather how much a person knows or believes under pressure. Using the language of mental symmetry, all Perceiver facts and Server sequences have a label of confidence, which indicates the emotional pressure that can be handled by that fact or sequence without crumbling. For instance, I may know how to play a piece of music perfectly in private but fall apart when playing in front of an audience.

Paul emphasizes the relationship between knowledge and personal identity. One does not just build upon a foundation of incarnation, one is also saved personally by this foundation. One does not just build solid material upon this foundation, one receives a personal reward for the solid material that one has built and suffers personal loss if this material lacks integrity: “If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire” (3:14-15).

Temple of God 3:16-23

Paul then goes further by saying that there is a deep connection between personal identity, integrity, and a concept of God: “Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are” (3:16-17). The word translated ‘destroy’ means to waste away, corrupt, or deteriorate.

Putting this together with the previous section, the goal of going beyond milk to solid food is not to be able to discuss theology with greater precision but rather to build with solid material. And what one is ultimately building is a mental concept of God—an internal structure within which God can live. And an inadequate concept of God will have devastating mental consequences.

Using the language of mental symmetry, the goal is to achieve mental wholeness in which all parts of the mind work together in harmony. However, what normally happens is mental corruption, because a person will focus on using some parts of the mind in a way that shuts down or damages other parts of the mind. For instance, one may pursue Mercy feelings in a way that shuts down Perceiver facts, pursue Contributor-controlled technical thought in an objective manner that shuts down Mercy thought, or seek Exhorter excitement by filling the mind with emotional experiences that Mercy thought finds damaging.

This mental corruption will also affect one’s concept of God. If one pursues mental wholeness, then the concept of God that emerges is that of a Christian Trinity. Using Christian language, the mind is made to be a temple of God. But if one pursues a lifestyle of corruption, then this will lead to a twisted concept of God, this twisted concept will turn into mental networks, and these mental networks of a twisted concept of God will impose corruption upon the mind. Saying this more simply, one will inevitably end up worshiping and serving the concept of God that one creates. If this is a God of corruption, then one will worship and serve a God of corruption.

The end result is self-deception. How can one test if one is deceiving oneself? If one is guided by a mindset that works well in the current age of personal status and physical matter, then this is a good sign that one’s mindset is inadequate and needs to be questioned. That is because building one’s mind upon personal status and physical matter leads to a twisted concept of God. In the words of Paul, “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise. The wisdom of this world is foolishness before God” (3:18).

Saying this another way, the crafty person will be caught by his own craftiness, because twisted thinking will create a mental concept of God that traps a person within this twisted thinking: “For it is written, ‘he is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness’” (3:19). Craftiness is a strong word that means ‘unscrupulous cunning that stops at nothing to achieve a selfish goal’. Thus, a person will breaks free of all the rules will actually become ruled by a concept of God which ignores all the rules. Such a person will become mentally blind to the very concept of law and order. For instance, President Trump lies so incessantly that he has literally lost the ability to even conceive of the idea of truth. Similarly, President Putin has practiced corruption and deception for so long that he does not know what it means to govern in an honest manner. More personally, when I presented the theory of mental symmetry at the Pacific Northwest American Academy of Religion Conference in 2015, I found that most of the delegates have been questioning theology for so long that they are no longer capable of thinking in terms of theology.

Going further, “The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless” (3:20). More literally, the calculated reasoning of the wise philosopher is unproductive. Paul does not say that it is wrong, but rather that it leads nowhere. The reason that it leads nowhere is because rigorous logic always applies only to some limited area of thought or existence. For instance, the rules of football apply to a game of football played on a football playing field, but they cannot be extended to all of life, because life is more than just a game of football. The rules of football are appropriate when one is playing a game of football, but if one tries to apply the rules of football to the rest of life, one will find that this leads nowhere.

In conclusion, one should not build upon MMNs of personal status. But one should build in a manner that includes personal identity: “So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you” (3:21-22). This involves personal identity but it is not based upon personal identity but rather is based upon incarnation, and incarnation is based upon a concept of God: “You belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God” (3:23). Notice that Paul includes death as well as life and the future in addition to the present. Similarly, I have found that the theory of mental symmetry can be expanded beyond physical existence to include the spiritual and the supernatural, and it can be extended beyond the present to analyze the future—as shown by these essays on the New Testament.

Extending Incarnation

Paul describes in chapter 4 what it means to be genuine religious experts. They are “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (4:1). Mysticism regards God as a mystery that will always remain a mystery. In contrast, the word translated servant is found once in 1 Corinthians and means ‘an "under-rower" who mans the oars on a lower deck; (figuratively) a subordinate executing official orders, i.e. operating under direct (specific) orders’. Carrying out specific orders as a subordinate implies following a rational theory in Teacher thought, and not some vague, mystical, Teacher overgeneralization.

Paul describes more clearly what it means to be a steward of the mystery of God in the book of Colossians. We will examine this passage because it ties in nicely with what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 4: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me” (Col. 1:24-29).

Paul talked about building on the foundation of incarnation. We see in Colossians that this involves suffering on behalf of others and that this suffering ‘fills up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions’. On the one hand, one is adding to the atoning work of incarnation in a meaningful manner. But on the other hand, the original atonement of Jesus Christ the incarnation remains fundamental because Christ is the head of the church and one is adding to the sufferings as part of the body of the church. Notice also that Paul uses the word Christ in this passage and not Jesus, telling us that his emphasis is upon incarnation as a universal principle. If the specific atonement of Jesus-the-man in first century Judea is to be expanded to become a universal principle of atonement in Jesus Christ the God/man, then this expansion can only occur if other individuals, such as Paul, view atonement as a universal principle to be applied. After all, we have just seen that one cannot separate the Christian message from the character of the person who is preaching this message. Therefore, one cannot just preach the message that Jesus is more than just a man who died in Jerusalem. Instead, one must also embody this message; it must become an essential aspect of one’s personal identity. Similarly, this is not just a theoretical message that is being preached and believed, but it is being shared in order to bring personal benefits to the listener.

Paul then describes the nature of this message. It was a mystery but has now been revealed to those who follow God. The mystery is ‘Christ in you, the hope of glory’. In other words, it involves an internal concept of incarnation as God, accompanied by the concept that this internal understanding will be expressed externally (glory is the external manifestation of something internal). The ministry is spread by the ‘preaching of the word of God’, which means that one is using words to convey a general understanding. It extends beyond the religious Jews to the secular Gentiles. And it uses rational instruction to lead people to the goal of being ‘complete in Christ’, which means mental wholeness guided by a concept of incarnation as God.

By now the discussion has probably become too theoretical. Therefore, I would like to provide two examples. The first example is the inventor who uses technology to come up with a new laborsaving device. Science illustrates incarnation at a deep level. In the same way that Jesus was the Word of God made flesh, so science integrates the universal words of mathematics with the flesh of natural processes. (This is not just a hand-waving similarity, but is an extensive similarity that is discussed in detail in other essays, as well as in the book Natural Cognitive Theology.) Before the discovery of science, this relationship was a mystery, but it became unveiled during the scientific revolution. One learns about science by using mathematical equations. Math is composed of words and symbols that convey general Teacher theories. An inventor takes the incarnation of math/science and extends it to some new area of application. This extension increases the universality of incarnation. Inventing is not a straightforward process, and an inventor endures hardship so that others can benefit. Summarizing, the goal of inventing is to create a society that expresses the invisible laws of nature in a manner that benefits mankind.

The second example is mental symmetry. The theory of mental symmetry began with the list of seven spiritual gifts mentioned in Romans 12. Right before giving this list of seven gifts, Paul says that “just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others” (Rom. 12:4-5). In other words, Paul explicitly says that Romans 12 spiritual gifts describe the body of Christ. And Paul said in Colossians that he is adding to the sufferings of Jesus as part of the body of Christ.

Looking at this cognitively, I discovered that Romans 12 spiritual gifts are not just a description of cognitive styles, but form the starting point for a general meta-theory of human intelligence. And one of the key features of this meta-theory is that it translates the concept of Jesus-the-man into a universal concept of incarnation. Building the theory of mental symmetry has not been easy, but instead has involved a lifetime of being marginalized and ostracized. And the goal of mental symmetry is not just to come up with a theory of how the mind works, but rather to help people reach mental wholeness in order to produce a better society. Finally, I keep rediscovering that one can only do research on the mind if one personally applies what one knows. In other words, what Paul says in Colossians 4 and Romans 12 is not just religious poetry, but rather an accurate description of deep cognitive principles.

Servants of Christ 4:1-7

Let us return now to 1 Corinthians 4. Similarly, Paul says that “it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy” (4:2). The word steward is used twice in 1 Corinthians: here, and in the previous verse. It means ‘the manager of a household’. This summarizes the mindset which Paul has been describing. On the one hand, following Christ involves rational thought, as shown by the job of manager. But on the other hand, one is not managing a business but rather a home for personal identity.

When one does research on the mind, then one must avoid self-deception. Paul addresses this concern in verses 3-5. How can one avoid deceiving oneself? One cannot build upon the opinions of society, because one is attempting to go beyond the status quo, and anyone who violates the status quo will automatically receive disapproval. That is because the status quo is enforced by mental networks of culture, and a mental network responds negatively whenever it encounters inconsistent input. In the words of Paul, “To me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court” (4:3). The word small means ‘least (in size, amount, dignity, etc.)’ This describes the opposite of Teacher generality. In other words, Paul is not rebelling from human experts or regarding them as evil in Mercy thought. Instead, he is recognizing that they lack generality in Teacher thought. They may know specific facts, but they lack a general understanding. The phrase translated ‘human court’ is literally ‘day belonging to humans’, and day means ‘a day, the period from sunrise to sunset’. Thus, a day of humans would represent a period of time that is illuminated by the ‘sun’ of some general Teacher understanding of human existence. In other words, human experts may think that they are being guided by a general Teacher understanding that covers everything, but this is actually a limited theory of materialism that covers only part of time and existence. This became apparent to me as I went through the books of Hebrews and 2 Corinthians. There is far more to the story than just using technical thought to understand the physical universe.

But one also cannot trust one’s own mental networks of reasonableness and appropriateness: “In fact, I do not even examine myself” (4:3). The word examine used in verses 2 and 3 combines ‘up, completing a process’ with ‘to select by separating/judging’ and ‘is often used in its forensic sense in the ancient world’. This describes using abstract technical thought to analyze physical, empirical data. One is starting from the bottom level of specific facts, and then using the precise definitions of abstract technical thinking to come up with a general theory. Paul said in verse 2 that human understanding uses this kind of thinking—and this is regarded today as the proper way to think scientifically. And using abstract technical thought to analyze empirical data is the best way to understand how the physical universe functions. But Paul says in verse 3 that he does not use this kind of thinking to examine himself.

This does not mean that Paul continues stubbornly without error-checking. Instead, the ultimate error-checking is provided by a rational Teacher understanding of God: “I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord” (4:4). The word ‘lord’ usually refers to Jesus Christ. And the word ‘examines’ is the same verb that was used in verses 2-3. Thus, instead of using the aspect of technical thought that works best in the physical universe, Paul is allowing himself to be examined by a full concept of incarnation who rules over all of creation.

And if one’s understanding of incarnation really is based in a Teacher understanding of how things work, then this Teacher understanding will eventually become apparent, and the unveiling of this Teacher understanding will reveal peoples’ core mental networks. This waiting is not easy to do, because the natural tendency is to preach truth at others rather than waiting for it to be revealed at the appropriate time. Using the language of Paul, “Wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God” (4:5). Scientific analysis looks at physical evidence. The Lord, in contrast, will bring the hidden things to light. Scientific thought is objective. The Lord, in contrast, will reveal the heart—mental networks of personal identity. The word God is literally ‘the God’, which refers to the TMN of a fully developed concept of God. This larger Teacher understanding will eventually bring praise, which actually means ‘fitting (apt) praise, i.e. accurate acknowledgment’. In other words, this unveiling of a fuller concept of God will put everything and everyone into perspective.

Paul adds that this is a general principle that applies to all interpersonal relationships and not just to the relationship between him and his readers: “These things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other” (4:6). The word arrogant means ‘inflate by blowing; (figuratively) swelled up, like an egotistical person spuing out arrogant ("puffed-up") thoughts’. If air represents Teacher thought, then this means inflating the Teacher significance of specific people in Mercy thought, which is precisely what Paul talked about in verse 3. And Paul points out in verse 7 that human thought and existence is not the ultimate source: “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” The word boast means ‘boasting from a particular vantage point by having the right base of operation to deal successfully with a matter’. Thus, people are confidence that materialistic theories form an adequate foundation for successful existence. But Paul is pointing out that existence did not start with humanity.

Looking at the bie picture, it appears that God guides people and societies by examining and manipulating core mental networks. Words are easy to say and they are also easy to evaluate, but a person is not ultimately motivated by words. Instead, what drives a person is not words but rather core mental networks. Core mental networks are not usually apparent but rather become revealed in times of stress. The ultimate revealing of core mental networks will occur when a person comes face-to-face with the character of God, and a person’s core mental networks will either drive that individual to instinctively come towards God or run away from God. This is traditionally viewed as the holiness of God revealing the sinfulness of man, and that is one aspect of what it means to come face-to-face with God. But Paul is referring to something else here, which involves Teacher generality. Many grandiose claims will be brought down to size at the appearing of incarnation.

Goal of a Steward 4:8-21

Paul then describes the relationship between the inventor and the consumer. (The three stages of consumer, hacker, and inventor are described in Natural Cognitive Theology.) He says to his audience that “you are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us” (4:6). This verse is typically viewed as Paul using sarcasm, but I do not think that this is the case. That is because sarcasm is a prime expression of specialized technical thought; sarcasm places the language of technical thought within a package of emotional condescension. In contrast, Paul is following incarnation rather than applying technical thought within some limited area. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for Paul to use sarcasm. Instead, I suggest that Paul is describing what happens when one follows an understanding that is limited to the physical universe.

Technology allows the modern consumer to live a life of luxury and reign as kings over the natural world. The word filled means ‘fill, sate, glut, feed full, satisfy’. When one focuses upon the physical environment, then it is easy to become emotionally satiated: ‘I have learned everything I need to know here. I am bored. I want something new and exciting.’ One can see this in the consumer society in which the current-and-still-working is continually being replaced by the new-and-improved. Cognitively speaking, Exhorter thought is finding excitement in Teacher overgeneralization that is being made possible by the absence of knowledge. Using the language of Paul, this is an example of ‘inflating by blowing’. The new is unknown. Therefore, its emotional significance can be exaggerated. But when the new is purchased and starts to be used, then what was unknown becomes known and commonplace. Mentally speaking, Perceiver facts will start to limit Teacher overgeneralization, which will reduce Teacher emotions, resulting in less Exhorter excitement. In addition, Exhorter thought will naturally lose excitement as novelty is replaced by repetition and boredom. This will lead to emotional satiation, which will be addressed by looking forward to a newer and even better gadget. Moving on, all of these fancy gadgets will give the impression of having become rich. However, someone who has many toys but lacks the ability to use or enjoy these toys is actually emotionally and cognitively impoverished.

Therefore, Paul adds “I wish that you had become kings that we also might reign with you” (4:8). The word translated wish that means ‘would that (used to express an unattainable wish)’. Modern technological society thinks that it rules over the physical world, but Paul states that this is merely wishful thinking. That is because deeper issues of motivation and enjoyment are being ignored. Paul is pointing this out not to condemn people but because he wants to rule with them. Looking at this personally, mental symmetry addresses deeper issues of God, identity, and lasting enjoyment. I would love to be able to apply these principles in the real world. But I cannot, because those who claim to rule over the world are actually enslaved to childish desires. Therefore, in order to join others and fully enjoy the current world, I would have to pursue childish desires or sell my soul to the system in some way.

Paul explains his predicament: “For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men” (4:9). These are strong words, but I suggest that one can make sense of them by comparing the consumer with the inventor. The consumer lives within the concrete world of human activity. The inventor, in contrast, struggles to make breakthroughs, and inhabits both the human realm of technology and the abstract realm of research. Both the apostle and the inventor are trying to build upon the foundation of incarnation. But the inventor is merely coming up with new gadgets guided by an understanding of how the character of incarnation is indirectly revealed in the structure of the universe, while the apostle is paying a deep personal price in order to build upon the foundation of personal salvation laid by incarnation. The inventor has to deal with the objective abstract world of science and technology. The apostle, in contrast, has to deal with the personal abstract realm of angels. (The correspondence between abstract thought and the angelic realm is discussed in other essays, as well as later on in this essay).

This is the first mention of angels in the book of 1 Corinthians. Looking at this psychologically, researchers have found that those who claim to have encounters with UFOs tend to have internal interaction with imaginary friends. In other words, when one cannot interact in a meaningful way with human beings, then one is forced to turn to the internal world for social interaction. And when one turns to the internal, then one will start to encounter the angelic realm. Paul is not saying that he is turning his back upon physical reality in order to become obsessed with angels. Instead, he is realizing that he has a larger audience. Humans are not the only ones who are watching. There is also an unseen audience. In the previous section, Paul was developing a Teacher understanding that transcended current physical reality. Here the extension beyond physical reality is expanding to include social interaction in Mercy thought.

Moving on, Paul does not say that he is dying, but rather that he is being exhibited by The God (the is in the original Greek) as condemned to death, a word that is used only once in the New Testament. Paul may be personally growing and maturing, but circumstances make it look to others as if he is on the verge of being annihilated. In a similar manner, the theory of mental symmetry has continued to expand and develop, and I have also continued to make personal progress. That is my personal perspective. But from an external perspective, it probably appears to others as if I am continually on the verge of experiencing total failure. And if I take the perspective of others, then I feel as if I am a total failure about to hit the brick wall and experience a dead end. However, if I look at the bigger picture that goes beyond current, physical reality—if I consider that both humans and angels are watching—then I conclude that I am continuing to make progress.

A mental network will take ‘ownership’ of any thought or activity that it motivates. Human activity is naturally motivated by MMNs of identity and culture. If one wishes to be motivated by God, then one must choose to be guided by the TMN of a concept of God without being guided by MMNs of personal status. Stated simply, one must follow God rather than men. The average consumer of salvation does not have to follow these higher standards but rather can enjoy the benefits of being a consumer while being guided by existing MMNs of culture. For instance, I sometimes make decisions which the average person would consider foolish, driven by a desire to follow incarnation at a higher level. The very fact that others regard these decisions as foolish forces me to make these decisions in a righteous manner—guided by a TMN of God rather than MMNs of culture and approval.

Paul states this contrast quite blatantly: “We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless” (4:10-11). Notice that Paul describes this relative hardship as happening ‘To this present hour’. Thus, Paul is acknowledging the present while believing that things will change in the future.

Righteousness allows Server actions to be guided by Teacher understanding. Paul emphasizes this in the beginning of verse 12: “and we toil, working with our own hands”. The word toil means ‘exhausting labor – to labor until worn-out’. And the word working includes both work and trade. In other words, righteousness does not necessarily involve manual labor, and it does not have to include hardship and suffering. But one must be performing some sort of hands-on activity that is emotionally draining. One must use Server thought in a way that requires drawing upon some source of motivation, and one must find this motivation in TMNs of rational understanding.

When one receives such mistreatment as an inventor—or apostle, one must always view it as an opportunity to be guided by higher motives: “When we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate” (4:12,13). If one responds in a positive fashion, then one will experience positive benefits of increased understanding and transformed character. But if one responds with bitterness, then one will become emotionally trapped and be unable to go further.

Going further, Paul’s goal is to help his readers and not to condemn them: “I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children” (v.14). This too is an example of choosing to focus upon the positive. The word shame means ‘to turn one’s attention to in a riveted (locked-in) way’. This describes what happens when emotional MMNs are used to overwhelm Perceiver thought. Attention becomes riveted to the defining experiences. In contrast, Paul is trying to admonish, which means ‘to place the mind... This "exerts positive pressure" on someone’s logic (reasoning)’. This is not what one normally associates with the word admonish but rather describes the use of rational Teacher thought.

Summarizing, the consumer experiences the benefits of technology, while the inventor has to understand science in order to develop technology as well as go through the struggle of developing a product. The apostle experiences a similar—but much more personal—version of what the inventor endures.

Paul has emphasized that a message of rebirth cannot be separated from personal identity; in order to preach rebirth, one must also experience rebirth. As a result, Paul can reinforce his verbal message by telling others to copy his personal example. “For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me” (4:15,16). Notice that Paul describes himself as a father and not just a tutor. A tutor teaches a message, while a father combines a message with personal involvement. Notice also the contrast between Christ and Christ Jesus. A tutor shares the universal message of Christ the incarnation, while a father combines the universal message of Christ with the personal involvement of Jesus.

Paul can trust that Timothy will accurately convey his message because Timothy both knows and embodies the message: “For this reason I sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ” (4:17). Notice exactly what Paul is saying. He is not telling others to respect him as a person but rather to mimic his ways—his Server sequences. And they are not supposed to follow these ways because they come from Paul, but rather because they are based in an integrated concept of incarnation. And Timothy also will not exercise personal authority. Instead, he will remind others of the ways of Paul. Using the analogy of the inventor, Paul is telling others to follow proper procedures when using the gadgets that he has invented. And these are proper procedures not because they come from Paul but rather because they are based in a rational understanding of natural law. And Timothy will remind the consumers how to use these gadgets using proper procedures.

Paul finishes by reminding his readers that what really matters is not words but power: “For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power” (4:20). Paul compares power with being puffed up: “Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power” (v.18-19). As a footnote in the NASB points out, the word arrogant really means ‘puffed up’, and is the same word that was seen back in verse 7. Paul says that he will learn through personal experience the power of those who are puffed up and not their words. Word is actually logos, which we are interpreting as the TMN or paradigm that drives a technical specialization. Power multiplies the effectiveness of Server actions, as illustrated by the use of power tools. For instance, a hand drill can drill holes; a power drill can drill bigger holes faster through harder material. (Power could also refer to moral and cognitive power or to supernatural power. I suggest that the same principles would apply.) Paul is contrasting two ways of using abstract technical thought. First, one can use this form of thinking to develop detailed abstract structures, as epitomized by the rigorous technical structures of math or philosophy. Second, one can also use abstract technical thought to multiply the effectiveness of concrete technical thought, as illustrated by the powerful tools and gadgets of technology. These two are related, because technology is ultimately based in the mathematical thinking of science. But power applies abstract technical thought to Server actions in a righteous manner, while logos remains at the level of words and abstract thought. John 1 says that Jesus started at the level of divine logos but then descended to live and act within the concrete realm of human flesh. Similarly, Paul says that when he comes, he will look for power and not for the logos of rigorous technical thought. As long as Paul is not present, it is possible for experts to use technical language to inflate the Teacher generality of their statements. But when Paul the apostle shows up (or when an inventor shows up with his new invention) then application will override theory. As Paul says in verse 20, “The kingdom of God does not consist in logos but in power.” I am not suggesting that logos is wrong but rather that it is incomplete. In terms of the three stages of personal transformation, logos gets stuck at the first stage of constructing a rational concept of God, while power moves on to the second stage of righteousness.

Before we continue, let us summarize the general sequence that Paul has described.

1) Paul is teaching a message of rebirth that goes beyond physical appearance and personal status.

2) Those who build upon physical appearance and personal status will naturally reject this message of rebirth.

3) A message of rebirth must be combined with the personal experience of rebirth.

4) Rejection of a message of rebirth will naturally force those who teach such a message to experience rebirth.

5) Incarnation is both God and man. Jesus as man went through specific experiences that illustrate the universal principles of Jesus Christ the God/man.

6) The specific example of Jesus the man becomes more general as followers of Jesus build upon the foundation of Jesus the incarnation.

7) If one wants to build upon the foundation of incarnation in a significant way, then one must be willing to pay a major personal price.

8) One must maintain a positive attitude while paying this personal price.

9) Paying this price makes it possible to go beyond words to power.

Male and Female Thought

Paul now turns from theory to practice, beginning with the example of someone having sexual relations with his father’s wife. The first four chapters have emphasized that one must go beyond specific people and physical actions to universal principles. This implies that one should interpret ‘someone having his father’s wife’ as a universal principle and not just as a physical action involving specific persons.

Even if Paul himself was addressing a specific issue of incest in the Corinthian church, I suggest that there is still a more general meaning behind this specific example, placed there by the ultimate author. Saying this more generally, regarding the Bible as the Word of God does not mean placing it on a special shelf and handling it in a reverential manner with kid gloves. It also does not mean blindly quoting, following, and preaching these words as if they have magical power. Instead, regarding the Bible as the Word of God means looking behind the specific authors, illustrations, and cultural references for a single underlying, coherent, rational message that describes universal principles which transcend time and culture. Believing that the Bible is the Word of God is not displayed through religious rituals or accepted by blind faith, but rather can be tested by examining the Bible for an integrated, coherent message. (Similarly, one can test the validity of other holy books by examining them for the presence of an integrated, coherent message.)

Returning to 1 Corinthians 5, I suggest that one can find the cross-cultural universal message behind Paul’s example by interpreting male and female persons as male and female thought. In brief, male thought emphasizes Perceiver facts and Server sequences, while female thought emphasizes Teacher words and Mercy experiences. Saying this another way, the male mind naturally focuses upon information and skills, while the female mind emphasizes communication and personal experiences. (Gender and sexuality are discussed in more detail in another essay.) Going further, male thought emphasizes the logic and rigorous thinking of technical thought, which is based upon Perceiver facts and Server sequences. Similarly, female thought uses intuition and emphasizes mental networks, which are based upon emotional Mercy experiences and general Teacher theories. Male thought tends to specialize and be impersonal, while female thought is more attracted to interdisciplinary Teacher theories and social interaction. Gender differences interact with cognitive style. For instance, a male Mercy person is guided by gender to emphasize Perceiver facts, Server sequences, and technical thought, while guided by cognitive style to focus upon emotional Mercy experiences. This leads naturally to a mindset that works intuitively with technical gadgets, as illustrated by Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple computers.

When a society is locked into concrete thought with its physical objects and personal experts, then physical gender will have a major impact upon thought, to the extent that it becomes difficult to determine a person’s cognitive style, or even recognize the existence of cognitive styles. In such a society, Paul’s statements about gender would apply almost totally to men and women rather than to male and female thought. However, when a society develops abstract thought and teaches people to become individuals with internal worlds who think for themselves, then the relationship between male and female thought will become the dominant factor, which will be influenced by secondary elements including physical gender, education, culture, and cognitive style.

I know that it is currently politically incorrect to talk about differences between male and female thought, but the differences that I have mentioned can be backed up by psychological studies and confirmed by personal observation. Besides, if one rejects the words of Paul because they are politically incorrect, then I suggest that one is practicing the earthly wisdom that Paul warned against in the beginning of 1 Corinthians.

We have talked about a message about rebirth, but have not examined the nature of this message. In brief, rebirth starts with childish mental networks, builds rational thought, and then uses rational thought to rebuild mental networks. Using the language of male and female thought, it starts with isolated female thought, replaces this with male thought, and then leads to an internal marriage of male and female thought. This three-stage process can be seen clearly in the development of a skill. The beginner expresses personal emotions in a manner that is crude and unsophisticated. The technician acquires knowledge and develops skills, but performs in a mechanical manner that lacks emotions. Finally, the expert is guided by a trained intuition that combines gut response with technical expertise. Restating this in the language of the consumer, the hacker, and the inventor, the consumer is guided by emotions that lack skill and knowledge. The hacker has skill and knowledge but tends to get lost in technical details. Finally, the inventor combines technical expertise with an emotional commitment to some goal that is being pursued or product that is being developed.

For instance, Elon Musk just announced his plans to colonize Mars, using enormous rockets that would carry 100 passengers on a three month trip to the red planet. Normally, such grandiose statements are made by those who lack technical knowledge and skill. However, Musk is already sending rockets into space and he just started testing the rocket engine that will power these enormous rockets. Thus, Musk is an example of the inventor, who combines the technical expertise of male thought with the personal vision and general thinking of female thought. The consumer, hacker, and inventor apply the message of rebirth to the physical realm of objects. Christianity extends this message of rebirth to include the personal, the cognitive, the supernatural, and the spiritual. That is because Jesus Christ the God/man is incarnation over all realms, including the physical, personal, supernatural, and spiritual. And this is not just a theological statement, but a universal principle with personal implications.

Conservatism 5:1-5

With this in mind, let us turn to 1 Corinthians 5. Paul opens the chapter by saying “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst” (5:1,2).

If one interprets the statement in terms of male and female thought, then what emerges is something rather striking. In simple terms, the male thought of one generation is being integrated with the female thought of the previous generation. Saying this another way, the facts and skills of one generation are being married to the culture and understanding of the previous generation.

This defines the typical attitude of religious conservatism, which practices the skills and learns the knowledge of current society, while attempting to live personally within the mental networks of a bygone era. One sees this, for instance, in many American conservative Christian families. When one steps into such a home one leaves the modern age and enters a world populated by pioneers, pilgrim fathers, and 18th century preachers.

As Paul says, the ‘gentile’ secular world does not live in the past like this, but tries to create a culture and a worldview that fits current knowledge and professional skill. This culture may be inadequate, but at least it is appropriate. But instead of mourning the passing of the old culture, the conservative mindset clings to bygone culture in an arrogant manner, insisting not just that the old way is the best way, but often that the old way is the only godly way.

Looking at this in more detail, the word arrogant is the familiar word which means ‘puffed-up’, and mourned specifically means to ‘mourn over a death’. Thus, instead of mourning the loss of past culture, the Mercy experiences of the past are being inflated to give them the appearance of Teacher generality. For instance, one can see this in the educational system of Bill Gothard (a once popular Christian fundamentalist seminar speaker who teaches Romans 12 spiritual gifts and is now disgraced), because most of the examples in his school curriculum are taken either from the Bible or from bygone American culture. Gothard’s ATI educational system then inflates these specific examples by treating them as general theories. For instance, some sample questions in his curriculum are ‘How can graphs help to visualize the consequences of lust?’ or ‘How do prime numbers illustrate the principle of ‘one flesh’ in marriage?’ In a sample Wisdom Booklet from the ATI website, a scripture quote about mourning is paired with ‘History’ questions like ‘How did true mourning result in revivals in colonial America?’ and ‘How did a great city mourn over sin?’” Adding moral content to secular education is good. I am trying to do this as well, and Paul will discuss this shortly in 1 Corinthians. But when one adds morality to education one must start with Teacher understanding and look for universal moral principles, rather than starting with colonial American culture and then tacking on math and history. Similarly, Paul has just talked about mourning over sin. But this does not mean dying to current culture in order to mentally marry one’s father’s wife. Instead, Christian fundamentalism needs to mourn the death of colonial American culture in order to find an appropriate way of applying universal moral principles to the culture of today.

I know that some would reject this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5 as mistaken, but I suggest that this is because we do not really believe that Jesus is God. We may say that we believe that Jesus is both man and God, and we may say that we believe that God created the universe, but we do not act as if Jesus Christ the incarnation has anything to do with science or technology. Thus, many Christians see modern science and technology as a nonreligious—or even anti-religious—influence that is preventing them from following Jesus the way people did in the past. One can see this, for instance, in Gothard’s strong teachings against secular humanism. Therefore, they cling metaphorically to their father’s wife, because they think that ‘she’ defines what it means to live as a Christian.

It is true that many scientists are stridently anti-religious, and it is also true that the rise of scientific thought has led to the questioning of traditional rules of morality. But Paul has just spent several chapters telling us that we should look beyond authority figures and physical experiences to general understanding. And if one examines the process by which science and technology emerged as well as the thinking that is used by science and technology, one concludes that it is a partial expression of following a path of rebirth guided by a concept of incarnation as both God and man.

The problem with science and technology is that this rebirth is limited to the physical realm. Our physical world has become reborn while people remain the same. Using the language of gender, only male thought has become reborn. If this sounds like a sexist statement, try using rational thought to analyze someone’s personal tastes, artistic preferences, cultural practices, or sexual orientations. It is taboo. In contrast, we complain vigorously whenever insufficient rational thought has been used to analyze our cars, cellphones, and other gadgets. For some reason, we think that it is natural to say ‘How dare you use rational thought to analyze my personal tastes!’ while at the same time saying, ‘How dare you release a new gadget without using enough rational thought to make sure it functions properly!’ When technology keeps improving while society and family keep decaying, it is natural to try to marry the male thought of today with the female thought of our parents.

There is nothing wrong with learning from past culture and holding on to what is good. Similarly, every wife learns from her mother. The problem lies in trying to preserve past culture as an entire entity without analyzing it in the light of current understanding. The solution is not to cling to the culture of one’s parents, but rather to extend the rebirth practiced by science and technology beyond the physical to include the personal, spiritual, and supernatural. After all, Paul has just finished telling us that a message of rebirth must be applied to one’s own person.

Paul describes how one should respond to such a situation: “I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (5:3-5).

Using cognitive language, one should not get personally enmeshed in such a culture. Instead one should evaluate it from a distance guided by the Platonic forms of spirit. (A Platonic form is an internal idealized image of reality.) Thus, one compares the culture of the past with the ideal culture. How does the past measure up when compared with the ideal? How perfect was North America in the 1950s? How ideal was existence under the Pilgrim fathers?

Paul mentions Jesus three times in this passage without mentioning the word Christ. This tells us that the focus is not upon abstract thought and universal doctrine but rather upon specific concrete experience. However, one is going beyond focusing merely upon the specific example of Jesus the man, because Paul talks about the name of our Lord Jesus, the power of our Lord Jesus, and the day of the Lord Jesus. In other words, one is examining specific concrete cultural experiences in the light of a larger picture.

Paul’s solution is to “deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (5:5). The word Satan means adversary. When people cling to the mental networks of past culture, then this will lead naturally to adversarial relationships, as people splinter into warring factions, each convinced that they are preserving the past in the purest form while condemning other groups as compromisers. The fundamentalist Baptists provide a good example of the splintering that is caused by an attitude of ‘we are more holy than they are’.

Eventually, this continual strife will prevent the past from being fully re-created, turning it into the imaginary ideal of a Platonic form. Saying this more simply, people may want to re-create, for instance, the New Testament church, but continual bickering over what it means to re-create a New Testament church will frustrate attempts to re-create the past, turning it into an imaginary ideal that is never fully realized. And being motivated by the internal image of an ideal church is a critical aspect of personal transformation. Notice that this spiritual salvation will happen in the future in the ‘day of the Lord’. In other words, the change in thinking will only become apparent when society becomes illuminated by the ‘sun’ of a general Teacher understanding of God and incarnation.

Rationalization 5:6-8

Paul then turns from incest to leaven and the Passover. This may seem like a complete change of topic, but remember that one has to go beyond physical appearance to look for general understanding. If one does so, one finds that Paul is still discussing the same topic.

Paul begins this section by saying “your boasting is not good” (5:6). The word boasting means ‘boasting, focusing on the results of exulting/boasting’. And good means ‘attractively good; good that inspires (motivates) others to embrace what is lovely’. Thus, the mindset described in the previous verses will lead to results which others do not find attractive. For instance, the comments currently being made on the Internet regarding Bill Gothard are universally negative, with many referring to his system as a cult. This is ironic, because the fundamentalist Christian who is clinging to past culture tends to focus strongly upon being a good example to the outside world. (And the same comments would apply to evangelical Christians who are currently supporting Donald Trump. The end result is not attractive to outsiders.)

Paul then uses leaven and Passover as an analogy: “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed” (5:6,7). We know that this is an analogy because Paul defines what he means by leaven: “Let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (5:8).

Passover is the Jewish festival of redemption through death, because the angel of death passed over Jewish homes whose door posts were covered by the blood of a Lamb, while killing the firstborn of Egyptian families. In addition, Jesus’ death and resurrection occurred during Passover. Thus, the general topic is that of rebirth. Leaven introduces pockets of air within the bread, and one is supposed to eat unleavened bread during the time of Passover. (One can see precisely this symbolism in the term ‘puffed-up’.) Paul refers to these elements in his analogy because he tells us to ‘clean out the old leaven’ because ‘we are in fact unleavened’, and he says that ‘Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed’.

Looking at this cognitively, bread is a symbol of intellectual food, while air represents Teacher thought and Teacher words. (This symbolism is discussed in the video on the book of Revelation.) Thus, I suggest that leaven represents the fragments of Teacher theory that are introduced by MMNs of culture and identity—the pockets of air that are introduced by the living microorganisms within the bread. Using personal experiences to assist understanding is usually very useful, but it is disastrous when one is going through rebirth. Stated symbolically, one can eat leavened bread during most of the year, but during Passover one must eat unleavened bread.

Rebirth uses the TMN of a concept of God to rebuild MMNs of personal identity. Whenever mental networks come into contact with each other, then each will attempt to impose its structure upon the other. Thus, when the TMN of a concept of God comes into contact with MMNs of personal identity, then either personal identity will become reborn to be consistent with the concept of God, or else the concept of God will be reshaped to be consistent with personal identity. Stated more simply, either I will become conformed to the image of God, or I will develop a God in my own image. Leaven develops a God in my own image, because it allows MMNs of identity and culture to shape the TMN of understanding. During normal existence, this interplay between MMNs and TMNs is useful, but rebirth will only happen if MMNs of childish identity are not allowed to shape the TMN of a concept of God. Using secular language, one must not rationalize when rational thought comes into contact with subjective emotions. As Paul warns, ‘a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough’.

Verse 7 adds: “Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are [in fact] unleavened.” Old is used twice in 1 Corinthians: here, and in the next verse. It means ‘old, ancient, not new or recent’. New means ‘new on the scene’ and ‘suggests something new in time’. Thus, Paul is clearly saying that one should stop focusing upon the past and start thinking upon what is new in the present, consistent with our interpretation of the previous passage. The second phrase is more literally ‘in proportion, to the degree that you are unleavened’. In other words, thinking about the present is not enough. Instead, one should think about the present to the degree that one is not being ‘puffed-up’ by leaven. Don’t try to fit the present into contrived theories based upon past culture. Instead, be cleansed of this contrived thinking in order to think rationally about the present.

Verse 8 then adds an additional component. In addition to ‘old leaven’, there is also ‘the leaven of malice and wickedness’. The word malice comes from kakia, which means ‘inwardly foul or rotten’. Wickedness comes from poneria, which means ‘pain-ridden evil’. The first describes childish, immature MMNs, while the second refers to MMNs that are based in painful emotional experiences. In other words, building one’s understanding upon the cultural MMNs of the past will lead naturally to a mindset that excuses childish and rotten MMNs. That is because the mindset of clinging to old MMNs will turn into the TMN of a general theory which will drive a person to cling to all old MMNs—good or bad. One will end up excusing all past MMNs, including the rotten and painful ones.

The ‘unleavened bread of sincerity and truth’ describes precisely the opposite. Sincerity comes from eilikrineia, which literally means ‘judged in the light of the sun’, while truth comes from aletheia, which means ‘truth in the moral sphere’. The first describes being guided by the TMN of a general understanding—the light of the sun, while the second describes an attitude of personal honesty. Instead of being guided by past MMNs, one should be guided by Teacher understanding. Instead of using past Mercy experiences to define absolute truth, one should apply Perceiver principles of universal truth to personal and cultural MMNs.

Sigmund Freud provides a good example of rebirth that is guided by the leaven of childish and painful MMNs. Freud was attempting to place psychology upon a scientific foundation. His goal was to be guided by the TMN of a rational general understanding of the mind. However, much of his theory was based upon intuition rooted in painful childish experiences. In the words of the linked essay, “It could be said with reasonable justification that his most fundamental theories were intuition-linked. The Oedipus Complex; the Dynamic Theory of the Unconscious; the Theory of Repression; the Sexual Etiology of the Psychoneuroses; the Diphasic Nature of Sex in Humans, and the Psychoanalytic Technique of Free Association.” Quoting further, “Interesting examples can be shown in other aspects of Freud’s writings where intuition surely was the link between fact and theory, because of the incredible, outlandish gap between them, which apparently precluded any kind of normal or sensible explanation, or direct clinical proof. For instance: the inveterate or compulsive gambler and masturbation; greed and anal eroticism; the irrepressible desire for knowledge and sexual curiosity; bed-wetting and ambition.” One can see that the intellectual bread which Freud ate during his Passover was full of the leaven of malice and wickedness. And Freud’s leaven did end up leavening the whole loaf, because the last book that Freud the Jew wrote was Moses and Monotheism, in which Freud attempted to re-interpret all of Judaism in the light of his personal theories of psychoanalysis.

One can now see how the illustration about leaven and Passover follows naturally from the example of incest. Having one’s father’s wife symbolizes clinging to the MMNs of a previous culture, while leaven and Passover describe what happens cognitively when one tries to go through rebirth while clinging to old MMNs.

Separatism and Shunning 5:9-13

The next topic that Paul discusses is religious separation from the secular world. A mindset that is based in MMNs of culture and personal authority will naturally adopt an attitude of tribalism, which considers ‘us and our culture’ as good and ‘others and their culture’ as bad. When religious truth is based in MMNs of authority, then this tribalism will turn into feelings of religious superiority.

Turning now to what Paul says, “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world” (5:9,10). The word translated associate means ‘to mingle together with, or keep company with’. Thus, Paul is talking about a form of association that extends beyond social contact or business exchange to friendship. The people that Paul describes are all being guided by MMNs in an inappropriate manner. The immoral person is being sexually immoral, which means physically interacting inappropriately with people. The covetous person is driven by MMNs of physical possessions. The swindler is a robber or extortioner, while the idolater is a worshiper of an image. In each case the mind is being guided by MMNs that are being imposed upon the mind by the external physical world. The immoral is guided by MMNs imposed by the physical body, the covetous by MMNs from physical objects, the swindler by MMNs imposed by physical force, and the idolater by MMNs based in physical images. Because the childish mind is naturally based upon MMNs acquired from one’s physical environment, one would have to leave the physical world in order to avoid this mindset. Paul says that one should not try to avoid such individuals when one encounters them in the secular world.

But Paul also says that one should avoid such individuals when they claim to be following the Christian message of rebirth: “I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one” (5:11). This list contains the same four categories mentioned earlier as well as the same Greek word for association. But Paul adds two more types of people to the list: A reviler uses insulting words to injure the reputation of another. This contradicts the message of rebirth, which uses words to transform personal identity. Finally, there is the drunkard. Drinking appears to release mental networks from the control of rational thought. This also contradicts the path of rebirth, which uses rational thought to transform mental networks.

Paul says that one should ‘not even eat with such a one’ (5:11), and this has been used to justify the practice of shunning, in which one does not eat meals with those whom the church has deemed to be worthy of punishment. But we know that Paul is not talking just about physical appearance, and Paul has just used unleavened bread as an analogy for following sincerity and truth rather than malice and wickedness. Thus, I suggest that Paul is expanding upon what it means to ‘celebrate the feast of Passover with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth’. Using cognitive language, one should not build a general Teacher understanding upon mental content that falls within these six categories (immoral, covetous...), because the end result will not be rational understanding but rather a rationalization of childish and immoral thinking.

Obviously, this would also extend to people who epitomize such forms of harmful thought. But even if one is only applying the text at this physical level, Paul does not say to stop buying goods from the store of a person who is being shunned (as many Mennonites have done in the past, and some still do), but rather to avoid friendship with such an individual. And if one concludes that not eating with such an individual means primarily not sharing a physical meal, then I suggest that one is interpreting the text at the level of milk and not solid food. Going further, I suggest that those who practice physical shunning are in danger of following the very thinking that is being warned against. For instance, my mother’s father was almost shunned by the local Mennonite church for sending his son into town to attend school. Cognitively speaking, preserving MMNs of Mennonite culture was more important to the church leadership than gaining the TMN of a rational education. That is an example of eating leavened bread during Passover.

Paul finishes by changing the focus of judging away from the mindset of tribalism: “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves” (5:12,13). Tribalism regards us as good and them as bad. Tribalism comes up with reasons why we are good and need to be excused, and why they are bad and need to be judged. Paul turns this upside down by telling people to stop judging them and start judging us. We need to apply truth to us. God will take care of them.

Looking at this more generally, if a small group of people follows the path of rebirth, then this example will reveal the character of God to the rest of the population, and they will be guided by the TMN of a concept of God to change, instead of being guided by MMNs of personal authority that we are attempting to impose on them. For instance, America has to some extent applied the message of rebirth, resulting in great freedom and prosperity, as epitomized by democracy and the American dream. America has tried to export its society in one of two primary ways. The first way is the method of armed force, which uses soldiers and guns to judge the mental networks of other nations. This method of ‘exporting democracy’ has proved to be both ineffective and costly. The second method is the method of example, which uses sincerity and truth to transform American society, leading to the example of the American dream, which is then viewed by the rest of the world as a universal Teacher theory of human progress to emulate. This second method of exporting democracy has succeeded in transforming most of the world.

Stated simply, don’t judge ‘them’, it won’t work. Judge ‘us’ and transform us, and that will reveal universal principles that others will want to apply in order to experience the same transformation. Applying this to the current political situation, Paul appears to be saying that American evangelicals should not be trying to get conservative judges appointed to the supreme court who will judge ‘them’. Instead, they should be focusing upon developing personal character within the church.

The Rule of Law 6:1-8

The next section expands upon this principle of who should be judging whom: “Does any of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world?” (6:1,2). In simple terms, if Christianity is the source of morality, then Christian rules of morality should apply to all of existence, and one should not go to non-Christian law courts for moral judgments. Notice that the distinguishing factor is unrighteousness versus holiness. Paul began the book by discussing a new way of thinking that goes beyond the thinking of the world. He just finished describing a rebirth in which one dies to conservatism and learns how to apply the new way of thinking to current culture. This lays the foundation that makes it possible to start being ruled legally by the new thinking. When one arrives at this stage, then one will start thinking in terms of unrighteousness versus holiness. One will look at the existing legal system and see that it is not being guided by the idea of applying Teacher understanding in a righteous manner. And one will recognize that one really is following God in a way that the average person does not. Saying this more simply, an effective legal system must have teeth. 1 Corinthians 4:20 focused upon the ‘teeth’ of a transformed way of thinking: “For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power”. Chapter 5 used these teeth to transform the group. Paul is now extending this power to secular issues.

One can find a partial example in Mennonite mediation services. Over the centuries, Mennonites have followed a path of non-violence at great cost. In other words, non-violence has turned in the Mennonite psyche into a ruling mindset with teeth. Speaking from personal experience, I grew up being taught that one does not take people to court. I know that many Mennonites no longer feel this way, but enough of a corporate memory exists to make it possible for Mennonites to offer an alternative to the existing legal system. And because Mennonites have legimate expertise in this area, Mennonite mediation is accepted by the courts as a legimate alternative.

If the entire world will eventually be judged by Christian standards, then it should already be possible to use Christian principles to evaluate secular issues of law. In the words of Paul, “If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?” (6:2). The word world means ‘order, the world’ and refers to the existing system based in physical existence. ‘Judging the world’ is typically interpreted as something that will happen in the distant future. But the word judge actually means ‘to pick out (choose) by separating’. This describes the thinking of abstract technical thought with its precise definitions. Paul has talked about a new way of thinking that goes beyond physical existence. ‘Judging the world’ means using this new way of thinking to re-evalute all of the details of the existing materialistic mindset. We have been doing something similar in these essays.

Verse 3 continues: “Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?” The word angel means messenger. My hypothesis is that angels live within a realm of abstract thought, just as humans live within what we call concrete thought. Science uses abstract technical thought in an impersonal manner, judging words and concepts. Paul goes beyond judging ideas in abstract technical thought to judging living beings in abstract technical thought. One could interpret this using the language of Thomas Kuhn, and view this as going beyond the puzzle-solving of normal science, to the paradigm evaluating of revolutionary science. Or one could interpret this as actual angels. My guess is that these two interpretations are related, because living within the unsettling realm of evaluating paradigms will force the mind to go beyond existing materialistic thought. The phrase things of this life means ‘what belongs to regular, physical life’. Thus, Paul is specifically comparing a materialistic mindset with one that goes beyond physical reality. This can also be seen in the verb know, which means ‘physical seeing (sight) which should be the constant bridge to mental and spiritual seeing (comprehension)’. A materialistic mindset looks at the physical world and sees nothing more. A larger way of thinking looks beyond the physical to the mental and the spiritual.

Given this larger mindset, it does not make sense for Christians to go to secular courts in order to seek judgments from those who lack the big picture. “If you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are no account in the church?” (6:4). The phrase ‘matters of this life’ is the same word that was used in verse 3. Thus, Paul is talking about setting up courts that deal with disputes that relate to material, biological existence. The word of no account is quite strong and means ‘to count as nothing, to treat with utter contempt’. This contempt is literally ‘in the realm of the called out ones’. Thus, if the new way of thinking is so much more complete than existing materialistic thought, and one is being called out to live in this new way of thinking, then one should not set up legal systems that are based in materialistic thought. Looking at this cognitively, Paul is talking about extending abstract technical thought to concrete technical thought. Abstract technical thought has been used to construct a new way of thinking that goes beyond physical existence, similar to what we have been doing in these essays. Concrete technical thought is based in cause-and-effect. A court of law enforces cause-and-effect: if you do this then you will be punished. Science starts by observing physical cause-and-effect and then uses abstract technical thought to analyze this empirical data. Paul is talking about a new way of thinking which starts with a rational concept of God in abstract technical thought and then applies this within concrete technical thought. This is significant because a concept of incarnation emerges when these two sides of technical thought become integrated. Thus, Paul is really talking about allowing Christ to become incarnate within society.

The very fact that Christians are taking each other to court is itself a sign of moral failure, because it indicates a materialistic mindset. In Paul’s words, “I say this to your shame” (6:5). Paul then asks if “there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren” (v.5). ‘Decide’ is the familiar word ‘judge’ which describes the use of abstract technical thought. The word able is actually the verb form of the noun ‘power’. In 4:20 Paul said that “the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power.” He is now asking if there are any wise men in the church who have the power to go beyond words to using abstract technical thought to evaluate moral and legal issues.

I suggest that Paul is describing another situation that naturally arises when one has an inadequate concept of Jesus Christ the God/man. A concept of incarnation by its very nature involves moral law. One can explain this cognitively because of the way that a concept of incarnation forms within the mind. But one can also see this by looking at the example of Jesus. The name Jesus means salvation. One does not need to be saved if there are no moral standards. Going further, the central event of the Gospels is the death and resurrection of Jesus, and Christianity claims that the death of Jesus has major moral implications. If one has a concept of incarnation that is limited to Jesus-the-man, then one’s concept of moral law and personal salvation will also be limited to some religious subculture. Therefore, one will think it natural to go to secular courts to resolve legal issues. But if Jesus Christ really is God, then the moral law of Jesus is a universal law that applies to all realms of existence. However, it is not enough to merely state this as a verbal doctrine. Instead one must act as if this is true. When one encounters a moral problem in the secular world, will one go to secular courts, or will one act as if Jesus is a universal incarnation whose moral rule extends to this secular situation?

For instance, the local Christian University is currently embroiled in a series of court cases, because most secular Canadian lawyers think that a university has no right to set up a school of law if this university makes students sign a commitment not to practice homosexuality. The underlying assumption is that secular thought determines the standards for law as well as the standards for setting up a school of Law. But if the Christian God really is the ultimate source of law and morality, as Christians claim, then why does a Christian school need to set up a school of Law that will be governed by secular thought? Paul just asked this very question in verse 4. If the Christian God really is the ultimate source of morality, then non-Christians should be turning to Christian courts for justice. And I am not just making an idealistic statement that could never apply in real life. As I mentioned previously, Mennonites have struggled for centuries with the whole concept of legal justice, and Mennonites have set up University programs that teach alternative methods of resolving legal problems. I am not suggesting that the legal system should be replaced by Mennonite principles of reconciliation, because Anabaptist thinking tends to have its own problems. However, Anabaptists are at least attempting to apply what Paul says in 1 Corinthians without automatically assuming that secular thought is the legitimate source of moral law. The underlying problem, I suggest, is that we do not really understand what it means for Jesus Christ to be God and we do not really believe that Jesus Christ is the ‘Word made flesh’. Saying this another way, we have not really applied the first five chapters of 1 Corinthians.

But if God’s moral law really describes inescapable cognitive principles of personal sowing and reaping, then ignoring these laws makes as much sense as ignoring the law of gravity by jumping off a bridge. And setting up a school of Law that ignores these principles makes as much sense as teaching people to ignore the law of gravity. As long as Western society was guided implicitly by Christian principles, it was possible to ignore this problem. But now that Western society is becoming blatantly post-Christian, Christians once again will have to explicitly choose what it means in practice to follow the moral law of Jesus Christ the Incarnation of God. I am not suggesting that it is wrong for TWU to set up a school of Law. Rather, I am pointing out to that TWU is attempting to win a battle within a general context of Christianity having lost the war. In contrast, I am trying to win the war by constructing a rational understanding of Jesus Christ as God.

Verse 7 describes the alternative: “ Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?rdquo; One goes to court in order to win. Paul is saying that the very act of going to court is itself a defeat in the court of God. And the original Greek adds the adjective altogetherto the word ‘defeat’, emphasizing the extent of this defeat. I am not suggesting that the legal system should be abolished. Without laws and courts, society would descend into anarchy. But Paul is trying to introduce a higher concept of law and this higher concept has to start somewhere. Paul is saying that when a conflict is between people of the church, then the offended parties can choose to start implementing this higher law. Going further, following a higher law may cause a person to lose in the existing court system. One may be wronged, which means ‘’, which means to experience unrighteousness. One may be defrauded, which means ‘taking away what rightfully belongs to someone else’.

We looked at Paul’s example of Christians taking each other to court, and Paul’s statements are significant when interpreted literally. However, I suggest that there is also a cognitive principle involved. In order to understand this cognitive principle, we will take a few paragraphs to look at the concept of righteousness. Whenever a mental network is triggered, then it will use emotional pressure to impose its structure upon the mind. The TMN of a concept of God will also attempt to impose itself upon the mind, motivating a person to think and act in a way that is consistent with one’s concept of God. Righteousness describes action that is emotionally guided by the TMN of a concept of God.

One becomes righteous by choosing to obey God rather than people or culture, as Jesus described in Matthew 6. What happens mentally is that mental networks take ownership of any behavior that they motivate. If I am doing my righteousness ‘before men’, then existing MMNs of culture and identity will take ownership of this behavior. This is the default motivation that naturally emerges within the mind of the child. But if I act righteously guided by a TMN of God in the absence of human MMNs, then my TMN of God will take ownership of this behavior and declare me to be righteous. Thus, being defrauded in a human court can be viewed as a opportunity for becoming righteous. One is being given a chance to follow a TMN of God rather than human MMNs. This does not mean that one should never defend oneself. Instead, the goal is to become eligible to enter the kingdom of God with its higher standards of justice. Paul will talk about inheriting the kingdom of God in verse 9. The original Passover was followed by the Israelites leaving Egypt in order to receive the law of God. Similarly, Paul’s reference to the Passover in chapter 5 is being followed by the church leaving the mindset of the secular world in order to follow the law of God.

A person who does not have a Teacher understanding of the character of God will not grasp the concept of righteousness. Righteousness is not salvation by works, in which one uses effort to behave in a certain manner. It is not self-denial, in which one suppresses MMNs of personal identity in order to focus upon the MMN of a concept of God. It is not moral duty, in which one tries to please God by avoiding situations that are morally evil. It is not goal-oriented behavior, in which one is motivated by the MMN of some personal reward or benefit. Instead, righteousness is action that is emotionally guided by an understanding of the character of God; one is emotionally driven to behave in a manner that is consistent with the way that God has constructed creation to behave. (Becoming righteous through sanctification is different than being declared righteous through justification. This distinction is discussed in another essay.)

We have seen that emotional experiences from the physical body will program the mind with childish MMNs, and that these MMNs will drive personal behavior. This describes the motivation of the immoral, covetous, swindler, and idolater mentioned in the previous chapter. But living within the natural world will also lead to TMNs of common sense based upon an understanding of how the physical world functions. Paul has mentioned in previous chapters that the message of rebirth goes beyond the common sense of the natural world. If one wishes to become righteous, then one must use the TMN of an understanding of God to reconcile internal conflict involving MMNs of identity and culture rather than being guided by TMNs of common sense.

I should emphasize that this does not mean following God in some irrational manner that violates common sense. Instead, it means choosing to pursue long-term character growth rather than shorter-term physical needs. For instance, will I choose the job that pays the best or the one that teaches me the most? How will I resolve internal conflict? Will I turn to mental networks of natural common sense, or will I turn to my understanding of the character of God. Common sense is not wrong, but it is limited to the physical realm, while an understanding of the character of God goes beyond concrete thought to include the abstract realm of words and theories (Paul says in verse 3 that ‘we will judge angels’, and the word angel means messenger, which implies a being who lives within a realm of words).

These principles are illustrated by the relationship between physics and common sense. Common sense comes from observation of the physical world, and common sense is a good guide for the normal experiences of life. However, many of the laws of physics run counter to common sense, and when one goes to the level of the microscopic, then common sense breaks down completely. The laws of physics describe the righteousness of the physical universe, because everything in the universe behaves in a manner that reflects universal laws. Common sense is limited because it is based in experiences of reality rather than being guided by an understanding of universal law. Many physical problems can be solved using common sense. But common sense can also be wrong. One must then let go of common sense and turn to the righteous judgments provided by the laws of nature. These laws do not just rule over physical objects but they also rule the ‘angelic’ realm of waves and energy. (It appears that the relationship between physical reality and angelic reality is like the relationship in physics between matter and energy.) Thus, when one is dealing with the physical realm, then Paul’s statements are already true.

One might ask why I keep coming up with examples from science. The reason is that science is the major area where humans have broken through to a concept of incarnation as both God and man. Christianity may proclaim the doctrine that Jesus Christ is both God and man, but it does not understand what this doctrine means. In fact, most theologians will explicitly state that incarnation is a mystery that must be accepted by blind faith. Science understands the nature of incarnation, but it does not realize that what it understands is an aspect of incarnation, because theologians keep insisting that incarnation is an incomprehensible mystery. That is because most theology is guided at the core by a mystical concept of God.

People who can Live under Incarnation 6:9-11

Paul then describes who will not inherit the kingdom of God: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived” (6:9). I suggest that this relates to Paul’s previous comment about being willing to be defrauded rather than pursue lawsuits. “It is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” (6:7).

Why would one choose to be a loser? Why would one willingly be defrauded? The answer is not that being abused and oppressed is a requirement for being a Christian, but rather that one wants to achieve the higher goal of inheriting the kingdom of God. Following the path of lawsuits and common sense leads to a mindset of unrighteousness, and an unrighteous person cannot inherit the kingdom of God. In other words, one may win the battle in a lawsuit, but one will lose the war by being excluded from the kingdom of God. Paul warns that it is easy to be led astray (the word translated deceived means to be led astray).

Using science as an example, technology is a kingdom of God in the sense that the universal laws of nature are being applied in order to rule over the physical world. One can only become capable of using science to develop technology if one lets go of the thinking of common sense in order to be guided by the righteousness of the laws of physics. The ‘kingdom of God’ of technology is a partial kingdom that only involves the physical world. If one wants to experience the kingdom of God personally, then one must become a righteous person. That is why Paul talks about inheriting the kingdom of God. A wage is something I receive for performing a certain job, while an inheritance is something I receive for becoming a certain person.

Paul then gives a list of unrighteous people who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Six of these individuals are from the list mentioned in the previous chapter. But Paul adds four more kinds of people: adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, and thieves. The word translated adulterer is moichos, which means ‘having sex with a married woman’, effeminate comes from malakos, which means ‘soft or effeminate’, homosexual comes from arsenokoites, which means ‘male homosexuality’, and thief comes from kleptes, which means ‘stealing by stealth in secret’.

I know that it has become politically taboo to make any sort of statements regarding sexual preference, but Paul emphasized in the first chapters that the message of rebirth will be regarded as foolishness by those who pursue natural wisdom. However, instead of looking at physical sexual preference, we will examine these labels in terms of male and female thought, because I suggest that what happens externally is largely a secondary expression of what happens within the mind.

I suggest that these four categories of thought will naturally emerge when science limits itself to studying the physical world in an objective manner.

First, intellectual theft is possible when ideas are separated from people. Because objective science separates knowledge from the people who are acquiring this knowledge, it is possible to steal knowledge from the people who have discovered this knowledge. However, we have seen that knowledge must be combined with personal transformation when one is pursuing a message of rebirth. For instance, when I begin doing research in cognitive styles, I was afraid that others might steal my research. This is no longer a concern, because I have realized that one can only continue to do research on the mind if one applies the knowledge that one has. In other words, someone who acquires knowledge without paying the personal price for this knowledge cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Second, when science limits itself to the objective realm, then people will think that it is possible to apply scientific expertise to any situation, regardless of the local culture. But the thinking of any society is already ‘married’ to the mental networks of the local culture and religion. Recent attempts to export democracy to the Middle East provide an obvious example of this principle. Arab Mideast society has its own cultural mental networks to which it is married, and these mental networks can be seen in the character of the rulers and government of Middle East countries. One cannot come in with ‘male’ Western objective skills and knowledge and become intimate with the local culture, because that is mental adultery. Mideast society may be married to an abusive ‘spouse’, but what the West did recently in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria could accurately be described as cultural rape.

Third, when science limits itself to using male technical thought in the objective realm, then intellectual exchange will also be limited to the realm of male technical thought. When a community of thought excludes the female realm of mental networks, then all that is left is mental homosexuality, because male thought is having intimate relationships with male thought. There is nothing wrong with sharing ideas, or with cooperating on research projects, but when one becomes deeply emotionally attached to one’s technical research, and when interaction is primarily with other individuals who are also deeply emotionally attached to their technical research, then this will lead to relationships that go beyond mental cooperation to mental male homosexuality. I am not suggesting that academia is filled with closet homosexuals. Rather, I am pointing out that there is an implicit mindset that focuses upon male thought to the exclusion of female thought, and that in many academic disciplines, one must swim against the stream if one wishes to pursue mental wholeness.

Fourth, when science limits itself to the objective realm, then those who live within the subjective realm of mental networks will attempt to emulate the success of science by copying the methods of science. But applying scientific methodology to the subjective realm is not sufficient. Instead, one must learn how to think rationally in the presence of mental networks. However, science maintains its rationality by avoiding mental networks. Therefore, when subjective experience tries to use scientific methodology, the end result will tend to be a form of effeminate thought, one that tries to use masculine technical thought but is actually ruled by feminine mental networks.

This type of effeminate thinking is quite different than intuitive expertise. Expert intuition is a mental marriage of male technical thought with female mental networks. Technical thought provides the expertise while mental networks express this expertise in an intuitive manner. Effeminate thought, in contrast, adds a veneer of technical methodology to a collection of untrained mental networks. For instance, a recent study tried to replicate the results of 100 experiments published in high ranking psychology journals, and found that less than one half of the original findings could be repeated. In other words, these studies applied a veneer of statistical analysis to the personal biases of mental networks. If this describes the best research being done in psychology, one can imagine that the typical situation is probably much worse. Stated bluntly, it might often be appropriate to replace the adjective ‘soft’ in soft science with ‘effeminate’ because the word translated effeminate means soft or effeminate.

I am not suggesting that it is wrong to do research in the subjective. After all, that is what I am attempting to do. However, I am suggesting that applying rational thought to the objective is more than just bolting statistical analysis on to mental networks of culture and identity.

I know that these statements are politically incorrect, but if one’s research must be shaped by political correctness, then is that not an example of effeminate thought? And if this conclusion seems unwarranted, please consider the following quote from the Wikipedia article on the methodology of Women’s Studies: “Since the 1970s, scholars of women’s studies have taken post-modern approaches to understanding gender as it intersects with race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, age, and (dis)ability to produce and maintain power structures within society. With this turn, there has been a focus on language, subjectivity, and social hegemony, and how the lives of subjects, however they identify, are constituted. At the core of these theories is the notion that however one identifies, gender, sex, and sexuality are not intrinsic, but are socially constructed.” In other words, the fundamental assumption is that all so-called truth is based in MMNs of culture and personal status. When one builds an entire academic discipline upon the core idea that all knowledge is based in MMNs, then this describes pure effeminate thought. This mindset is analyzed in an essay on Language and Power by Fairclough.

Returning to 1 Corinthians, Paul does not finish by condemning the people on this list. Instead, he says “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (6:11). In other words, a message of rebirth and salvation really is a message of rebirth and salvation, because one can be saved from inadequate thought and reborn internally as a whole person. But notice that salvation requires a Teacher understanding of what it means to submit to an incarnation that is both God and man (‘name of the Lord Jesus Christ’) as well as integrated Platonic forms that are based in a Teacher concept of God (‘Spirit of our God’). This extends far beyond verbal assenting to some set of Christian doctrines, or merely asking Jesus into your heart to be your friend.

The Kingdom of God 6:12-20

Paul has just talked about inheriting the kingdom of God. He will now describe what it means to start living in the kingdom of God. In the previous section, a concept of incarnation was being extended from abstract thought to concrete thought by choosing to submit to the moral rule of incarnation rather than to the rule of secular thought and common sense. In this section a concept of incarnation is being expanded in concrete thought by applying incarnation.

Paul’s statements make sense if one understands how a concept of incarnation forms within the mind. I have tried to stay away from these technical details in this essay. (The essence of a concept of incarnation is explained in this video.) In brief, the abstract side of incarnation uses abstract technical thought with its precise definitions but goes beyond typical technical specialization to be based in the TMN of a concept of God. Similarly, the concrete side of incarnation uses concrete technical thought with its cause-and-effect but goes beyond saving things to saving people.

Looking at the concrete side in more detail, the personal concrete side of incarnation thinks in terms of profit and loss, sowing and reaping, or investment and dividend. The name Jesus, which means salvation, implies a bottom-line thinking that takes a person from where they are to someplace better. Business with its bottom-line thinking is a partial illustration of the personal side of incarnation. Jesus describes the sowing and reaping of incarnation in Matthew 16: “Then Jesus said to His disciples, ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds” (Matt. 16:24-27). This is a message of salvation, because Jesus is talking about a person saving his life. But Jesus is also using the economic language of profit, loss, gain, and exchange. It is also a message of rebirth because a person must lose his life for Jesus’ sake in order to find it. And it is a message that extends beyond the physical realm because a person receives the reward when incarnation returns to earth with angels. Thus, Jesus is talking about the kind of message of rebirth that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians.

Jesus describes the message of rebirth using economic language. Similarly, Paul also uses economic language in 1 Corinthians 6: “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable” (6:12). Saying this more generally, when one lives within the kingdom of God as a concrete expression of incarnation, then one no longer thinks in terms of good and bad, or right and wrong. Instead one thinks in terms of profitability—not monetary profitability, but rather long-term personal well-being—for self and others. The word profitable actually means to ‘combine in a way that brings a profit (gain), especially by a "concurrence of circumstances" that results in benefit or advancement’. This is not how one normally defines profit. Instead, this is an expression of Teacher thought reaching out to help Mercy identity, because ‘all things working together’ is an example of Teacher order-within-complexity. This kind of profit is also related to wholeness because many circumstances are working together in harmony. This is quite different than pursuing some isolated bottom line—such as money—while ignoring all other factors.

One also makes sure that priorities are kept straight: “All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything” (6:12). The word mastered means ‘delegated power’. This is not talking about lusts or personal desires but rather about priorities. What delegates power and what receives power? Paul specifically adds the personal pronoun ‘I’ to say that personal identity will not be under the authority of some thing. For instance, when learning math, it is important to understand how to solve problems by hand without merely pushing buttons on a calculator. If the student merely knows what buttons to press, then the calculator is the master of the student. A calculator should be the servant of a student and not the master.

Paul then compares objective existence with a personal mindset: “Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body” (6:13). This is an important distinction that reappears several times later on.

Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount add details to what Paul is saying: “You cannot serve God and wealth. For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?… Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ for the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matt. 6:24-25, 31-33). Like Paul, Jesus is contrasting two value systems, one guided by a concept of God and the other by objective wealth. He then compares central needs with peripheral needs. Food is needed to stay alive, but life is more fundamental than food. Clothing is needed to cover the body, but the body is more fundamental than clothing. A secular (gentile) mindset pursues the peripheral aspects of food and clothing, while Jesus says that these will be naturally provided if one is guided by a Teacher understanding of God through righteousness.

Translating this into cognitive language, mental networks of life are more fundamental than the internal ‘food’ of learning and the internal ‘drink’ of experiences. Similarly, the ‘body’ of personal identity is more fundamental than the ‘clothing’ of culture. An objective mindset focuses upon learning and experiences while ignoring mental networks of life, and it seeks mental networks of culture rather than focusing upon mental networks of identity. However, if one becomes righteous by allowing Server actions to be guided by a Teacher understanding of God, and if one submits to the kingdom of God by allowing personal identity to become reborn within an internal environment of understanding, then all of these needs will be naturally met. Turning now to 1 Corinthians, Paul says that God will make both food and the stomach‘of no effect’ (katargeo). Stated cognitively, when one follows a Teacher concept of God, then there are no longer any objective facts or impersonal experiences. Instead, one approaches everything with the attitude that personal identity needs to interact with a concept of God rather than allowing personal identity to be shaped by the environment. In the words of Paul, ‘the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body’.

Modern society provides a partial illustration. As this book fragment states, “Paradoxically, countries that are primarily agrarian in nature tend to be the most vulnerable to deficits of staple foods. Tanzania is one of them... Tanzania’s current food insecurity can be likened to the situation experienced in pre-industrial 18th-century Europe.” Getting enough physical food used to be a problem in Europe and is still a problem in countries such as Tanzania. But food is no longer a major issue in Western society. If we want food, we simply go down to the local grocery store and buy it, and we are always confident that there will be enough food. That is because we now live in a kingdom of technology governed by the partial righteousness of acting in ways that are consistent with the universal laws of nature. The goal of modern society is to use science and technology to free us from the demands and limitations of our physical bodies. We may occasionally try to run away from modern technology by embracing nature, but those who follow such a path find out quite quickly that nature is a cruel master. Thus, modern technological society is a literal illustration of this passage, but I suggest that there is also a deeper cognitive meaning, involving personal identity.

Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 6 that he is referring to a time of partial rebirth, when people are starting to live within the kingdom of God as an expression of incarnation: “Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” (6:14,15). In other words, incarnation has been reborn, and this rebirth will extend to those who follow incarnation.

Paul then talks about prostitution. Paul’s statements make sense when interpreted literally, but as usual we will try to go beyond the surface meaning to look for the underlying principle. Prostitution figures prominently in Revelation 17, which talks about the whore of Babylon. The word prostitute means ‘a woman who sells her body for sexual uses’ and is used twice in 1 Corinthians: in verse 15 and in verse 16. In simple terms, a prostitute sells what is personal in order to acquire material wealth. In the extreme, a prostitute ‘gains the whole world and forfeits her soul’. This type of behavior occurs naturally when rational thought is limited to the objective realm, because business requires a sense of value, and value implies the ability to think rationally. Therefore, when rational thought is limited to the objective, then people will know how to calculate the value of objects but they will not know how to calculate the value of people and souls.

Putting this together, when one experiences rebirth and starts to apply the message of incarnation, then there will be a clash of values. Those who are following incarnation will pursue a value system that seeks to save people and build personal value, while those who follow normal business will be guided by a value system that encourages mental prostitution, in which one lets go of personal value in order to acquire material wealth.

With this in mind, let us now look at Paul’s words. “Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!” (6:15). In other words, those who follow true value must not become members of a system that pursues only peripheral value. Looking at this in more detail, a member is ‘a member (part) belonging to the whole’, and Christ is literally ‘the Christ’. Therefore, members of Christ describes many people connected together by an integrated concept of incarnation. This relates to the idea of profit being the result of many things working together. The verb make means ‘make, do’, which describes Server actions. Thus, when many individuals start to function in an integrated manner guided by a common understanding of Christ, members of this group must not start acting in a way that is guided by prostitution.

The high-tech industry provides a partial illustration of this principle. For instance, two satellites failed to reach orbit in 2009 and 2011 because the fairings that were protecting these satellites failed to open. These fairings failed because they contained faulty aluminum components made by a company that falsified critical tests. The rocket industry is based upon an integrated technical understanding of the laws of nature. If some member of this industry prostitutes itself in order to make money, then this can lead to major failure for the entire industry. The rocket (and airplane) industry is especially vulnerable to such prostitution because of the high quality of parts that are needed together with the disasters that can ensue if any of these parts fail. Notice that the problem involves doing and making. The engineer who falsified these test reports probably had the right beliefs. But he did not do the right actions or ensure that the parts were made to work correctly.

Continuing, “Do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For he says, ‘The two shall become one flesh’. But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with him” (6:16). The word translated join means ‘to bond, adhere to, or join to’. Thus, what appears to be described here is a close partnership. Doing business with someone, or working with someone on a contract basis is not ‘joining’. However, if one is an employee of some company, then this relationship will naturally grow beyond being just an employee to being ‘a member of team’.

Looking at the big picture, the message of rebirth is now becoming incarnate through the bodies of those who are ‘members of Christ’. This faces people with a choice. On the one hand, they can choose to become ‘one flesh’ with those who practice a business of mental prostitution. On the other hand, they can choose to become spiritually connected with incarnation by following true value. The nature of this choice can be seen in the words used by Paul. One becomes one physical body with a prostitute, and Paul will use this word eight times in verses 13-20. And he says that the two will become one flesh, a word which Paul uses in Romans to describe the carnal nature. Cognitively speaking, the flesh describes the mental networks that one acquires from growing up in a physical body within a physical universe. In contrast, those who are joined to the lord are one spirit; the spirit describes MMNs of ideal perfection that form internally as a result of Teacher understanding. Thus, two forms of integration are being contrasted: Prostitution integrates at the physical level, while the lord integrates at the spiritual level.

Saying this another way, when a new way of thinking descends from abstract theory to the level of concrete experiences, then many will see this as an opportunity for better prostitution. For instance, a turbine blade in a jet engine has to function at temperatures of up to 1500 degrees Celcius. These blades are now made out of a single crystal of a metal superalloy. Manufacturing this kind of component is both difficult and expensive. One can make a lot of money selling fake airplane parts that look like the real thing. Selling fake airplane parts is more lucrative than selling fake car parts—and far more dangerous. In contrast, some fake guns are just as good as the genuine articles. The point is that the higher the tech, the greater the opportunity for prostitution, and the greater the danger of prostitution.

Looking at this more generally, modern technology makes modern marketing possible. One of the first examples of modern marketing was patent medicine. Quoting from Wikipedia, “Patent medicines were one of the first major product categories that the advertising industry promoted; patent medicine promoters pioneered many advertising and sales techniques that were later used for other products. Patent medicine advertising often marketed products as being medical panaceas (or at least a treatment for a large number of diseases) and emphasized exotic ingredients and endorsements from purported experts or celebrities, which may or may not have been true.” Notice the emotional thinking: Teacher thought is making overgeneralized statements about the effectiveness of these treatments, Mercy thought is focusing upon people with personal status, and Exhorter thought is finding excitement in novelty and mystery. Wikipedia explains that patent medicine accompanied the birth of modern medicine: “At least in the earliest days, the history of patent medicines is coextensive with scientific medicine. Empirical medicine, and the beginning of the application of the scientific method to medicine, began to yield a few orthodoxly acceptable herbal and mineral drugs for the physician’s arsenal. These few remedies, on the other hand, were inadequate to cover the bewildering variety of diseases and symptoms. Beyond these patches of evidence-based application, people used other methods, such as occultism; the "doctrine of signatures" – essentially, the application of sympathetic magic to pharmacology – held that nature had hidden clues to medically effective drugs in their resemblances to the human body and its parts. This led medical men to hope, at least, that, say, walnut shells might be good for skull fractures. Homeopathy, the notion that illness is binary and can be treated by ingredients that cause the same symptoms in healthy people, was another outgrowth of this early era of medicine. Given the state of the pharmacopoeia, and patients’ demands for something to take, physicians began making ‘blunderbuss’ concoctions of various drugs, proven and unproven. These concoctions were the ancestors of the several nostrums. Touting these nostrums was one of the first major projects of the advertising industry.” Notice the cognitive progression. Scientific understanding has finally reached the point of creating some legitimate cures. This makes it possible for ‘snake-oil salesmen’ to come up with bogus treatments that claim to be scientific. However, these fake cures are actually being motivated by superficial visual similarities, thinking that is based in the physical experiences of the flesh, or by homeopathy, which is guided by the Mercy assumption that good is the opposite of bad.

Moving on to verse 18, Paul describes both the negative and positive side. On the negative side, he says “Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body”. Obviously, Paul’s words would apply to physical sex, because sex uses the physical body to impose strong MMNs upon the mind. However, I suggest that it also applies to anything that one does with one’s physical body with which one becomes intimately involved. For instance, we talk about people getting ‘married’ to some project or business. The combination of physical involvement and emotional attachment is a powerful one that must be treated carefully.

On the positive side, Paul says “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (6:19). Notice how the Teacher understanding of God is reflected in the Platonic forms of the Holy Spirit, which are then expressed in concrete form using one’s physical body. Paul said in verse 17 that “the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit”, as opposed to become one physical body with a prostitute. Verse 19 builds upon this by describing the physical body as a temple of the Holy Spirit. A concept of the Holy Spirit forms within the mind as Platonic forms become united by Teacher thought. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is described in verse 19 as being from God. The word temple refers to ‘that part of the temple where God himself resides’. Thus, the physical body is not being ignored, but rather being regarded as the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. It is easy to say in some overgeneralized manner that ‘my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit’, but adding meaning to these words requires Teacher understanding. For instance, everyone knows that computers are physical expressions of modern electronics. But for the average person, this is merely a vague statement. In contrast, someone who understands electronics will look at a physical computer and think internally of interacting parts: the hard drive is sending data to the CPU, which is storing temporary information in RAM. The CPU is sending data to the video card which is translating this data into a repeating stream of information that is switching pixels off and on. Similarly, I now think of a person as a set of interacting cognitive modules which are each functioning at some level of cognitive development.

It may sound impersonal to think of computers or people merely as interacting computing components, but I suggest that this comes from an inadequate concept of incarnation. A mental concept of incarnation using technical thought, but it goes beyond the limited paradigms of normal abstract technical thought to be based in the TMN of a concept of God. Similarly, incarnation goes past the limited goals of normal concrete technical thought to save people rather than things. These extensions can be seen in verse 20: “For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.” The word bought means ‘to make purchases in the marketplace’. Buying and selling are expressions of technical thought. (One can see this by looking at the behavior of the Contributor person.) But what has been bought is personal identity and not some object. And the goal of this purchase is to express the character of ‘the God’ in bodily form. Thus, one can see how incarnation extends all the way from God in Teacher thought to personal identity in Mercy thought.

This passage is often interpreted as a call for religious self-denial and full-time service to God. However, I suggest that this reflects an inadequate concept of incarnation. Paul does not talk about denying self but rather about glorifying God. One is not denying oneself in order to submit to the MMN of Jesus the man, but rather behaving in a manner that reflects the TMN of the character of God, made incarnate through Jesus the God/man. Saying this another way, one is not submitting to Jesus as a master, but rather submitting to Jesus Christ as a paradigm. As Paul points out in Philippians 2:10-11, it is the name of Jesus that is above every other name, and one uses Teacher thought to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord in order to bring glory to God the Father.

Personal Application 7:1-9

Chapter 7 contains several references to the relationship between men and women, which many now regard as either quaint or bigoted. However, I think that one can now safely conclude that Paul is talking about more than just physical men and women. Therefore, we will examine this chapter from the viewpoint of male thought and female thought. This does not mean that the text has no application to the relationship between men and women, because there is a major connection between thought and gender. But both physical men and physical women have minds (and brains) that are capable of combining male thought with female thought. A man may naturally emphasize male thought. However, he is not condemned to remaining only within male thought but is also capable of developing the ‘female’ side of his mind. Similarly, a woman is also capable of developing the ‘male’ side of her mind. The goal for everyone, both men and women, is to become mentally whole, which means developing both male and female thought and then mentally marrying them together. This is backed up by a study that compared various systems of male and female cognitive development and concluded that men may follow a different path of cognitive development than women, but both men and women end up with similar minds that combine rational thought with emotions.

Paul opens the chapter by saying, “Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman” (7:1). The word touch actually means ‘to modify or change by touching’. And good means ‘good that inspires (motivates) others to embrace what is lovely’. Thus, Paul is not forbidding physical contact between the sexes. In fact, he is not forbidding anything. Instead, he is saying that attractive good will result if men do not touch women in a way that changes. Saying this more clearly, men like to embrace women because they find them physically and emotionally attractive. Paul is saying that men will create Mercy experiences that are attractive if they avoid embracing women. Thus, avoiding close contact with attractive good will actually lead to greater attractive good. Notice that I use the verb embrace rather than touch, because embracing conveys the idea of touching that modifies. Looking at this cognitively, male thought needs to give female thought space to exist, because this gives female thought the freedom to express itself, and this is attractive. I should add that female thought is not always attractive when it expresses itself. However, the kind of female thought that will emerge after chapter 6 will be very attractive and it must be given freedom to express itself without being controlled by male thought in some hands-on fashion.

Using another example, I spent several years teaching at an international school in Korea, and one of the topics that came up was the matter of touching students. In North America, the tendency is to avoid all physical contact between teachers and students, but I do not think that this is mentally healthy, because children need physical contact. However, it is important to avoid inappropriate physical contact. I suggest that one can distinguish between these two by using the concept of touching that modifies. Appropriate touch supports existing mental networks within the mind of a child, while inappropriate touch imposes new mental networks.

Paul continues, “But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband” (7:2). The word immorality was used twice in 5:1 when talking about a man having his father’s wife. It comes from Greek word porneia, which ‘is derived from pernaō, to sell off’. The fundamental problem is that our physical bodies are capable of having sex even when our minds are not ready. In other words, there can be a mental relationship between male and female thought, and there can also be a physical relationship between male and female people. The physical relationship is always possible, while the mental relationship must be constructed. The physical relationship exists in order to teach us that the mental relationship is possible. But because the possibility for a physical relationship already exists, it is possible to have a physical relationship without a mental relationship. Saying this more bluntly, it is possible to have sex with strangers.

Looking further at this further, experiences with strong sensations from the physical body will impose mental networks upon Mercy thought. This is necessary for developing the mind, because the childish mind must acquire its initial core mental networks from some outside source. The childish human mind acquires its initial set of core mental networks from the physical body. The result is a mind that functions, but also a mind that functions at a childish level. Thus, sexual promiscuity has two components. First, the physical body is capable of having sex even when there is no corresponding mental content. Second, the physical sensation of having sex will impose mental networks upon the mind, which means that having sex with multiple partners will impose fragmented content upon the mind. Thus, instead of being an expression of mental integration between male and female thought, promiscuous sex becomes a source of mental fragmentation.

Modern science and technology have led to a similar problem. Technical thought has discovered specific laws about the physical universe, and applying this understanding has transformed our physical environment. But it is easiest to use technical thought to examine the physical world if one suppresses personal feelings. Going further, Teacher overgeneralization will naturally be used to address religious questions, because overgeneralization emerges naturally where facts are uncertain and feelings are strong. Thus, the emotional vacuum that is left by objective science will tend to be filled by some form of religious mysticism. But mysticism by its very nature is incapable of providing any content—including moral content. This juxtaposition will lead naturally to a whoring mindset, in which objective value is pursued while personal and cosmic value are ignored. In many different ways, what is meaningful will be sold off in order to acquire peripheral wealth.

Paul talks in 1 Corinthians 15 about the resurrection of the dead and compares a natural body with a spiritual body (15:44). We have seen that spirit refers to internal content within Mercy thought that is a reflection of Teacher understanding. Current physical bodies are capable of functioning without spiritual content. This makes promiscuity possible. A spiritual body would not be capable of promiscuity because a physical relationship between male and female bodies would always be combined with a spiritual relationship between male and female thought.

Paul says that ‘because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband’. Using cognitive language, because the physical body is capable of imposing mental networks upon the mind, it is important to behave in a manner that is consistent with the mental marriage of male and female thought. Interpreted physically, this leads to the concept of monogamy, and this is a valid interpretation. However, it is possible to be physically monogamous while being mentally promiscuous. Sex may be a prime example of using physical sensation to impose mental networks upon the mind, but there are many other ways of acquiring core mental networks through physical sensation—a practice known as idolatry. This is especially true if one lives in a society such as ours which encourages mental promiscuity, with its juxtaposition of rational objective thought and subjective mysticism.

In most general terms, I suggest that Paul is saying that the way to protect the mind from idolatry is by making sure that all mental networks are internally connected with rational content, and that all rational content expresses itself through mental networks. Going further, we saw in the previous chapter that physical activity is supposed to be an expression of incarnation, and we also saw that incarnation uses a form of economic thought applied to personal identity. Paul describes this in the next verse. “The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband” (7:3). The word translated duty describes a ‘debt or obligation’. In other words, being married does not just mean living together within the same house. Instead, each partner must provide what the other needs, and each must respond to the debt of having their needs provided by providing the needs of the other. Saying this another way, marriage cannot involve dominance and submission, with one partner providing everything for the other partner. Instead, it requires an attitude of mutual interdependence. This mutual interdependence can be seen in the language of verses 2-3, because Paul gives the same instructions to both men and women.

Paul adds that “the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does” (7:4). Authority means ‘delegated power’. The underlying problem is that male and female bodies are capable of copulating even when male and female thought is not integrated. The ultimate goal is for male thought to become integrated with female thought. A mindset of internal integration will be extended to the physical body if one partner has mental authority over the physical body of the other. Applying this literally, this suggests that one should avoid using excuses such as ‘Not tonight dear, I have a headache’. However, I suggest that there is also a more general principle, which is that each partner should have the authority to guide the physical activity of the other. One might think that such an arrangement would lead to abuse because she might stop him from watching football and playing golf, while he might make her do all the washing and cooking. However, I suggest that such a response indicates that the two partners are not mentally whole and that they are not mentally married. Saying this more practically, I suggest that when people get physically married, then they have about two or three years to become mentally married by finding a common project that requires their cooperative efforts. When a couple becomes united by such a common project, then it becomes natural for the physical activity of the one to be guided by the thinking of the other.

The process of becoming mentally whole goes through three stages: First, one leaves childish MMNs in order to build the TMN of a concept of God. Second, one allows behavior to be guided by the TMN of a concept of God. Third, MMNs of personal identity become reborn by the TMN of a concept of God. In other words, one leaves concrete thought in order to take a detour through abstract thought that will lead to better results in concrete thought. A person follows this kind of detour whenever attending college in order to get a better job.

One continues to take such detours through abstract thought even when living in an integrated manner in concrete thought. Paul describes these detours: “Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (7:5). Notice that the interaction between male and female thought is being suspended in order to interact with Teacher understanding. (Prayer uses words to address a concept of God in Teacher thought.) However, this must always be a temporary suspension through mutual agreement. Otherwise, the relationship between male and female thought will become adversarial (the word Satan means adversary). The relationship between female and male thought in Western society has become strongly adversarial. That is because male technical thought has been depriving female mental networks for centuries with its objective, scientific thinking. During the 20th century, male technical thought was regarded as the only valid form of thought and pure female thought is now striking back with a vengeance.

Paul continues: “But this I say by way of concession, not of command” (7:6). The word translated concession is only used once in the New Testament and adds the prefix ‘together with’ to the verb that means ‘experiential knowledge’. The word command means ‘a structured command’. In other words, Paul’s comment is being guided by Mercy feelings of fellowship rather than by Teacher feelings of order and structure. Thus, Paul seems to be saying that a society such as ours which separates male thought from female thought can still develop Teacher order and structure. But the environment would be much more pleasant for Mercy thought if male and female thought were allowed to interact in a meaningful manner. A similar situation existed in ancient Greece, because most Greek women were kept uneducated and spent most of their time within the house, only being allowed out on special occasions such as religious festivals and funerals. This is similar to the way that the Western mindset keeps female thought uneducated and private, only allowing these feelings out on special occasions such as religious events and funerals. I lived in South Korea for seven years and learned that the non-Western world does not function in such a mentally divided manner.

Paul concludes by saying that “I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that” (7:7). This is usually interpreted to mean that Paul thinks that living the monkish life of remaining single is more spiritual than getting married, and that God has given the gift of being single to some individuals who are naturally more spiritual. But Paul spent the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians telling his readers what he is like. He is following a message of rebirth. Remember that Paul is describing a situation in which some people are trying to apply a message of rebirth in an environment ‘of immoralities’; some people are trying to apply the message of incarnation while others are being guided by mental networks based in physical experience. If one wants to be a ‘consumer’ of incarnation in such an environment, then one must function in a way that integrates male and female thought. Paul is trying to follow the higher path of becoming an ‘inventor’ who builds upon the foundation of incarnation, and he wishes that everyone could follow this path. But he also recognizes that most people have not been called to follow his path, and he acknowledges that these other people are also following God in a legitimate manner.

Looking at this in more detail, Paul is recognizing that different people have different cognitive styles. I use the term ‘cognitive styles’ deliberately, because the word used for ‘spiritual gifts’ in Romans 12 is charisma, and Paul uses the same word here in 1 Corinthians 7. Consistent with this, Paul talks in Romans 12 about God ‘allotting to each measure of faith’, and of ‘having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us’. Similarly, Paul says in this passage that “each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that” (7:7). Applying this to my personal experience, I have often wished that everyone could follow a path of personal transformation like the path that I have been trying to pursue. However, I have also come to the realization that only a Perceiver person could follow the specific path of personal transformation that I am taking in this time and place. On the one hand, being a Perceiver person in today’s society is difficult, because we live in a postmodern age that no longer believes in the concept of truth, and a Perceiver person cannot exist without truth. But on the other hand, being a Perceiver person in today’s society is also an opportunity, because knowledge today is split into technical specializations that are begging to be integrated by the interdisciplinary connections of Perceiver thought. This combination of stick and carrot provides today’s Perceiver person with a unique opportunity to follow an extensive path of personal rebirth.

This explains Paul’s comments in verses 8-9: “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (7:8,9). In other words, if one cannot find a spouse or get mentally married to some project or career, or if one’s spouse dies or one’s career comes to an end, then this should not be viewed as a disaster but rather as an opportunity to pursue the path of rebirth more fully. Notice that Paul is saying this himself rather than giving a command from God. In other words, God wants female thought to become married with male thought, because this is an expression of Teacher order-within-complexity. But Paul wishes that more people were following his path of trying to break through to a higher level, and he is pointing out that experiencing failure in this current society should be viewed as an opportunity to find success at a higher level. Paul is often viewed as a grumpy old man who hates women, but Paul said several times that he was driven by the positive goal of achieving a personal reward. For instance, he talks in 1 Corinthians 9 about running a race in order to receive the prize. And in one of his final letters, he says that “The time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness” (2 Timothy 4:6-8).

Relationship Instructions 7:10-16

Paul continues in verses 10-11: “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” The word instructions is only used twice in 1 Corinthians and means ‘a command that is fully authorized because it has gone through all the proper (necessary) channels’. And Paul adds that this is a command of ‘the Lord’. Leave means ‘depart, vacate; create space ’. Thus, the focus is upon creating a void by separating or leaving. Looking at this cognitively, female thought should not leave male thought because this will create a void. This kind of emotional leaving is standard practice in today’s Western society. Whenever technical thought attempts to analyze mental networks of culture, art, religion, personal taste, or lifestyle, the normal response is for those who focus upon such mental networks to run away from technical analysis: ‘How dare you analyze my religion; my lifestyle is none of your business; taste is a matter of personal opinion.’

This type of emotional avoidance will threaten the integrated thinking of incarnation. That is because male technical thought depends upon female mental networks for its integration and meaning. Technical thought by its very nature is limited to some limited realm where the technical rules apply. And technical thought by its very nature is driven by some emotional bottom line. If mental networks try to avoid technical analysis, then this will create an emotional void and technical thought will end up splintering into specializations that pursue goals that lack meaning. (Normal thought with its analogies and patterns provides the mental glue that ties together various specializations and mental networks. This is discussed in 1 Peter.) Thus, one can see why incarnation (the lord usually refers to Jesus Christ) would give a fully authorized command that runs through the necessary channels that female thought should not abandon male thought. That is because the fully authorized commands of incarnation that run through the necessary channels are only possible if female thought does not abandon male thought. Going further, if emotional thought finds rational analysis abhorrent, then it should avoid all rational analysis and not attach itself to some other form of rational analysis. For instance, if lifestyle finds rational analysis abhorrent, then lifestyle should not connect itself with the technical thinking of broadcast media. If lifestyle wants to be supported by some male system of technical thought, then it needs to be reconciled with its first husband of rational analysis—because it was rational analysis which came up with the idea of a ‘lifestyle’ in the first place.

Verse 11 finishes by saying that “the husband should not divorce his wife”. The word translated divorce means ‘to send away, leave alone’. Looking at this cognitively, male technical thought is sending away female emotions. One sees precisely this form of thinking in the field of economics. Ludwig von Mises, the famous Austrian economist, made the following statements about economic value: “Value is not intrinsic, it is not in things. It is within us; it is the way in which man reacts to the conditions of his environment” (Human Action, p.96). “There are no such things as absolute values, independent of the subjective preferences of erring men. Judgments of values are the outcome of human arbitrariness. They reflect all the shortcomings and weaknesses of their authors” (Bureaucracy, p.26). Saying this as clearly as possible, economics treats value as if it is a number. But value is not a number; it is an emotion. As von Mises points out, value is meaningless apart from human desire. But economics assumes that value can be divorced from human emotions. Quoting from Wikipedia, “Within economics the concept of utility is used to model worth or value, but its usage has evolved significantly over time. The term was introduced initially as a measure of pleasure or satisfaction within the theory of utilitarianism by moral philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. But the term has been adapted and reapplied within neoclassical economics, which dominates modern economic theory, as a utility function that represents a consumer’s preference ordering over a choice set. As such, it is devoid of its original interpretation as a measurement of the pleasure or satisfaction obtained by the consumer from that choice.”

Notice how economics took a term that was initially used to measure emotions and then redefined it to exclude emotions. That is an example of male technical thought divorcing its wife of emotions and mental networks. This leads to a faulty mindset which will try to increase monetary value by eliminating the emotional value of some product or company. Examples are, unfortunately, easy to find. Tim Hortons provides a recent Canadian illustration. In the computer industry, the downfall of HP is legendary. Quoting from the Harvard Business Review, “HP hasn’t just lost its way in the marketplace. It has lost the “HP Way” — the values and behaviors and principles and commitments that made it more than just another company, but a beloved icon and institution.” In other word, HP cognitively divorced its wife.

I have suggested that 1 Corinthians 7 describes the kingdom of God with its complete sense of value coming to birth within a society that pursues inadequate value. This will lead to situations where one spouse follows the kingdom of God while the other does not. Obviously, this type of predicament would have existed in the time of Paul when the new religion of Christianity was spreading throughout the Roman Empire. However, I suggest that there is also a larger cognitive meaning which one can uncover by looking at the relationship between male and female thought.

Looking at this in more detail, Western society as a whole suffers from a deep split between objective rational male thought and the mental networks of female subjective thought. However, if one looks at specific components of society, one observes that every aspect is married to some—usually ignored—form of thought of the opposite gender. For instance, entertainment is a female type industry that creates and manipulate mental networks. But entertainment can only exist because it is supported by a male type industry that designs and builds recording and broadcast equipment. The average person sees the emotional images and famous people and thinks that entertainment equals mental networks, not realizing that entertainment has an invisible husband. Going the other way, scientific research emphasizes the male thinking of technical thought. However, research is married to a female culture known as academia, and this culture provides the motivation that keeps scientific research going. However, what the outsider sees is the objective rational research while the female motivation provided by academia usually remains hidden. Likewise, business is officially driven by the male thinking of product development, planning, and production. But every large business also develops a culture, and what motivates the average employee of business is not development, planning, or production but rather the unspoken culture of the business.

The same principle applies to church and religion. When one attends a modern church service, one is supposed to focus upon the mental networks of God and religious worship. However, a modern church service could not exist without the technical backing of a sound system and building infrastructure. But no one thinks about the sound system. Instead, if the sound system is functioning adequately, then everyone will pretend that it does not exist and focus instead upon the mental networks of religious worship.

Applying this to the mind, anyone who works in one of these industries will have a mental marriage between the explicit focus and the invisible spouse. Therefore, when one is evaluating a job or activity in the light of mental wholeness, one must also include the invisible spouse. For instance, for many years I played violin in professional orchestras. Generally speaking, playing classical music in a professional manner is a good expression of integrated thought. However, if one wants to play music in a professional orchestra, then one must also marry the invisible spouse. All members of major orchestras in North America must belong to the American Federation of Musicians, a closed-shop union controlled from New York. I know that unions were formed in order to address economic inequalities, but I find that a union, especially a closed shop union in which one must join in order to get a job, fosters a type of mentality that is mentally and societally destructive. Officially, it is possible to get a job in a professional orchestra if one has sufficient technical skills. But in practice one must both have sufficient skills and marry the invisible spouse. If one does not join the musicians’ union, then it is not possible to play in a major North American orchestra, no matter how skilled one is.

Paul makes the following statements: “If any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” (7:12-16).

Using cognitive language, if some occupation or aspect of society is compatible with mental wholeness, then one must also examine the invisible spouse. It may not be directly compatible with mental maturity, but one should not automatically eliminate this invisible spouse if it agrees to cooperate with principles of mental wholeness. The word translated consent means to ‘enthusiastically agree to cooperate with a partner’. Thus, Paul is not talking about some grudging approval, but rather about a strong emotional bond. Such a relationship will create a strong indirect connection with God, and this indirect connection with God will have positive benefits for any offpsring.

Looking at this more generally, the deepest problem of modern Western society appears to be the split between male objective thought and female subjective thought. Therefore, it is important to preserve existing connections between objective and subjective thought. But there are two limitations to this policy.

First, Paul says that this is his advice and not God’s advice: “To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother...” (7:12). I have mentioned that a concept of God is based in a general Teacher theory. Teacher thought wants general theories to apply everywhere without exception. Therefore, ‘marrying an unbelieving spouse’ is not something that brings pleasure to a concept of God (or presumably to a real God). However, it does follow a path that leads in the direction of greater mental wholeness. Thus, Paul describes this as his advice and not God’s advice. One could view this as an aspect of secondary atonement, in which the ‘believing spouse sanctifies the unbelieving partner’. This does not mean that the unbelieving partner is automatically righteous or that the personal identity of the partner is automatically saved. But Jesus the incarnation is a God/man who saves institutions and cultures as well as individuals and personal identity.

Second, one must not force the invisible spouse to cooperate. On the positive side, the word for consent implies an enthusiastic cooperation. On the negative side, Paul explicitly says that the partner should be allowed to leave if the partner wishes. That is because one cannot build an integrated Teacher understanding upon a foundation of conflict: ‘God has called us to peace’. And one also does not know if the relationship with the invisible spouse is strong enough to redeem the content and mindset of the invisible spouse: “How do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, if you will save your wife?” (7:16).

As before, I am not suggesting that this passage has only a symbolic application. I think that it does apply to the situation of real spouses and real children. But I also suggest that it has a wider cognitive application, and that many people who claim to be following the kingdom of God are violating this passage when it comes to marrying invisible spouses. For instance, I am not aware of any other Christian musician who has decided not to join the union when faced with a choice between joining or being excluded from a professional career in music. I chose not to join when I was in grade 12. I was assistant concertmaster of the Saskatoon Symphony, and I had just been offered the position of being concertmaster in a new chamber orchestra. After making this decision, I was never again offered a professional gig in the province of Saskatchewan. This was very painful, but I also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that making this decision gave me the internal fortitude to follow the path of studying the mind, even when those around me did not care about pursuing mental wholeness. Thus, I know from personal experience that Paul’s comments in verse 8 are valid. Going the other way, I know many solid Christian musicians who are members of the musicians’ union, who are able to pursue meaningful musical goals while continuing to get emotional support from the union. But there is no guarantee that the believing spouse will end up saving the unbelieving invisible partner. And in many cases, the mercenary, entitled thinking engendered by a union has ended up derailing the Christian path of personal transformation.

Maintaining Continuity 7:17-24

Paul then applies the principle more generally: “Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called” (7:17-20). On the one hand, one should maintain social stability by remaining in one’s existing condition. On the other hand, what really matters is having the concept of a God of law and order: ‘What matters is the keeping of the commandments of God’. (The word translated keep does not mean ‘to do’ but rather ‘to guard as a treasure’.) One might think that Paul is merely defending the status quo, but this section needs to be viewed within the context. Paul has just talked about maintaining an integrated system of value that combines male tehnical thought with female mental networks. And the next section will talk about a time of distress and physical upheaval. As every investor knows, a healthy economy requires political stability. If the new system of value is to become applied, then there must be political stability. This stability has two sides. On the one hand, one should avoid being driven by personal goals in Mercy thought, which means remaining in one’s existing situation. On the other hand, the system of law and order must be maintained, which means keeping the commandments of God. Paul uses the verb calling four times in verses 17-20. Calling implies being personally guided by words in Teacher thought. Thus, people should not view their current situations from the Mercy perspective of personal wealth or poverty, but rather treat it as being called by God to a certain walk, a word which means ‘conduct my life, live’. This is very important, because it is also possible for society to descend to a primitive Mercy level of personal conflict and dictatorship during times of upheaval. Thus, it is imperative to maintain social stability as much as possible.

Paul refers specifically to circumcision, which was the physical sign of being a Jew. Paul says that one should not try to move between being uncircumcised and being circumcised, because these categories are nothing at all. Instead, what matters is holding on to the commandments of God. The modern equivalent would probably be Christian versus non-Christian. Why does one ‘ask Jesus into your heart’? Why does one ‘celebrate the Eucharist’? These have no inherent magical power. Instead, they are concrete expressions of believing that God has descended to humanity through Incarnation in order to save humans, and they only acquire cognitive power if a concept of God has descended to Mercy identity through a concept of incarnation, and they only acquire spiritual power if a real God has descended through Incarnation to save humanity. 1 Corinthians has described a concept of God descending through incarnation to human society, and this has started to impact human society in a major way in the previous sections of chapter 7. When the real thing appears, then the symbols which point to this real thing lose their significance. This does not mean that one should discard these symbols, but rather that one should stop focusing upon what kind of symbol one follows, because what really matters is following the substance behind the symbol.

This does not mean that content is irrelevant, but rather that the presence of law and order is more basic than any specific rules. Paul discusses this with respect to the topic of slavery, which was common in Roman times. “Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called” (7:21-24). Summarizing, a slave should try to become free if given the opportunity, but one should not focus emotionally upon one’s personal status. Translating this into modern language, it is good to use bottom-line thinking to better one’s condition. But one should not worry about social status. One might think that Paul is condoning slavery, but I suggest that this is not the case. Instead, Paul addresses the cognitive basis for slavery, which is the mindset of the slave and the mindset of the master. A slave should not view himself as having a low personal status in Mercy thought. Instead, he should become free of MMNs by submitting to the TMN of a concept of God. Likewise, a master should not view himself as being above the law because he has a high personal status in Mercy thought. Instead, he should recognize that he too is subject to the TMN of a concept of God. This does two things. First, it removes the mindset of submission and dominance. Second, it unites everyone under the common theme of being ruled in Teacher thought by a concept of God. If the mindsets of submission and dominance are eliminated, then the institution of slavery will naturally become abolished as well. However, if the mindset remains, then the practice of slavery will remain intact, even if it is officially abolished.

Looking at this in more detail, verses 23-24 compare the old economic system with the new: Verse 23 says, “You were bought with a price”. Slaves are bought and sold. Slavery extends economics to the subjective by treating people as objects to be bought and sold. The word bought means ‘to buy in the marketplace, purchase’. Price means ‘perceived honor – i.e. what has value in the eyes of the beholder’. Thus, an economic transaction has occurred. People have been bought. But this is being guided by subjective value and not by some objective number masquerading as value. Verse 23 continues, “do not become slaves of men”. In other words, do not slip back into the old mindset of being ruled in Mercy thought by people with Mercy status. Verse 24 provides the positive alternative: “Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called”. The word each one means ‘each (individual) unit viewed distinctly’, and Paul used this term in verse 2 when talking about each man or woman having their own spouse. Thus, the focus is upon individuals and individuality, a concept which is not normally considered by slave-owners. Paul then refers to these individuals as ‘brothers’, a form of relationship that goes beyond slavery. Finally, the phrase ‘remain with God’ tells us that this relationship is being placed within the context of a concept of God in Teacher thought, rather than human masters in Mercy thought. Instead of thinking of remaining with a master, one is thinking of remaining with God. The physical circumstances may be the same, but the mindset is totally different, and the mindset will eventually change the circumstances.

Present Troubles 7:25-31

Paul makes it clear that this next passage is not providing universal principles but rather giving instructions for a specific time. He begins by saying “I have no command of the Lord”, and the word command is the same one that was used in verse 6 which means ‘a structured command’. Instead, he is giving an opinion, which means ‘a personal opinion or judgment... the result of direct ("first-hand") knowledge’. Thus, Paul is taking a personal perspective in Mercy thought rather than looking at the Teacher order and structure of Incarnation. The relationship between these two perspectives becomes clear if one recognizes that the plans of God are like the equations of physics. The laws of physics cannot be changed, but they can be satisfied in many different specific ways, some of which are much more pleasant than others. For instance, the law of gravity decrees that anything which goes off a cliff will fall to the bottom. This law cannot be violated. But if one puts on a parachute, then one can satisfy this law in a manner that does not destroy one’s physical body. Similarly, Paul is giving suggestions about surviving the upcoming time of transition with less personal hardship. He is giving this advice “as one who has had mercy shown on him by the Lord to be trustworthy”. (This is the literal translation in the NASB footnote.) The word trustworthy actually means ‘persuaded’. And mercy means ‘to show mercy as God defines it’. Putting this together, Paul is saying that he has demonstrated that he can be trusted to follow a rational Teacher understanding of God, even when God protects him from personal hardships in Mercy thought. Compare this with the tribes of Israel in the book of Judges, who stopped following God whenever they were rescued out of their personal problems.

Paul adds that his comments are “in view of the present distress” which tells us that one is dealing with an unusual situation. The word distress means ‘a compelling need requiring immediate action’. He then says in verse 29 that “the time has been shortened”, and shortened means ‘to draw together, hence wrap up’. And he finishes in verse 31 by saying that “the form of this world is passing away” telling us that some sort of major transition is occurring.

The context provides us with a clue as to what is happening. A new system of complete value is coexisting with an existing system of partial value. The previous section described the relationship between these two systems. Jesus at the end of Matthew 6 is also comparing two systems of value, and he points out that “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth” (Matt. 6:24). Notice that, like Paul, Jesus is comparing a system of value guided by the Teacher understanding of a concept of God with a system of value based upon objective wealth. Jesus says that such a coexistence is unstable, because a person will eventually become driven by either one system of value or the other, but not by both. Paul tells us in verse 31 which of these two systems will be replaced: “for the form of this world is passing away”. Form is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘exterior shape (form)’, while world means ‘an ordered system like the universe, creation’. Cognitively speaking, world (cosmos) refers to the mental networks that result from living within the physical universe—the mindset of materialism. Paul is not saying here that the cosmos is passing away, but rather that the external form of the cosmos is passing away. Something similar happened in the 20th century. The physical world still exists, but technology has totally transformed the external form of the physical environment.

Now that we have the big picture, let us look at the passage in more detail. Paul says in verse 25 that he is talking “concerning virgins”. John uses the same word in Revelation 14:4 to describe those who come out of the kingdom of the beast without being defiled. Cognitively speaking, this may refer to those who have not ‘sold their soul to the system’ in any way.

Verse 26 continues: “I think then that it is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is”. The word think comes from the word ‘law’ and actually means ‘to assume a prevailing custom (law, practice)’. The word is is somewhat unusual and means ‘already have (be in possession of)’. And we saw that distress means ‘a compelling need requiring immediate action’. Putting this together, Paul is trying to apply the stable mindset of the past to the needs of the present. Current society provides a possible example of what Paul is saying. We now live in a post-Christian world that has rejected the morality of the past. But why have these rules been rejected? Generally speaking, the rules themselves have not been examined and found wanting. Instead, people have rebelled from the idea of having rules imposed upon them. Paul is saying that it is good to hold on to this moral content. In other words, don’t be like the stereotypical teenager who automatically rejects what he was told by his parents. The word man in this verse is a generic term which means ‘human, mankind’. Thus, Paul seems to be saying that people in general should hold on to the stability that one has.

Moving on, verse 27 says, “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.” Pauls uses unusual verbs: bound and loosed. And the word seek means ‘to seek by inquiring’. Looking at the big picture, it has just become apparent to society that male technical thought needs to include the subjective realm of female emotions. When this happens, then there will be a natural tendency to use male technical thought to evaluate potential female candidates, or to become disentangled from existing female partners. This happens continually with modern advertising. Companies keeping searching for slogans that they can implant as mental networks within the minds of consumers, such as ‘A diamond is forever’, ‘Where’s the beef’, or ‘Finger lickin good’. If some slogan or image stops working, then they will try to break free of being bound to that mental network. Paul is saying that one should not do this. It may make a few dollars in the short term, but it will destroy a concept of Incarnation.

Verse 28 adds that there is nothing wrong with getting married: “But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.” Looking at this cognitively, corporate images and implicit spouses are not a problem. Getting emotionally caught up in some job is not a sin. But “such will have tribulation in the flesh, and I am trying to spare you”. The word tribulation actually means ‘internal pressure that causes someone to feel confined’. The same word is used to describe the Great Tribulation in Matthew 24:21 as well as Revelation 17:14. However, this is the only time that this word is used in 1 Corinthians. This squeezing is ‘in the flesh’, which refers to physical existence. Looking at this cognitively, when people are all trying to find themselves, and corporations are continually attempting to define or redefine their identities, then society will tend to split into emotional fiefdoms, each trying to rule over some small domain from which everyone and everything else is excluded. Those who try to integrate male and female thought in such an environment may feel mentally whole, but they will experience significant squeezing in the flesh. Speaking from personal experience, I try to protect my mental wholeness in today’s fractured society by interacting with others on a contract basis. Similarly, Paul’s goal is to spare people from this squeezing.

In most general terms, Paul is saying that in times of societal upheaval, one should preserve personal stability and avoid personal changes that create mental instability, especially changes that alter the relationship between male and female thought.

Verse 29 appears to be describing an intensified period of transition, because Paul talks about limiting emotional involvement. He doesn’t say that activity should be stopped, which suggests that structure is being maintained during this transition. However, he does say that one should limit emotional attachment while continuing to perform activity: “The time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though he did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess” (7:29-30). As was mentioned, the word shortened means ‘to draw together, hence wrap up’, while time refers to ‘time as opportunity’ and not to clock time. Thus, some opportune moment is coming to an end and things are being wrapped up. This statement is then followed by an adjective translated ‘from now on’, which tells us that the following comparisons apply to this specific time of wrapping up. Acting as if one has no wife implies functioning at a contract level without getting emotionally involved. Both positive and negative emotional responses need to be limited. Similarly, buying should not lead to possessing, which also implies limited emotional involvement. Finally, those who are making use of the cosmos should not make full use of it. These terms do not describe a physical crisis but rather an emotional one, in which one must avoid getting emotionally entangled. That describes the condition of current Western society. Physically speaking, everything continues in a reasonably normal fashion. But emotionally speaking, there is total chaos, with dictators, lifestyles, corporations, religions, cultures, and paradigms all jockeying for power, each demanding emotional allegiance from the masses.

In addition, technological transformation has now entered a more intense phase that is affecting the realm of personal experiences in a much more profound way. For instance, face-to-face social interaction is being replaced by electronic messaging, while physical involvement is being replaced by immersion within virtual worlds. These electronic media and games are also using emotional tricks to get users to spend more time using their programs and playing their games. In the words of one BBC article, “Behind every screen on your phone, there are generally like literally a thousand engineers that have worked on this thing to try to make it maximally addicting.”

Focus on the Lord 7:32-40

In this section, it sounds as if Paul is making an appeal for celibacy. However, Paul finishes by saying that “This I say for your benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.” The problem is that one tends to view ‘undistracted devotion to the Lord’ from the vantage point of religious self-denial, which thinks that focusing upon God implies denying self. However, the word benefit in verse 35 actually means to ‘combine in a way that brings a profit’. This does not describe a Mercy motivation of focusing upon God in some narrow-minded fashion while ignoring everything else, but rather a Teacher viewpoint of many things working together in harmony.

The key word in this passage is concerned, which means ‘to go to pieces because pulled apart (in different directions)’. Paul uses this verb four times in verses 32-34. And he starts in verse 32 by saying “I want you to be free from concern”, adding the negative prefix to the same verb ‘concern’. Thus, the primary goal is to avoid becoming mentally fragmented. This will happen very easily when one lives in a society that has becomed emotionally fractured into many specializations and fiefdoms. Paul also uses the verb please three times in verses 32-34, which means ‘winning someone’s favor... because meeting their expectation’. This is an emotional verb. Cognitively speaking, this describes behaving in a manner that is consistent with the structure of some mental network. Putting these two verbs together, mental networks will be using emotional pressure to attempt to fragment the mind.

Paul first addresses male thought: “One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but the one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided.” (7:32-34). The final verb divided is a variation of concerned, which means to ‘divide into parts’. Thus, male technical thought faces a choice. It can stay integrated if it tries to emotionally please a concept of incarnation. However, the price is not having an emotional presence within society. Speaking from personal experience, I have come to the conclusion that most of the fragments of current society are reasonably sane and godly. However, these fragments have been put together in a manner that is not godly or healthy. Therefore, I have tried to follow mental wholeness by allowing my concept of God and incarnation to internally reassemble these fragments into something that resembles wholeness. But this mental reassembling has caused me to behave in a manner that appears strange to the average person, making it impossible for me to fully live within society at an emotional level. Instead, I have to interact with others at a contract level, which means cooperating on limited projects in a limited manner.

One can see something similar in the relationship between male and female thought that occurs in research and development. Technical thought that has not developed some corporate culture of mental networks is able to focus purely upon research. But when research becomes married to some culture, such as academia or the culture of some company, then interests will become divided. No longer will research be the only goal, but part of the energy will be spent maintaining the company with its existing products, corporate buildings, and cultural expectations. For this reason, a young company is naturally more nimble than an established corporation. Summarizing, male technical thought will have to choose between internal integration and cultural presence.

Turning now to female thought, Paul says that “the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, how she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband” (7:34). The focus here is upon holiness. Following the Lord will cause mental networks of the spirit to be consistent with mental networks of the body. One will be able to embody the Platonic forms of the spirit. But if one ‘becomes married’ by adding male technical thought, then this emotional integration will be lost.

One can see what this means by looking at the development of a church. When some new church group emerges, then the initial focus is often upon living physically in a manner that expresses the Platonic forms of the spirit. Saying this another way, such a group will be idealistic in the sense that it is guided by the ideals of the Holy Spirit. But groups that are initially driven by idealism inevitably develop a supporting infrastructure of rules, machinery, buildings, and procedures, and following the spirit becomes replaced by living according to the rules. Such a transition is almost inevitable when living in a society that is guided by a plethora of technical rules, regulations, and procedures.

Paul summarizes in verse 35: “This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but for what is seemly and [to secure] undistracted devotion to the Lord”. (I am using the literal meaning in a footnote.) As was mentioned earlier, benefit means to ‘combine in a way that brings a profit’. In other words, one can actually use the fragmentation of society as a means for building integration. That is because choosing to behave in an integrated manner despite the fragmentation of society is actually a form of righteousness, because one is obeying God rather than men. Thus, one will become an integrated person, which goes deeper than living in an integrated society. Restraint is used once in the New Testament and means ‘a noose or snare; a cord’. In other words, Paul is not trying to tie people up. This is vital to recognize when one is living in a fractured society in which everyone is attempting to lasso individuals into their emotoinal domains. Put upon means ‘to throw over’. Something that is thrown travels through the air, and air represents Teacher thought. Thus, Paul is not using Teacher thought to impose some restrictive paradigm upon people. This is quite different than the typical paradigm of a technical specialization which does act as an emotional bond that imprisons the mind, causing experts to try to explain everything in the light of their limited understanding. As the saying goes, ‘if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail’.

Looking now at the positive side, seemly means ‘of good form, well-fashioned and hence seemly (desirable)’. In other words, the results will look good to others. Others may find those who follow incarnation strange, but they will also find this strangeness emotionally appealing. Devotion is used once in the New Testament and means ‘sitting well towards’. Cognitively speaking, one is resting in a position that is close to incarnation. Finally, undistracted is also used once in the New Testament and means ‘without distraction’. Saying this more simply, most people with their divided priorities have to sing lyrics such as ‘So forget about yourself, concentrate on Him and worship Christ our Lord’. In contrast, one can think about self while remaining in a restful position close to Christ the Lord. This may sound like wishful thinking, but I know from personal experience both what this means, and the price that one must pay to remain in this state.

This provides a context for explaining Paul’s strange comments regarding ‘a virgin daughter’ in verses 36-38. Paul says that “If any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry” (7:36). Applying this to cultures and churches, when a movement is young, then there is no need for rules and procedures, because everyone participates with enthusiasm and naturally tries to protect the movement. But when a movement is past the bloom of youth (huperakmos), when people start to act improperly (aschemoneo), or when there are legal obligations (opheilo), then people will feel the need to find a ‘husband’ of rules and procedures for this ‘virgin’ movement. Paul is saying that there is nothing wrong with doing this.

But Paul also describes another option: “But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well” (7:37). Translating Paul’s words into cognitive language, it is possible to avoid turning a movement into an institution, but one must be driven by stable MMNs that are not being imposed upon the mind, these mental networks must have authority over people’s choices, and people must decide that they will follow these mental networks. In other words, people are choosing to be guided by the culture of the movement. Instead of being protected by rules and procedures, the movement is being preserved in an organic manner, as people are guided internally by common goals and values.

Paul concludes that both methods are good, but the organic method is better than the institutional method: “So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better” (7:38). Notice how a cognitive interpretation flows naturally from the previous section. When an interpretation is not forced, then this is a sign that one is viewing the passage through the right set of mental eyeglasses.

I should point out that this advice is being given within the context of a society that is guided by general Teacher understanding revealed through incarnation. In a traditional society, the organic method will quickly turn into another variation of culture with its unspoken rules enforced by common MMNs.

Looking at this historically, Paul lived in a culture guided by Pater familias. Quoting from the Wikipedia article, “The pater familias was the oldest living male in a household. He had complete control of all family members… He held legal privilege over the property of the familia, and varying levels of authority over his dependents: these included his wife and children, certain other relatives through blood or adoption, clients, freedmen and slaves.” Thus, it is quite possible that Paul is referring to real fathers and their virgin daughters. The Wikipedia article explains that “The pater familias had the power to approve or reject marriages of his sons and daughters; however, an edict of the Emperor Caesar Augustus provided that the pater familias could not withhold that permission lightly.” However, as I have already mentioned, the biblical text always appears to contain a coherent universal message that transcends specific cultural applications.

Paul concludes the chapter by saying that “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God” (7:39,40). Applying this to the context, if some movement is ‘married’ to an organizational structure, one must respect that structure. But if the structure falls apart, then it is possible either to come up with a new structure or else return to an organic movement. Paul suggests that it is better to remain as an organic movement because one then becomes more aware of the Platonic forms of the Holy Spirit.

Things Offered to Idols 8:1-13

As this PBS webpage explains, “The Romans believed that their gods or spirits were actively involved in their daily lives. As a result, sacred meals were held in their name during certain religious festivals. It was believed that the god actually took part in the meal: a place was set for him at the table, invitations were issued in his name, and a portion of the food served was set aside for him to enjoy.” Going further, the only time that the average Greek citizen ate any meat was at one of these religious festivals. Thus, the only meat that existed for most people was meat offered to idols. In contrast, most meat is no longer offered to idols in Western society today. Therefore, one can either conclude that this passage has no relevance today or else look for a cognitive meaning.

Cognitively speaking, an idol is a core MMN formed by emotional input from the physical world. Notice the two components. First, emotional experiences from the physical body are directly imposing mental networks upon Mercy thought. Second, the mind is building itself upon these mental networks. For instance, car, houses, sports heroes, or movie stars are often treated as idols. I suggest that one is also thinking in an idolatrous manner when one rationalizes in order to protect childish MMNs. For instance, the thinking of Sigmund Freud described earlier in this essay would qualify as idolatrous.

The word meat is explicitly mentioned only once in this chapter, in verse 13 where Paul says that he himself will not eat any meat. Instead, Paul uses the verb sacrificed to idols which combines ‘idol’ with ‘to kill as a sacrifice and offer on an altar’. Cognitively speaking, this implies that a new form of thought is emerging within society which involves killing living mental networks, offering them to idols, and then using this as intellectual food. One can see this combination in deconstructionism. The core premise of deconstructionism is that all apparent theories are merely the personal opinions of social groups which are using social status to impose their views upon the rest of society. Therefore, deconstructionism will attempt to deconstruct the mental networks that lie behind a theory. This corresponds to eating meat offered to idols: 1) One is killing mental networks of understanding and culture. 2) One is offering these deconstructed fragments to the idols of culture and personal opinion. 3) One is then finding intellectual nourishment in the results. Anyone who has interacted with deconstructionism knows that the goal is not rational thought. Saying this more simply, it is very difficult to have a rational discussion with deconstructionists because they know that they are right and everyone else is wrong. The only option is to bow intellectually before the idols of a deconstructionist or else be rejected for being ‘intolerant’. The end result is intolerant tolerance, as exemplified in Canada by the government of Justin Trudeau. Deconstructionism acts like an academic discipline and goes through all the motions of being an academic discipline, but it does not actually eat any intellectual meat. Instead, all that remains at the end is methodology and intolerant tolerance. Thus, it is curious that no mention is made in the passage of anyone actually eating the meat (except for Paul, who is consuming food and building understanding). Looking briefly at the historical situation, Greek gods did not set moral standards, and they did not behave in a manner that expressed Teacher order. Unlike the Jewish temple, a Greek temple did not have any forbidden, holy places, reinforcing the idea that the gods did not impose any moral standards upon humanity. Thus, eating meat at a temple festival was primarily an opportunity for imposing cultural solidarity by having some fun, especially during the era in which Paul was writing.

We have seen that Paul is describing an extension and unveiling of Jesus Christ as incarnation. In the previous chapter, concrete thought was being transformed by the application of a complete system of value. This was happening within a societal context of technical fragmentation, and the goal was to remain mentally integrated. That was the primary challenge in 20th century modern society. In chapter 8, the challenge is to remain gracious in a society that is practicing deconstructionism. This has become the primary challenge within 21st century post-modern society.

Paul begins by comparing two kinds of knowledge: “Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge” (8:1). The first know means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. The second knowledge means ‘experiential knowledge’. In other words, empirical evidence makes it obvious that personal knowledge exists. This may sound trivial but it is actually a profound statement. I have read several books on deconstructionism and in every case, the author has a degree in the soft sciences, has not been trained in empirical sciences such as physics or chemistry, and ignores science and technology. Saying this more generally, one does not find deconstructionism in the empirical sciences, because the physical world makes it obvious that truth exists. What has happened is that technology has been used to create a modern world in which every cliff of natural cause-and-effect has been blocked off by some human regulation or fence which says ‘Do Not Enter’. A person growing up in such an environment will mistakenly think that all rules come from people and that there is no such thing as natural cause-and-effect.

Paul continues: “Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies” (8:1). More literally, “Experiential knowledge puffs up but love builds up.” Puffed up was seen back in 4:18-19 and means to ‘inflate by blowing’. Using the language of deconstructionism, people are inflating MMNs of personal experience to give them the appearance of general Teacher theories. This assessment by deconstructionism is often accurate. But deconstructionism stops there without providing any alternative, except for the puffed-up personal opinions of the deconstructionist. (What typically happens is that the Teacher overgeneralization of tolerance will be taught explicitly while the cultural MMNs of the deconstructionist will be imposed implicitly.)

However, Paul provides an alternative. Love, which means ‘love which centers in moral preference’, builds up, which means ‘to build a house’. In other words, even if one is starting with experential knowledge, one still needs to build in a moral manner in order to create a home for personal identity. This is also a profound statement because any Teacher theory that one continues to use will eventually turn into a mental prison. One uses moral content to build a mental home because homes need to be safe places that protect personal identity from potential harm. One can tell that overgeneralized tolerance does not lead to a mental feeling of safety because of the need to create physical safe places where one attempts desperately to create a social environment within which one can feel safe.

Verse 2 addresses the underlying fallacy of experiential knowing: “If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know”. The three ‘knows’ in this verse all refer to experential knowing. Supposes ‘directly reflects the personal perspective (values) of the person making the subjective judgment call’. As is a comparison which means ‘according to the manner in which’. Ought gives the idea that some person is imposing some standard to follow, but it really means ‘it is necessary’. Putting this together, Paul is saying that if anyone bases experiential knowledge upon personal opinion, he has not learned experientially how it is necessary to use experiential knowledge. I have learned from personal experience what this means. I do a lot of personal introspection in my research, but I have learned that one must not build upon personal opinion. Instead, one must compare what one feels with what others have experienced, one must compare experiential knowledge with empirical knowledge, one must be guided by Teacher understanding, and one must recognize that experiential knowledge does not function in a vacuum but rather follows patterns which are essential to know at the level of deep personal experience.

In contrast, deconstructionism belittles the knowledge of others, ignores empirical knowledge, questions the very concept of Teacher understanding, and refuses to acknowledge the existence of unchanging cognitive principles.

Verse 3 then describes the alternative, which is to be guided emotionally by a concept of God in Teacher thought: “but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.” ‘Loves God’ is literally ‘agape the God’, and we just saw that agape means ‘love which centers in moral preference’. This describes being morally guided at an emotional level by the TMN of an integrated concept of God. When this happens, then God and personal identity become linked through personal knowledge, and ‘he’ and ‘him’ are both explicitly included in the original Greek. This probably means that God knows personal identity, but it could also mean that personal identity knows God. In other words, one does not become locked into self-analysis. Instead, the TMN of a moral concept of God is continually shining moral light upon personal identity, which in turn is further revealing the moral character of the concept of God. This may sound theoretical, but I have learned through years of personal experience what this means—and what this feels like.

Looking at this from a different perspective, when one is guided by MMNs of identity and culture, then one is seldom consciously aware of these mental networks but rather follows them automatically and implicitly. The only way to become consciously aware of one’s own mental networks of identity and culture is by acquiring other mental networks and then viewing one’s own identity and culture from the vantage point of these other mental networks. For instance, living for a while in another culture provides the perspective that is needed to understand one’s own culture. In contrast, the person who remains in one culture will think that he is behaving normally and will not realize how his behavior is being shaped by his culture.

Paul then returns to eating meat offered to idols. He points out that there is no such thing as an idol, because everything is guided by the TMN of a monotheistic God: “Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one” (8:4). The word know here means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. This implies that one has to turn to physical science with its empirical knowledge in order break free of the mindset of idolatry. More literally, Paul says that “we know empirically that nothing at all is an idol in the realm of the cosmos”. Note that Paul is learning from the materialistic mindset of the cosmos that idols do not exist. Materialistic science has taught that the physical universe is governed by universal laws in Teacher thought, and Paul is concluding from this that specific Mercy people, objects, groups, and experiences idols are not the source of truth or understanding. Similarly, these essays are continually turning to science and technology for illustrations of Teacher order and structure.

The next phrase is more literally, “and that there is no God at all if not one.” This mirrors the search in physics for a universal theory of everything. Thomas Kuhn has stated that a scientist cannot exist without a paradigm. Once Teacher thought starts to come up with a general theory, then there will be a strong emotional drive to expand this theory. The idea of not having a theory becomes inconceivable. Either everything fits together in a unified manner, or existence is a cosmic joke. This same emotion drives me to continue developing and expanding the theory of mental symmetry. Paul himself did not live in a scientific society, but he must have known what it means to be emotionally driven to expand a Teacher theory because he invented theology, which uses rational Teacher thought to analyze God and religion. And Paul repeatedly talked about unveiling the mystery of God’s plan of salvation.

Paul’s concept of a single God does not cause him to reject the beliefs of others. In contrast, he recognizes that the average person is being mentally ruled by a plethora of MMNs and TMNs: “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords” (8:5). Notice that Paul mentions both the heaven of Teacher words and the earth of human rational thought. He treats these two as related but distinct. This is significant because one of the breakthroughs of Isaac Newton was to realize that the same mathematical equations could be used to describe both the heavenly movement of the planets and human movement on earth. Similarly, Paul also mentions both gods and lords. A god is a general Teacher theory that applies to personal identity, while a lord is a system of technical thought that rules over identity. These two are also related but distinct. Finally, Paul bridges two forms of analysis. One can use verbal Teacher thought to analyze the so-called gods of heaven and earth. Or one can use concrete thought to analyze the many gods and lords of existence, and one form of analysis is ‘indeed just as, just exactly like’ the other. One of the deep mysteries of science is that one can make progress either by pursuing mathematical equations or by performing experiments, and these two paths will lead to the same results. One of these is ‘indeed just as, just exactly like’ the other. Similarly, I have found that I can develop the theory of mental symmetry either by using abstract thought to analyze cognitive principles (as summarized by the diagram of mental symmetry), or by observing personality and social interaction.

Paul has developed a mind that is guided by the TMN of a universal concept of God combined with a concept of incarnation that is both God and man. “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him” (8:6). Looking at this in more detail, everything is from out of God the Father, and we are to or into him. In other words, a concept of God in Teacher thought is the starting point, and the goal is to extend and expand this Teacher understanding. And everything is through the Lord Jesus Christ, and we are through him. This means that one uses the technical thinking of incarnation to extend from a concept of God in Teacher thought to the specific Mercy experiences of personal existence. Notice that Paul is describing his perspective, which is different than the perspective of others: He is building a concept of God in Teacher thought, and he is using technical thought to translate between general Teacher theory and personal Mercy experience. Many Christians mouth these words, but these essays illustrate what this means in practice. It means using a single rational Teacher theory to explain everything. And one does not just come up with hand-waving explanations, but rather uses technical thought to add details to these explanations. A scientist in the hard sciences knows what this means. The typical Christian does not. Instead, the average Christian is convinced at a gut level that God and Jesus have nothing to do with rational theory or technical detail. When one takes the integrated, rational, technical approach of Paul, then one becomes immune to deconstructionism. For such a person, there are no idols. There is only one God. Cognitively speaking, the TMN of a concept of God will use strong feelings to impose its explanation upon anything that it encounters.

As Paul points out in verse 7, not everyone is internally guided by such a concept of God and incarnation: “However not all men have this knowledge” (8:7). And the word ‘knowledge’ here means ‘experential knowledge’. In other words, they may say the words, but they do not know what these words mean at the level of personal experience. Instead, they are still being guided by the mental habit of thinking in terms of idolatry. Therefore, they approach knowledge even as meat offered to idols. Saying this cognitively, they follow a methodology of basing truth in the opinions of experts, and thus are vulnerable to a mindset of deconstructionism. This describes the mindset of the typical theologian, as well as the dominant mindset in the soft sciences. As a result, their joint-knowing which lacks strength is besmeared with mud (8:7). Using cognitive language, Perceiver thought builds connections between one situation and another. This ‘joint-knowing’ is the basis for conscience. However, Perceiver thought will find it difficult to function in an intellectual environment that is based in the opinions of experts with Mercy status. Mud is neither solid nor liquid. Instead, it is a goo that sticks. Cognitive mud describes a mixture of Perceiver fact and Mercy status that has no definite shape. If truth is merely puffed-up personal opinion, as deconstructionism claims, then all that remains is cognitive mud.

For instance, everything that a computer does is an expression of the universal laws of nature made incarnate through science and technology. But because people have the habit of basing truth in MMNs of culture and personal status, they have a weak sense of scientific knowing, and they treat a computer as if it is a sort of magical device that has been conjured up by technology. As Arthur Clarke famously said, that ‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic’. Trying to help such a mindset is like dealing with cognitive mud. There are no solid concepts to build upon, problems stick around rather than getting solved, and one continually seems to be spinning one’s wheels rather than making progress.

Paul then points out that information is not the critical factor when constructing a concept of God: “But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat” (8:8). Commend means ‘stand close beside, i.e. ready to present’. Using cognitive language, if one is merely constructing a general theory within Teacher thought, then gathering information is enough, because Perceiver facts provide the bricks for constructing the building of a Teacher theory. But a concept of God emerges when a sufficiently general theory applies to personal identity. Constructing a concept of God does not require lots of data, because one is actually constructing a relationship between Teacher understanding and Mercy identity. This does not mean that facts are irrelevant, but rather that they are not the determining feature.

Similarly, I have found that gathering lots of facts does not cause the development of mental symmetry to go beyond the expected measure. And I have also found that not gathering facts does not result in coming behind and therefore left out. Again, this does not mean that facts are irrelevant, but rather that personal growth is more basic than gathering information. If one is growing personally, then the facts will resonate with personal experience and make sense. If one is not personally ready for the facts, then they will not make sense, and one might not even notice the facts.

One must also consider the effect that knowledge will have upon personal identity. If the emotional pressure from MMNs is too strong, then this will overwhelm a person’s ability to know facts within Perceiver thought. Using the language of Paul, if a person has a weak conscience, then he will ‘eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol’, and his weak conscience will be defiled.

Verse 9 continues, “Take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.” The word translated liberty is actually exousia, which means ‘authority or power’. And a stumbling block is figuratively a fact that will trip up the progress of someone walking along a path. This reinforces the idea that what ultimately matters is following a path of personal development. One does not want to gather information in a way that will impede the cognitive and spiritual growth of others. One can see this illustrated by the relationship between psychology and Christianity. When one gains a rational Teacher understanding of Christianity, one realizes that Christianity can actually be described in terms of psychological principles. In other words, a Teacher concept of God gives one mental authority over the field of psychology. But this does not necessarily mean that one should teach psychology in the church. Instead, one needs to take care, which means ‘to see, be observant (watchful)’. Observe how people are responding. If people are starting to stumble in their personal walk, then stay away from the secular language and use language that others will understand. Note that Paul is giving this advice within the context of having a solid understanding of God and incarnation. Verse 6 made this clear. When one has reached this level of integrated understanding, then it becomes possible to translate the same general principles into many different languages.

Paul then looks more closely at the problem: “For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?” (8:10). The word idol’s temple is only found once in the New Testament. And eating means to ‘recline (at table)’. One is not just popping in for a bite of food, but reclining at the table within the temple. The word see here means ‘to see with the mind’. Putting this together, I suggest that this describes continuing to function within an environment of deconstructionism. Thus, what matters is not being physically seen within such a location but rather being mentally connected with such an institution. For instance, for many years my uncle was a professor in a liberal Christian college. He had a solid walk with God, but my mother often wondered about the impact that he had upon others by remaining within that college (which he had helped to found). Similarly, Paul wonders what lesson the average person will learn. The word strengthened actually means ‘to build a house’. And conscience means joint-knowing. In other words, how will the average person put things together? What kind of house will they build for personal identity? They may conclude that one should gather information within an intellectual environment of deconstructionism. Notice that seeing believers eat in a temple is not leading to feelings of shock or scandal. That would be the case if the idols had emotional significance within people’s minds. Instead, it is a matter of moral justification: ‘If he is eating in a temple, then so can I’. This kind of emotional response suggests that the passage is talking about deconstructionism with its belittling of idols.

Deconstructionism is not limited to academia. One can find a similar mindset in the modern entertainment industry. The primary purpose of most modern entertainment is not to convey information or understanding, but rather to have fun. And fun is actually a form of deconstructionism: There is no lasting truth or understanding in fun. Instead, fun moves from one system of human constructed make-belief to another. But like academic deconstruction, the tolerance of fun actually hides the intolerance of submitting to the personal and cultural MMNs of the makers of fun. Going further, most households have a shrine to entertainment placed centrally within the living room, in the form of a huge flat panel display with surround sound. Symbolically speaking, most modern entertainment is an example of gaining knowledge by dining in an idol’s temple. The person who is watching a movie is supposed to suspend disbelief in order to enter emotionally into the drama being depicted upon the screen. In fact, anyone who uses rational analysis when watching a movie will be silenced by the rest of the viewers as a spoilsport who is ruining the movie. However, the vivid depictions in a movie actually strengthen a person’s mental ability to base Perceiver facts upon defining Mercy experiences. Using the language of Paul, people with a weak sense of knowing are being strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols.

Summarizing, technology that is an expression of rational understanding is being used to overwhelm rational understanding through the use of special effects and vivid imagery. Given this kind of mental context, what kind of message is being conveyed by a church which uses the latest audio-visual technology to enhance its worship? Will this not teach the average church-goer that one should learn about God through entertainment? And the average church-goer has learned this lesson well, for he goes to church to worship a God of fun who always entertains.

Paul continues: “For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died” (8:11). The word translated ruined is quite strong, and means to destroy or cut off entirely. Using the example of modern entertainment, society did not escape a mindset of idolatry through a scientific revolution in order to create special effects that make it possible to worship idols more effectively. Similarly, institutions of higher learning were not established in order to teach students that there is no such thing as higher learning. When the solution makes the problem worse, then one is ruining people rather than saving them. Notice that Paul refers to the death of Christ and not the death of Jesus. Jesus-the-man died on a physical cross two thousand years ago. But a concept of Christ dies as one replaces absolute truth with an integrated concept of God and incarnation. One does not die to fundamentalism in order to question Christianity. Instead, one goes beyond fundamentalism in order to build truth upon a more solid foundation, so that one can expand the Christian path of salvation.

When one uses rational understanding in such a destructive manner, then one is sinning against incarnation: “And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ” (8:12). Sinning means to ‘miss the mark’. The goal is to save people. Destroying people misses this mark. Wounding means ‘to strike, smite, beat’. Wounding the conscience implies using Mercy experiences to attack the existence of Perceiver thought. This goes beyond beyond normal scepticism. Modern scepticism questions religious beliefs while holding on to the concept of Perceiver truth. Postmodern scepticism questions the very existence of truth. Modern scientific scepticism does not sin against Christ because it still believes that one can use technical thought guided by rational Teacher understanding. Postmodern scepticism does sin against Christ because the very concept of rational Teacher understanding with its precise definitions is being deconstructed.

Paul finishes with a statement that is both general and specific: “Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble” (8:13). On the one hand, Paul says that he will never eat again, (more literally, he will ‘never eat to the age’), which is a surprisingly general statement. But Paul specifically says that he will never again eat meat. This word, which means ‘meat from the market’, occurs only one other time in Romans 14:21, where Paul also talks about not eating meat in order to avoid causing one’s brother to stumble.

Based upon the context, I suggest the following cognitive interpretation. When one eats meat, one is actually eating muscle, the part of the body that performs movements. Cognitively speaking, when one eats meat, one is gaining information about how people act.

Studying human behavior seems scientific: science studies how the natural world behaves; social science studies how humans behave. But human behavior is largely arbitrary while the natural world always behaves in a consistent manner. For instance, a regular exercise routine can turn into a habit, but so can smoking cigarettes. Saying this more technically, whenever a person or group of people repeat a set of actions, then this Server sequence will gain in confidence, turn into a habit, and be emotionally reinforced by the TMN of an implicit understanding. When deconstructionism questions all truth, then the one thing that survives is methodology—how a group of people behave. When studying human behavior is combined with the idolatry mentioned earlier, then science becomes the servant of idolatry. For instance, when science studies religion today, it seldom discusses cognitive development or moral growth. Instead, it observes how groups of religious people behave when they are practicing religion. Similarly, Hollywood has observed how people respond when watching movies, and has come up with a formula that maximizes the emotional impact of a movie, and most modern movies follow this formula. Likewise, significant research has been done working out the optimal layout of a store, based upon careful observation of customers. When society is struggling with ‘dining in an idol’s temple’, then this type of social science will end up researching the most efficient process for causing a brother to stumble. Paul is saying that one should avoid this type of social research ‘until the age’. In 10:11, Paul will refer in the past tense to those “upon whom the ends of the ages have come”, and Paul will give a different set of instructions regarding food offered to idols in chapter 10.

Being an Apostle 9:1-18

We saw earlier that Jesus describes discipleship in economic terms: “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world forfeits his soul? Or what will a man given in exchange for his soul?” (Matt. 16:25,26). However, as was pointed out before, the economy of God’s kingdom extends beyond the exchange of goods and services to include mental networks of personal identity. One is not just investing in order to receive some dividend but rather going through death in order to experience rebirth. One is allowing core mental networks to fall apart in order to have them reborn in higher form.

Going further, we have also seen in these chapters that the rule of incarnation is being extended from one area of existence to another. In this chapter, Paul describes what it means to be an apostle under the rule of incarnation. What is Paul’s ultimate motivation? Why is he an apostle? I have often asked myself a similar question. Why am I pursuing the theory of mental symmetry? In my experience, the answer initially seems obvious. One is sharing a message of salvation with others. But when one continues to follow a lonely path of developing and applying this message, then this answer becomes increasingly hollow. Talking about a message of personal rebirth is not enough. One must break through personally to living a new life of rebirth. But in order to do so, one must pay the deeper price of foregoing present reward in order to become eligible for a higher reward in the future. That is what Paul discusses in chapter 9.

Paul opens by asking, “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord” (9:1,2).

Many theologians say that only a person who has physically seen Jesus can claim to be an apostle. Since Jesus is no longer physically visible, the conclusion is that it is no longer possible for a person to be an apostle today. Paul refers to this qualification: “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” But the verb that Paul uses for seeing is horao, which means ‘to see with the mind’. And if one concludes that seeing the physical person of Jesus with one’s physical eyes is the qualification for being an apostle, then one is using a form of thought that focuses upon physical experiences and important people, which is precisely the form of thought that Paul wants to move beyond. Thus, I suggest that the qualification of ‘seeing Jesus’ could also refer to having a sufficiently well-developed internal concept of incarnation.

The word apostle means ‘a delegate, one commissioned by another to represent him in some way’. And Paul talked in an earlier chapter about building upon the foundation of incarnation. Putting this together, I suggest that one can define an apostle as someone who builds upon incarnation in a manner that leads to major new understanding and insight. Paul implies this definition of an apostle in the second half of verse 2, because he describes his followers as the seal of his apostleship, A seal indicates official status. And this seal of apostleship is valid even if he is not being regarded as an apostle by others. Verse 3 conveys the impression that Paul’s apostleship is being questioned. “My defense to those who examine me is this.” The word defense means ‘a verbal defense (particularly in a law court)’. And examine means ‘to distinguish by vigorously judging down to up,’.

This type of breakthrough is not just a matter of research and study. Instead, there is a significant spiritual and personal cost to becoming an apostle. Paul elaborates on this cost in this chapter. (The cost of being a disciple is discussed in more detail in the second half of 2 Corinthians.)

Paul begins by saying that he has the right to take a number of privileges as an apostle: “Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?” (9:4-6). The first right is food and drink. This may seem self-evident, but famine was common in Greek times. Therefore, having a right to physical food was not trivial. Looking at this cognitively, the right to eat and drink would probably describe a right to have academic and social interaction. Continuing in a cognitive vein, mysticism asserts that an apostle does not have a right to food and drink. Instead, one breaks through mentally to the Teacher overgeneralization of mysticism by turning one’s back upon the physical world of facts and experiences.

The second right is literally ‘a sister as wife’. The term sister implies that Paul is not being the mysogynist that many accuse him of being, but rather viewing women as equal partners. And Paul points out that the rest of the apostles are all married. Looking at this literally, if Paul says that the apostles have Biblical authority to get married, then by what authority can the Catholic Church state that priests do not have the right to get married? Instead, I suggest that celibacy is a natural byproduct of the attitude of religious self-denial which accompanies absolute truth. And religious self-denial is an inadequate strategy, as illustrated by the repeated Catholic Church scandals involving priests sexually abusing children. Looking at this right cognitively, an apostle has the right to apply his teachings through some sort of social movements, society, or organization. The word take along means ‘to lead around, to go about’. It is used six times in the New Testament and allows means ‘take along’ and never married. Thus, the emphasis is upon an apostle having a group of followers who are applying his message as it is being developed.

The third right is to refrain from working. The word work means ‘work, trade, do’, which implies some kind of job. Thus, Paul has a right to be supported financially. Paul mentions Barnabas in this verse, the only time he refers to him in either epistle to the Corinthians. The name Barnabas means ‘son of prophecy’. This may be significant. Prophecy deals with the future. If one wants to be able to decipher the future, one has to be able to distance oneself mentally from the mindset of the present. And that will be very hard to do it one is pursuing a career in the present. Thus, being a true son of prophecy requires working without pay in the present. This may sound like a strange interpretation, but I know from personal experience that it is valid. And this principle throws fascinating light upon the stories of Lazarus and Mary, as well as the red heifer.

Looking at these three rights briefly from a personal perspective, I have done almost all of my research outside of academia, without an organization, and without financial support from others. While this has been frustrating, it has also been immensely freeing. Working within academia would have stifled my research, supporting an organization would have dissipated my energy, and being supported by others would have divided my allegiance. Looking back, I am exceedingly grateful that I was denied these ‘rights’. (I should mention that I was jumpstarted by an NSERC scholarship from the Canadian government as well as a partial early inheritance from my father. But these only lasted for a few years.)

Paul then continues with some analogies: “Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?” (9:7). A soldier fights for some leader or country. If Paul is serving at his own expense, this implies that he does not view himself as merely a soldier fighting a battle for God and Christianity. And yet, Paul is fighting some sort of battle. Wine represents culture. If Paul is planting a vineyard without enjoying the fruit of it, this means that he is looking beyond some current cultural payoff. Sheep are social creatures, and a pastor is often compared to a shepherd. Milk comes from females, and Paul has described milk as sustenance for immature Christians. If Paul is not drinking milk from the flock, then Paul is not deriving any emotional sustenance from his followers. In other word, Paul is not doing what is done by the typical pastor, missionary, or founder of some movement. And Paul makes it clear that he is not taking a normal human perspective: “I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I?” (v.8)

Paul then changes his perspective: “Or does not the Law also say these things? For it is written in the Law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.’ God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?” (9:8-11). ‘The law of Moses’ represents a system of law that is drawn from the water of Mercy experiences. Moses was given his name because he was ‘drawn from the water’ (Ex. 2:10), and the Mosaic law emerged from the waters of a tribal society and was given to a people who had been drawn from the waters of Egyptian culture. Paul then mentions the proverb of not muzzling an ox that is treading out the grain. (He also mentions this proverb in 1 Tim. 5:18 when saying that elders who preach and teach should be paid.) Symbolically, grain and bread represent intellectual food. The ox is uncovering food as a result of a repetitive walk, similar to the way that a pastor uncovers intellectual food as a result of the repetitive walk of ministry. This is an example of moral law emerging from the waters of experience. Saying this more simply, the average pastor, priest, or missionary gains most of their personal maturity not from the messages that they are preaching, but rather by learning from the social struggles that they encounter as a byproduct of their ministry. I know from observation that this is a valid statement. Paul then points out that oxen are not an object of care with the God. In other words, if one wants a personal reward from God, then one will not receive it by functioning at the level of oxen threshing out grain.

Paul then recognizes that there is a larger meaning which does have a personal benefit: “is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written”. Those who plow and thresh do so in the hope of receiving a personal reward: “the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher [to thresh] in hope of sharing [the crops].” The word share means ‘to partake of, share in’, and ‘the crops’ is not in the original Greek. Thus, the emphasis is upon the idea of receiving a personal benefit. This is clarified in verse 11 as a principle of sowing-and-reaping: “If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?” The word material things means ‘pertaining to the flesh, carnal’. Paul uses this same word in other passages to talk about the ‘carnal nature’. Thus, Paul is saying that sowing to the spirit to his followers should eventually reap physical, fleshly results for him.

Looking at this from personal experience, for decades I have pursued a dual path of developing mental symmetry as a theory and folowing a personal walk of personal transformation. Meanwhile, physical life slips me by and my body starts getting old. What has gradually emerged as a guiding principle is the idea that sowing to the spirit must eventually lead to physical benefits for me. That is because following mental symmetry has transformed my mind and my spirit, but it has proved to be incapable of transforming my body. Paul describes this tension in Romans 8:23. “And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.” And Paul is not just stating this as some abstract theological doctrine, because he uses the word ‘hope’ four times in Romans 8:24 and twice in 1 Corinthians 9:10.

But when Paul recognizes this general principle, he does not take advantage of it: “If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ” (9:12). Paul starts by recognizing that this principle of sowing-and-reaping applies even more to him than it does to the typical religious leader. But he decides not to ‘use, make use of, deal with, take advantage of’ this authority. Instead, he chooses ‘to place under roof, to cover-over’. In other words, he chooses both not to exercise his rights and to remain silent about not exercising his rights. He does this “so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ”. The word hindrance is used once in the New Testament and means ‘an incision, a cutting, break; met: an interruption, a hindrance’. And gospel means ‘good news’. In other words, Paul does not want to cut off any part of the good news that comes from a fully developed concept of Incarnation. I mentioned earlier that I am very glad that I have not been part of academia, have not started an organization, and have not been financially supported by others. That is because I know that this would have caused me to ‘cut off’ major aspects of the theory of mental symmetry. Similarly, Paul is seeing the bigger picture, and he is foregoing immediate reward in order to preserve the integrity of his message. Cognitively speaking, this feeling will naturally emerge when one develops an integrated Teacher understanding of God and Christianity, because one will be driven by Teacher emotions to expand and preserve the Teacher understanding. This implies that the typical televangelist does not have a complete grasp of the Christian message and does not see any need to preserve the integrity of his message.

Going further, why would Paul keep his decision quiet and not share it with others? I suggest that the answer lies in the principle of righteousness, which Jesus refers to in the Sermon on the Mount. “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you” (6:1-4). Notice that Jesus, like Paul, is talking in economic terms about receiving a reward. Jesus is saying that the person who receives a reward from people will not receive a reward from God. If one wishes to receive a reward from God one must not receive a reward from people. Thus, Paul is keeping his lips shut because he does not want to short-circuit any future reward from God.

Looking at this cognitively, mental networks take ownership of behavior that they motivate, and a mental network grows whenever it motivates behavior. Therefore, if one wants to be guided by the TMN of a concept of God, then one must not be guided by MMNs of personal approval. Going further, if one continues to allow actions to be guided by the TMN of a concept of God, then one will acquire the personal character trait of being righteous.

Paul then focuses upon the religious realm: “Do [you] not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple.” So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel” (9:13). The word sacred means ‘consecrated to deity and therefore holy’, and the noun form of this adjective is used for ‘temple’. However, the word services does not have anything to do with a temple but rather is the normal word for ‘work, trade, do’ which Paul used in verse 6 to describe his day-job. And know means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. ‘You’ is not in the original Greek but rather implied by the tense of the verb. Putting this together, Paul thought in verse 6 that he was working to support his ministry, but he can now see that this work was actually being guided by God. And this work has lead him to intellectual food that is related to God. Turning again to personal experience, when I look back at the personal work that I have done to support my research, I can see that it has not been random. Instead, I see the hand of divine providence guiding me to learn the right knowledge and develop the right skills at the right time. It needs to be emphasized that this will not emerge out of a vacuum. Instead, it emerges out of chapter 7, which advises remaining emotionally disentangled from the world in order to remain mentally integrated, and out of 8:4-6, where Paul is viewing the idols of society from the integrated viewpoint of one God and one Incarnation. One will not experience 1 Corinthians 9 if one skips chapters 7-8, and those chapters themselves build upon earlier chapters.

Paul continues: “and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar”(9:13). Altar refers to ‘the meeting place between God and the true worshiper’. Attend regularly is found once in the New Testament and means ‘to sit near, i.e. attend as a servant’. And share is also found only once in the New Testament and means ‘partake with, divide together with’. Putting this together, Paul is discovering a new way of gaining a personal reward. When one supports one’s ministry as a ‘tentmaker’, and one sees that this normal work is being guided by the hand of divine providence, then one realizes that one is ‘sitting near’ God. And because this attitude of ‘sitting beside’ is being accompanied by Server actions, one is becoming righteous—in daily life. What looks to others like working on a contract basis is actually working alongside God.

Paul concludes, “So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel” (9:14). The word so is a comparison which means ‘in this manner, in this way (fashion)’. Thus, Paul is describing a general principle, as can be seen in the word directed, which means ‘to command with detailed instructions’. Similarly, the word proclaim means to ‘exactly, decisively announce’. This goes beyond preaching some vague message of salvation to proclaiming an integrated, carefully defined message. The phrase ‘get their living’ implies receiving some sort of salary. But the original Greek is literally ‘from out of the gospel to live’, and ‘live’ means to be alive physically or spiritually. Thus, Paul is breaking through to a new form of personal existence. Cognitively speaking, he is being driven by a new set of personal mental networks. I know from personal experience what this means. The focus shifts from studying, applying, and proclaiming some message to living within a new source of internal life. This life is based in everything that was done before, but it goes beyond it. It is as if one has been building a new computer and the computer suddenly turns on and becomes ‘alive’.

When this transition to new life occurs, then one becomes fully determined not to damage this new life by receiving any payment in the present. “But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case; for it would be better for me to die than have any men make my boast an empty one” (9:15). Used was seen back in verse 12 and means to ‘make use of, deal with, take advantage of’. Paul uses a strong negative twice in this verse which means ‘no one, nothing at all’. And Paul says that he is not writing this in order to get support from others. Instead, this has turned into a matter of life-and-death and his boast must not become empty words. Looking again at personal experience, when this new life starts to emerge within, it is so precious and special that preserving and nurturing this life becomes the primary motivation. If this new life became empty, then it would not be worth living.

This same kind of struggle then reasserts itself at a deeper, internal level: “For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me.” (9:16-17). Paul’s initial struggle was between getting a future reward from God versus getting payment from people in the present. He is now fully motivated internally to pursue his ministry. This can be seen by the fact that Paul starts using preach the gospel as a verb. (This verb was used once back in 1:17 and is now used three times in verses 16-18.) But what does Paul have to boast about if he is merely carrying out an obsession? And obsession is an appropriate word, because Paul talks about being ‘pressed hard’ by ‘a compelling need requiring immediate action’. Paul emphasizes this with a woe, the only time that he uses this expression in his letters to the Corinthians. Speaking again from personal experience, mental symmetry has developed within my mind to the extent that attempting to drop this theory would lead to a severe cognitive disconnect.

Looking at this more generally, as far as I can tell, God manipulates people in society through the use of core mental networks. Stated simply, God guides people and groups by giving them obsessions. When God entrust some person or group with a stewardship, he ensures that this stewardship is mentally driven by the obsession of a core mental network. This is discussed in other essays.

But there is still free will in the manner in which one ‘proclaims the good news’. One can do it of one’s own free will, or unwilling (which is ‘willing’ with the prefix ‘not’. The verb translated do is only used twice in 1 Corinthians and means ‘what is done as a regular practice’. Thus, Paul is not just talking about choosing willingly once or twice, but rather developing a habit of acting willingly. This will lead to a reward, which means ‘recompense that appropriately compensates a particular decision’. In contrast, being unwilling will lead to being persuaded of managing a household, which desribes being guided by rational thought to take care of some home. One is still being driven by Teacher understanding to preserve the new life, but this is being done as a job in a somewhat objective manner. Speaking from personal experience, I think that the key question involves personal emotional commitment. Do I view the job as an expression of my personal desires or not? Looking at this in terms of the three stages of personal transformation, the second stage of righteousness requires following a TMN of God rather than human MMNs. The third stage of rebirth, in contrast, requires actively including MMNs of personal identity rather than being passively driven by a TMN of God. One might think that this would be easy, but I have learned that it is not. Instead, one must continually ask oneself ‘What do I really want?’

Paul then mentions the reward in verse 18: “What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel” (9:18). More literally, the reward is preaching-the-gospel without charge, which means ‘without expense, for which nothing has to be paid’.

Huh?

For years I have wondered how not getting paid could be a reward, and I have never heard anyone talk about this ‘reward’. However, Paul’s next phrase, combined with an understanding of incarnational economics, provides us with an answer. Paul says, more literally, that his purpose is ‘to place the good news to or into not fully using up my authority in the realm of the gospel’. In other words, Paul has acquired authority from his good news. He could use up this authority by starting a social movement, setting up an organization, or getting paid. But he is trying to set up the good news in a way that does not use up this authority. Why? Because he wants to receive a larger payment of life in the future. This is described in detail in the second half of 2 Corinthians.

There is another reason for offering the message without charge. Paul has talked in previous chapters about following a deeper bottom line than money. How can one present such a message in a manner that seeks money? I have avoided monetizing my website for similar reasons.

This does not mean that Paul is doing no marketing. Instead, he is marketing the message in a manner that is consistent with the structure of the message. Paul talked earlier about building upon the foundation of incarnation, and an apostle builds upon the message of incarnation in a major way. Incarnation is the word made flesh. Therefore, if one wishes to build upon the message of incarnation, then one must also combine words and flesh. For instance, I have found when studying the mind that it is only possible to continue making theoretical progress if one consistently applies the knowledge that one already has. One will stop progressing if one limits oneself to the theoretical realm of words. Instead, one must always combine the words of theory with the flesh of application.

Science recognizes this principle because the student of science learns the abstract language of mathematics and uses mathematics as a tool to solve practical problems. The words of math are being combined with the actions of solving problems. But science and technology can only save the physical world, while incarnation saves souls. Therefore, if one wishes to extend the message of incarnation then one must also include personal identity. Paul emphasized this personal aspect to the message of rebirth in earlier chapters.

Summarizing, if one wishes to continue making progress when studying the natural world, then one must add the Server actions of application to the Teacher words of mathematics. But if one wishes to continue making progress when studying the mind, then one must add Server actions of personal application to the Teacher words of theology, and in addition, use these words to transform the MMNs of personal identity. And transforming personal identity means following incarnational economics.

In other words, one cannot simply choose to build upon the message of incarnation by studying words and applying these words and actions. Instead, one needs help from God, both internally from a concept of God and externally through the hand of Providence. And if one wishes to receive help from God, then one must have the right to ask for a reward from God, which means choosing not to receive a reward from people.

Going further, if one wishes to fulfill the ministry of an apostle, then one must extend the message of incarnation in a major way, and one will only receive enough grace to do this if one seeks treasure from God in a major way. That is why Paul regarded offering the gospel without charge as a reward. He needed all the grace from God that he could get, so that his personal transformation could keep up with the message with which he had been entrusted. Paul wanted to participate personally in the message that he was sharing with others: “I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it” (9:23). But Paul also did not want to end up sharing a message with others and then be personally disqualified from experiencing the benefits of this message: “I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified” (9:27).

Translating the Message of Rebirth 9:19-27

Paul describes his general strategy in verse 19: “For though I am free from all [men], I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.” The NASB adds the word ‘men’, giving the impression that Paul is talking about winning more people. But the language is actually impersonal. Paul is free from ‘each part of a totality’, but he is becoming a slave of ‘each part of a totality’ in order to ‘exchange what is mediocre for the better’. This language indicates that one is dealing with an integrated concept of incarnation that goes far beyond the person of Jesus and ‘asking Jesus in your heart’ The word enslave ‘stresses the results (effects) of enslavement’, which tells us that Paul is not pursuing religious self-denial but rather wants the result of acting as a slave. I have been doing something similar at a theoretical level. Whenever I examine some new field, I automatically move to the bottom of the heap with others telling me how I should act and think. I accept this position in order to exchange my current understanding for something better.

Paul describes what it means to become a slave in order to expand the message of incarnation: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel” (9:20-23). Notice that Paul is not just translating the message of incarnation into language that can be understood by various groups. Instead, Paul is actually embodying the message of incarnation in order to communicate more effectively with these groups. To the Jews he is as a Jew, to those under the law he is as under the law, to those without law he is as without law, to the weak he is weak.

Notice also that Paul is not acting as a social chameleon, because he is only becoming like these groups. Looking more specifically at the categories that Paul mentions, the Jew was the equivalent of today’s fundamentalist religious believer, because both hold on to accurate content for inadequate reasons. Therefore, when Paul says that he becomes like a Jew he does not add any further explanation. He is like a Jew because he holds on to the same content, but he is not a Jew because his internal identity and understanding are different than that of the typical Jew.

In contrast, when saying that he is like those under the law, Paul adds that he himself is not guided by a legalistic mindset. Similarly, I have found that it is possible to describe Christianity using the legalistic language of technical thought, but the path of Christian transformation extends far beyond submitting to the formalism of precise statements and correct procedures.

When saying that he is like those without law, Paul clarifies that he is still guided by the law of Christ even when not being guided by the law of God. Translating this into cognitive terms, the person who is without law lacks an understanding of universal moral law Thus, one cannot interact with such an individual using the language of an integrated understanding of the character of God. But one can still be guided by universal principles of cause-and-effect that reflect the law of Christ.

Finally, when addressing the weak, Paul does not use the word ‘like’ but says that he actually becomes weak. In other words, humility and vulnerability are natural characteristics of a path of transformation. Using the symbolic language of the book of Revelation, incarnation is the Lamb of God. And the name Paul means ‘small’

Paul’s purpose is both to extend the message of rebirth and to be able to participate personally in this message: “I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it” (9:23). The word fellow partaker is used once in Corinthians and means ‘a close companion (joint-sharer)’. This implies that Paul is starting to view ‘the gospel’ as an independent living entity within his mind with whom he is a close partner. The gospel started as a message, it turned into a verb, and it is now becoming treated as a close companion. One might think that this is a trivial distinction but something similar happens cognitively when a scientist talks about Nature doing this or doing that. What is happening cognitively is that theories are turning into Platonic forms and these Platonic forms are starting to behave as intelligent agents. Paul will talk about spirituality in chapter 10, and he will also mention demons for the first time, using the word four times in 10:20-21. This implies a transition into a more explicitly spiritual kind of Christianity.

Paul finishes chapter 9 by saying that he is not just being driven by altruistic motives to extend the message of incarnation. Instead, he is also being guided by the selfish goal of seeking a lasting personal reward: “Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable” (9:24,25). The runner who is training for a race controls himself in order to win a prize. Paul is also controlling himself in order to win a prize—a lasting prize.

Summarizing, Paul is being driven by an obsession to share the message of rebirth. But if Paul’s personal transformation can keep up with his message, then he will receive a personal reward. Using an analogy, Paul has been forcibly enrolled in an advanced school of character development. Paul could sit through the classes without getting personally involved, but he would experience no personal benefit. But if Paul chooses to become personally involved in the classes, then he will receive a personal benefit from studying in this advanced school.

Paul is determined that he will receive a personal benefit from his forced enrollment: “Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified” (9:26,27). We saw earlier that the ‘spirit’ of applied understanding struggles with the ‘flesh’ of embodied physical sensation. Paul makes it clear that he places restrictions upon his physical body in order to ensure that he is applying understanding. But his goal is not to deny self, but rather to gain a reward from willingly being an apostle.

One can also notice a cognitive progression from verse 19. In verse 19 Paul was making himself a slave. Here he is leading his body as a slave while he himself is running a race and fighting a boxing match. This tells us that Paul’s personal identity has shifted. Going further, the term disqualified may give the idea of being excluded on some technicality, but it really means ‘failing to pass the test, unapproved, counterfeit’. In other words, Paul does not want to be rejected as a fake.

Turning now to the big picture, the other biblical books describe a major transition happening at about this time which I refer to as the theoretical return of Jesus, followed by what I call spiritual technology. Paul does not explicitly refer to this, but he will make several statements in chapter 10 which talk about things now being different in some major way. The consequences of rejecting God will become more severe, implying a new intensity of spiritual repercussions. And as was mentioned, Paul will refer to demons as entities with actual powers. Finally, Paul will open the chapter by talking about the children of Israel following God into the wilderness. The Exodus describes God saving the Israelites from the world system of Egypt through an outpouring of spiritual power. Similarly, I suggest that the theoretical return of Jesus will also save a group of believers from the current world system through an outpouring of spiritual power. (This correspondence is discussed in another essay.)

Paul’s illustrations at the end of chapter 9 make sense when interpreted from this perspective. He said in verse 24 that many are running in a race but only one will win the prize. The ways of God are typically viewed as inscrutable and unalterable. But I have become convinced that this is not the case. Instead, God’s plans take the form of general equations that can be expressed in various specific ways. The standard evangelical view is that Jesus is about to return in a Rapture, which will then be followed by the Great Tribulation. I find this interpretation personally abhorrent and Scripturally unsound. It is not proper for Christians to view the current unraveling of Western Civilization as a sign that they are about to be taken up to heaven where they will watch with schadenfreude as God rains death and destruction upon the earth. Such a plan reflects the character of Satan more than the character of God. (Satan means adversary, and a rapture followed by a Great Tribulation is adversarial.) But if no one comes up with a better alternative, then God might be forced to express his divine plan in such a Satanic manner. However, coming up with a better alternative is not trivial. Instead, it means developing this alternative and embodying it by walking the path of 1 Corinthians 1-9. Saying this more personally, one of my primary motivations over the years has been to explore if there is a better alternative to the Rapture and Great Tribulation. This has turned my research into a race with only one winner. The one winner is the option which God eventually chooses. The Second Coming could happen in several ways, but God will eventually choose to implement one of these ways. Using the language of physics, the quantum wave function will eventually collapse into a single event. As Paul says in verse 24, “Run in such a way that you may lay hold of, seize the prize.”

Moving on, if God is to use a person to alter the course of society in a redemptive manner, then such a person must be guided by internal structure that is independent of societial pressure. This is a significant cognitive principle. Paul describes this in verse 25. One competes, which means ‘to contend for a prize, struggle’, by exercising self-control, which actually means ‘exercising dominion, from within’. Going further, the goal is to receive an indestructible, imperishable, incorruptible crown. Speaking from personal experience, I have been seeking an alternative that is more whole, more lasting, and full of intrinsic goodness, guided by the understanding of mental wholeness that I have acquired from mental symmetry. As we have been seeing in these essays, the Bible really does seem to be describing such an alternative. This is significant, because it means that the God of the Bible-believing Christian does not have to be a vindictive, neo-conservative monster.

This realization gives direction to one’s running. As verse 26 says, the path is no longer without aim, which means ‘not apparent because not clearly seen’. Instead, one can start to see a better alternative. One then recognizes that there is spiritual opposition. One is not just ‘beating the air’ of Teacher theory. Instead, one is in a fistfight. Looking at this symbolically, the hands represent Perceiver and Server thought, because one uses the hands to manipulate objects in a detailed manner. Thus, what may appear to others as using technical thought to struggle with Teacher thought is actually using rational thought to fistfight spiritual powers. Using another Biblical analogy, one feels like Jacob, wrestling with angels in order to receive an inheritance.

This means that one can no longer think in purely materialistic terms. Paul describes this in verse 27 as striking under the eye the physical body. The eyes represent Perceiver thought analyzing Mercy experiences, because one uses the eyes to scan the environment in order to build up a mental map. Thus, ‘striking under the eye of the physical body’ would mean stopping Perceiver thought from analyzing the environment from a purely materialistic perspective. One does this because one can only win over non-physical powers if one can lead as a captive one’s physical body. This does not mean that the physical body is evil, but rather than the body is subject to the mind instead of the mind being ruled by the body.

The interpretation of the last paragraphs may sound farfetched, but I am interpreting all of the symbols the same way that they have been interpreted in all of the other essays, and I am also describing what I am personally experiencing. As Paul concludes in verse 27, I do not want to write many essays and then personally fail the test.

Living in the Kingdom 10:1-14

Before we look at chapter 10 we need to determine how the stories in this chapter should be interpreted. Should they be interpreted literally as referring to the Israelites leaving Egypt, cognitively as leaving a mindset of the world, or prophetically as referring to some future time. I suggest that all three viewpoints are valid—and related. The real Israelites were leaving a strongly materialistic mindset when they left Egypt, and they entered a new realm that was both natural and supernatural. The historical Moses drew the Israelites out of the experientially focused land of Egypt (the Egyptian mindset and religious were oriented heavily in current physical reality) as well as their Mercy-based mindset of tribalism. Something similar happens cognitively when one leaves childish MMNs guided by a mindset of Moses that is drawn from the water of Mercy experiences. Absolute truth is drawn from the water of Mercy status and it leads the childish mind out of its basis in concrete experiences. Prophetically speaking, something similar will also happen in the future, because spiritual technology will be drawn from the water of normal technology and will lead current society out of its materialistic science based in empirical data. Paul makes it clear that one must also include the third interpretation because he says in verse 11 that people are now living in a new age, and that it is important to learn lessons from the past: “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” More literally, ‘the end purpose of the ages has arrived’.

We will take primarily the prophetic perspective. Paul begins by referring to those who followed God in the past, implying that he is talking about living in some new era: “For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (10:1-2). Paul mentions the word cloud twice, and this is the only time that he uses this word in his letters to the Corinthians. The word ‘cloud’ is found 25 times in the New Testament, seven times in the Gospel accounts of the transfiguration and seven times in references to the Second Coming. Thus, it is reasonable to view ‘under the cloud’ as a reference to Incarnation appearing in some sort of glorified manner. And this is referred to in the past, as something that happened to ‘our fathers’. Similarly, ‘passing through the sea’, a symbol of leaving the world system of Egypt, is also described as having happened in the past. This idea of viewing the cloud and the sea as a major societal transition is backed up by verse 2, which says that “all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”. As the name Moses illustrates, some major transition has happened which has drawn people out of the waters of Mercy experience.

Continuing with verses 3-4, “And all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.” The adjective spiritual occurs 26 times in the New Testament, but this is the only reference to spiritual food, spiritual drink, or a spiritual rock. Spiritual food and drink imply that the human realm of facts and experiences has become spiritually supercharged, consistent with the idea of spiritual technology. (The symbolism of food and drink are discussed in the video on Revelation.) This spiritual drink is ‘out from a spiritual rock that is following’. Cognitively speaking, this means that spiritual Mercy experiences are flowing from Perceiver facts about the spiritual realm, and these spiritual Mercy experiences are being followed by more Perceiver truth. This describes a form of spirituality that is inherently connected with truth and morality. But eating spiritual food and drinking spiritual drink also suggests an intermediate form of growth. On the one hand, the focus is upon objective food and drink rather than deeper issues of life, but on the other hand this objective nourishment is being internalized, leading to spiritual food and drink. Saying this another way, I have suggested in other essays that spiritual technology will start with technology being the noun and spiritual the adjective. Spirituality will initially be something extra that is bolted on to existing technology. The spiritual component will then grow until it becomes the dominant feature. Finally, this rock is described as ‘the Christ’, which refers to the abstract side of incarnation. This is all consistent with the idea of a theoretical return of Jesus being followed by spiritual technology.

Verses 1-4 emphasize that this transition happened to everyone, because the same word all is used five times in four verses. I have speculated in other essays that this new spiritual power will initially be offered to everyone, and that many will then shrink back from using this power because of the moral implications. 1 Corinthians 10 seems to support this interpretation, because it opens by saying that everyone goes through the same starting point but then many are destroyed along the way. Paul says this in verse 5: “Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.” The word laid low is found once in the New Testament and means to ‘strew or spread over’. A wilderness is literally ‘an uncultivated, unpopulated place’. In other words, people are being brought out to some place where there is no human civilization and they are unable to stay in one piece. One can find a partial example in what is called infoglut. Infloglut is the sense of personal fragmentation that results from being immersed in technical information. If this happens with the spread of normal technology, one can imagine that something stronger but more potent would happen with spiritual technology.

The general principle is that God is not judging people by zapping them from heaven through some Great Tribulation. Instead, God is blessing everyone and people are judging themselves by being unable to handle the blessing of God. This attitude is backed up by the verb well-pleased, which means ‘to think well of, to be well-pleased’. Thus, God is not fixating upon evil but rather thinking about goodness and noticing where it is absent.

Paul says that one should learn from these individuals so that one is not driven by immature MMNs the way that they were: “Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved” (10:6). An example means ‘a model forged by repetition’. This means that one can learn from the past because the present will follow the pattern that was established in the past. More literally ‘these things have become patterns to us’. Therefore, one is now looking at the past from a new analogical perspective. The present has become different than the past, but it is still similar. This is like the way that technology has transformed modern society but one can still learn general principles from pre-technological society. The primary learning should be in the area of motivation and mental networks. One should not be cravers of evil, which means ‘inwardly foul or rotten and refers to generic badness’, according to the manner in which they showed focused passion. This means that the primary problem of spiritual technology will be emotional fixation. In a similar manner, the primary feature of addiction is not that one is being driven by some desire, but rather that one is emotionally fixating upon some specific drug, object, or experience in an isolated manner that is disconnected from anything else. The fixations that emerge under spiritual technology will function cognitively like the addictions of the present. This is consistent with the verb ‘scattered on the ground’ used in verse 5. God is a universal being who looks for wholeness and integration. It appears that the temptation for spiritual technology will be to fragment and fixate.

Verse 7 continues, “Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play’” (10:7). An idolater is ‘a server (worshipper) of an image (an idol)’. The word play is used once in the New Testament and means ‘to play as a child’. This describes a society of leisure. People are acquiring their core mental networks from the environment in an idolatrous fashion, personal development is limited to secondary matters of food and drink, and subjective experiences are being treated in a childish, playful manner that avoids facing any real issues. This describes much of Western society. Science and technology have removed most physical problems. Therefore, most people spend most of their time living comfortable lives in comfortable houses driving comfortable cars to comfortable jobs while relaxing with comfortable entertainment in comfortable easy chairs. When everything is so comfortable, then one can avoid dealing with major issues and turn life into play. Deep down, one becomes very shallow. If current society is already driven by idolatrous fun, one can imagine that spiritual technology would initially be viewed as a new-and-improved version of high-tech fun, a better form of escapist virtual reality.

This fun will be followed by immorality. “Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day” (10:8). This could refer to physical immorality, or more generically to a lack of deep personal commitment. This too is an aspect of deep down being very shallow. The verb immorality is used twice in this verse in the original Greek and is derived from a verb that means ‘to sell off’. Thus, the core feature of immorality is to sell off personal identity in order to gain peripheral wealth. This would be a major temptation if spiritual technology started by adding spirituality to technology. The spiritual realm interacts with the mind through mental networks, and the mind is built upon core mental networks. Thus, acquiring objective technology in order to play around with core mental networks is, by definition, a form of immorality. If pornography has helped to drive innovation with existing technology and the internet, one can imagine that many would use spiritual technology to enhance pornography. The verb fell means ‘fall, fall under, fall prostrate’, which implies being dragged down in an addictive manner. Verse 23 also implies that this will happen to many. And spiritually enhanced pornography would probably be only one version of this general immorality.

But why would God lead society through such a perverse path? Because there is no alternative. The goal is for people to approach God and society in an integrated manner that combines rational thought with emotional depth. God cannot start with emotional depth and then add rational thought because religion refuses to add rational thought to emotional depth. Instead, religion uses irrational mysticism to approach God and insists that the character of God is ultimately incomprehensible to human rational thought. I do not make this statement lightly. Many theologians believe that one can use some rational thought to learn some things about God, but every religion and every theologian that I have encountered so far believes that God is ultimately incomprehensible. In a similar manner, it has become taboo in postmodern society to use rational thought to analyze personal feelings and tastes. Given this kind of emotional environment, the only alternative is for God to start with rational science and technology and then add spirituality. That alternative will lead through obsessive fun and supercharged pornography. And many will fall. This does not mean that it is wrong to apply spirituality to the realm of physical pleasure. On the contrary, 2 Corinthians 5 appears to be talking about using spiritual technology to enhance the physical body. However, this must happen within a mindset that is deeply aware of long-term personal consequences. One is not just having some fun for the next few hours or days. Instead, 2 Corinthians 5:10 makes it clear that one will be building for eternity. Using an analogy, electric power makes the modern world possible. But electric power must be treated with great care or else one will end up physically dead. Similarly, spiritual power will make possible a future world of incredible blessing. But this spiritual power will have to be treated with great care or else people will end up spiritually dead.

One can see what it means to fall by looking at the ‘free love’ of the 1960s and 70s. The 1950s were a time of material prosperity and reasonably wholesome family life. In other words, core mental networks were relatively healthy. Free love took advantage of this internal stability by filling the mind with fragmented mental networks of hedonism. It was possible to enjoy this experimentation as long as core mental networks remained intact. But eventually the onslaught of fragmented mental networks from the physical body started to threaten the integrity of core mental networks. As a result, the average person today feels fragmented inside and is searching for stability and solid identity.

Saying this more technically, there are two kinds of emotion. Normal emotion comes from specific experiences, which can feel good or bad. Hyper-emotion comes from mental networks, which generate positive emotions when experiencing input that is consistent with their structure and negative emotion when experiencing inconsistent input. A mental network that continues to receive inconsistent input will start to fall apart and generate the hyper-pain of fragmentation. Normal pain occurs immediately, while hyper-pain occurs after a while, because it takes time for a mental network to fall apart. This contrast can be seen in culture shock. Initially, it feels good to visit a new country, while eventually the strangeness of the new culture will threatens the integrity of mental networks, leading to feelings of culture shock. The motto of free love was ‘If it feels good, do it’. But people did not realize that seeking hedonism in a fragmented manner will threaten the integrity of core mental networks. Thus, pleasure was followed by hyper-pain. Summarizing, everyone in the 1950s implicitly knew who they were. This made it possible for people in the 1960s and 70s to play around with personal identity. The final result is that people no longer know who they are but rather are searching for an identity.

Notice how the second temptation follows naturally from the first temptation. When everything is treated as entertainment, then deep issues such as love and sex will naturally be regarded as sources of entertainment, because entertainment likes to feel good, and love and sex feel good. But these cannot be treated as mere fun because sex imposes strong mental networks upon the mind. Therefore, treating sex as mere entertainment will fragment the core of the mind. Applying this to a future period of spiritual technology, this will start with a lot of spiritual fun, this fun will extend to increasingly emotional issues, and people will eventually find their minds falling apart as a result of the various forms of immorality.

The third temptation is to test incarnation. “Nor let us try the Lord, and some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents” (10:9). Try means ‘to test thoroughly, tempt’ and is an intensified form of the verb ‘tempt’. What is being thoroughly tempted is ‘the Christ’. The goal of temptation is to test something so that it fails. (In contrast, the purpose of testing is for something to survive intact.) The end result is to be destroyed by serpents. Destroy means ‘to destroy, destroy utterly’. The relationship between a serpent and mysticism is discussed in another essay. Summarizing, there is a biblical connection between the serpent and mysticism because the serpent tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden using words of mysticism: Ignore the content spoken by God, your eyes will be opened, you will be one with God, and your sense of knowing will transcend categories of good and evil. There is also a cognitive connection between a serpent and mysticism. Teacher thought interprets both general theories and visual lines. The simplest way to form a concept of God is through the overgeneralization of mysticism. Similarly, the simplest visual shape is a line, and a snake is visually a line. Therefore, a snake visually symbolizes the thinking of mysticism. (This cognitive interpretation of the shape of a snake is backed up by psychological studies which show that there is something cognitively natural about a fear of snakes.)

Applying this to current society, the physical environment has been transformed by the universal laws of nature expressed through the incarnation of technology. Because most external problems have been eliminated, internal content and structure are no longer required. Saying this more simply, technology has made the physical world idiot-proof, making it possible for people to remain childish idiots. When mental content is lacking, then the mind will naturally ‘discover’ mysticism. That is because facts limit overgeneralization, while an absence of knowledge makes overgeneralization possible. Something similar, but much more potent, would happen with spiritual technology. Eventually, all of the spiritual experimentation would break down the walls of factual content and rational thought to the point where people would start to break through to spiritually supercharged mysticism. In other words, adding spirituality to technology would eventually reach the mysticism that already exists at the core of every religion. Christianity teaches that God and humanity interact indirectly through the rational technical thinking of incarnation. Mysticism forges a direct, emotional path between God and personal identity which short-circuits incarnation. Thus, spiritual technology would eventually lead to a form of mysticism that would drive worshippers to severely tempt incarnation. And I am not just talking about people abandoning Christian theology for mystical experience as is happening today. Instead, I am talking about the entire superstructure of science and technology starting to collapse. The personal result would be utter destruction, because modern society—and the human mind—cannot exist without the rational thinking of incarnation. The collapse of Soviet communism provides a partial example. Even now, the Russian landscape is littered with rotting relics of former empire.

This will be following by grumbling. “Nor grumble, as some of them grumbled, and were destroyed by the destroyer” (10:10). Grumble means ‘to show smoldering discontent’. ‘Destroyed’ is the same verb seen in the previous verse, but destroyer is only found once in the New Testament and means ‘a destroyer’. This implies that people will see the terrible things that are happening, grumble about all the problems, and this grumbling will turn into a universal theory in Teacher thought, this theory will acquire the independent life of a TMN, and this TMN will drive people to destroy. One can see this in the fundamentalist Christian who attacks ‘secular humanism’. For instance, one can see this kind of attitude in the Great Controversy by Ellen White. And one can also see this in the post-modern mindset which attacks science and technology as the source of evil and suffering. If the sequence described in the previous paragraphs took place, then many would follow this path. But what would be left if one turned upon the building blocks that should lead to mental and spiritual wholeness and declared them to be evil? Nothing would remain.

One can see the cognitive source of this grumbling in the proverbial ‘first world problem’, in which one complains about trivial matters because of the absence of more pressing concerns. When one lives in an environment of ease and leisure, then there is no need to develop deep mental networks. Instead, one will be mentally ruled by shallow childish MMNs, causing a person to be troubled deeply for brief moments about trivial matters. This will lead in the end to destruction. First, those who lack internal depth will not have the wisdom that is required to maintain a physical paradise, leading to the decay of common sense. Second, complaints about trivial matters will become all-consuming, causing common sense to be replaced with ignorance. Thus, common sense will not just be forgotten, but it will be both forgotten and forcibly replaced by ignorance. And this will be a belligerent ignorance which attacks all of the modern conveniences that make it possible to remain ignorant.

That brings us to verse 11, which has been quoted before: “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (10:11). This is usually interpreted to mean that we in the present are supposed to learn from the ‘rebellious Jews of the Old Testament’, and there is some truth to this interpretation. However, society currently violates these rules in such major ways that this passage is probably meant primarily for a future civilization that is supposed to learn from our mistakes.

Looking at this verse more closely, I mentioned earlier that example means ‘a model forged by repetition’. Happened combines ‘together with’ and ‘walk’. This describes a pattern emerging as a result of certain processes being repeated. In the same way that science looks for repeated natural processes, so Paul is saying that one can learn moral principles by looking for repeated cognitive processes. These processes happened to people in the past, but they are being written for our instruction, which means ‘to place the mind, i.e. reasoning with someone by warning (admonishing) them’. Thus, one is supposed to use rational thought to learn lessons, which is consistent with my suggestion that God is following a general plan of combining rational thought with emotional intensity. Finally, end means ‘consummation (the end-goal, purpose)’, while come means ‘come down, either from high land to lower... or from the high seas to the coast’ or ‘come down (descend) by inheritance to an heir’. Both of these meanings would apply to a future theoretical return of Jesus followed by spiritual technology. On the one hand, Christ will have returned from heaven to earth in some fashion, similar to the way in which science has returned to concrete reality through technology. On the other hand, followers of Christ would start to receive their inheritance, similar to the way that technology brings benefits to those who have learned to think scientifically.

This is followed by a warning: “Therefore let him who thinks he stand take heed that he does not fall” (10:12). Thinks means ‘to have an opinion’. Take heed means ‘to see, be observant’, and fall is the same verb used in verse 8 which means ‘fall, fall under, fall prostrate’. In other words, spiritual technology would expose people to powerful forces and one would need more than just self-confidence to remain standing.

Applying this to current society, the United States for many decades has epitomized a society transformed by the benefits of science and technology. And most Americans are also convinced that America is The Best Place on Earth. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent to the rest of the world that those who think that they stand are in the process of falling. Self-confidence has essentially become the primary religion of American society: ‘You can do anything if you believe in yourself’. We are now seeing that such self-confidence is not enough.

This is followed by a verse that is often quoted—out of context: “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it” (10:13). I suggest that this verse is true—for a mindset that is guided by God and incarnation. The reason for this is simple. How can God lead a person (or group) if that person has no concept of a God who leads? And how can God lead a person out of temptation if that person is emotionally convinced that following temptation is more personally rewarding than following God?

This verse becomes especially poignant if one places it within the context of our discussion, which is examining spiritual temptation within a future society that has experienced a major unveiling of God and Incarnation. Temptation here means tempting and not testing. And overtaken means ‘actively lay hold of to take or receive’. Within the context, this describes being attacked by some potent, malignant, spiritual force. Common to man is a single word that means ‘belonging to human beings’. In other words, the new spiritual temptations might look new and strange, but they are merely variations of temptations that used to be experienced by humans in the past. In the same way that modern technology does not change the nature of human temptation but rather provides new expressions for existing temptations, so spiritual technology would not introduce any new temptations, but rather express existing temptations in new ways. Saying this from a positive perspective, the same cognitive principles that used to apply will continue to apply. One can see this illustrated by these essays, because we are using the same theory of cognition to analyze the past, the present, and the future.

The next phrase is more literally ‘the God is persuaded’. Thus, one needs to respond to temptation by using rational thought guided by the TMN of an integrated concept of God. One needs to view the situation from the perspective of rational Teacher thought, and not from the perspective of powerful Mercy experiences. The new spiritual experiences may feel magical, but they will still be subject to rational Teacher thought. Allow in the next phrase ‘implies misgiving that goes with the allowing’ and able means ‘to be able, to have power’. This means that the possibility for failure remains present. Looking at this personally, I have repeatedly found that God gives me just enough grace in tempting situations to enable my free will. I seldom feel abandoned, and I seldom find myself without any struggle. Instead, I consistently find that the situation is being optimized to maximize my free will, forcing me to choose how I will respond.

The next phrase describes the nature of this choice. Provide means ‘make, manufacture, construct’. And way of escape means ‘moving out from and to the outcome’. Thus, what is being provided is not a solution but rather a path towards a solution. This path will make it possible to endure, which means ‘to bear by being under, to endure’. Looking again at personal experience, God seldom seems to give me the choice of avoiding troubling situations. Instead, I find that I get enough grace to stick with the situation and walk the path that is required to solve the underlying problem. This is one reason why I find the idea of a Rapture troubling. In simple terms, God does not work that way. God seldom seems to evacuate immature humans out of trouble—even when these immature humans proclaim with great self-confidence that God will rescue them. However, I have observed that God will give growing Christians the power to make it through trouble. This does not mean that temptation is unavoidable. Jesus said in the Lord’s Prayer that one should ask God not to be led into temptation. But such a prayer needs to be prefaced by 1) recognizing that God lives in the heaven of Teacher thought and that one must treat the Teacher name of God as holy, and then 2) behaving on earth in a righteous manner that reflects how God does things in heaven. Saying this another way, one can go through the third stage of personal rebirth if one goes through the first stage of constructing a concept of God and the second stage of following God in righteousness.

Science and technology provide a partial illustration of this process. When society experiences a problem, then we have learned that we can turn to science to find a way out of the problem. Science is able to provide a way out because it knows the ways of God that have been revealed through how the universe works. But a scientific solution seldom solves the problem instantly. Instead it reveals processes that can be used and paths that can be followed which will eventually solve the problem. And people still have to choose to apply these potential solutions.

Paul concludes in verse 14: “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.” Therefore is a strong term only used twice in the New Testament which means ‘it emphatically follows that’. And idolatry means ‘service (worship) of an image’. Idolatry may ultimately have harmful effects today, but people who serve isolated physical goals can still achieve some success in the short term. However, the results of serving idols would be devastating with spiritual technology. One can gain a partial understanding of why this would be the case by looking at the history of Pentecostalism. Spiritual power does not lead automatically to personal maturity. Instead, it appears the spiritual realm supercharges existing mental networks, which means that spiritual power amplifies existing corruption. This would be like giving sports cars to normal drivers. The power of a sports car will magnify the mistakes that are made by an amateur driver, and it is common for drivers to wreck their expensive sports cars right after they have bought them. Similarly, corrupt people with spiritual power would fail spectacularly and do major damage to self and others. Imagine a society filled with televangelists—with real spiritual power. In the long term, they would all self-destruct. But in the short term, many people and institutions would get damaged by the flailing. The command to ‘flee from idolatry’ implies that idolatry will be prevalent, it will be obvious, and it will be possible to flee from it.

Moving Forward under Incarnation 10:15-31

Paul complained at the beginning of Chapter 3 that he ‘could not speak to you as to spiritual men’, but rather had to treat his audience as ‘infants in Christ’. In contrast, Paul says in verse 15 that “I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say.” Again, this implies that Paul is referring to a new society that is more capable of rational thought than the individuals of chapter 3. And he is also referring to those who are capable of handling spiritual power.

The word wise means ‘visceral (personal) opinion... inner outlook (mind-set, insight) that regulates outward behavior’. This is based in rational thought but goes beyond mere intellectual knowledge. Instead, it describes inner character that guides a person at a gut level. using cognitive language, this relates to core mental networks. Notice the contrast: The idol worshiper serves core mental networks that are based in specific objects, people, and experiences from the external world. The wise person serves core mental networks that are based in internal character understanding. This relates to the idea that spiritual power would amplify existing core mental networks. Judge means ‘to pick out (choose) by separating’. This describes using abstract technical thought to define words and concepts more carefully. The word ‘you’ is explicitly in the original Greek. Thus, Paul is telling the wise to judge for themselves what he says. Each person needs to personally use technical thought guided by words. Accepting rational thought indirectly from ‘the experts’ would not be enough. Instead, each individual will need to build an internal understanding that is strong enough to stand in the middle of this spiritual power.

Paul says that one should view the situation from the larger perspective of incarnation being reborn: “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ?” A cup often refers to an emotional situation that one is experiencing or is about to experience. For instance, Jesus prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me” (Matt. 26:39). Zechariah said that God will “make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around” (Zech. 12:2). Isaiah 51:17 says “Arise, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the Lord’s hand the cup of his anger.” And Revelation 18:6 says, “Pay her back even as she has paid, and give back to her double according to her deeds; in the cup which she has mixed, mix twice as much for her.”

Bless means ‘to speak (reason) which confers benefit’. It adds the prefix ‘good’ to the word ‘logos’, and we have been interpreting logos as the TMN that lies behind some technical specialization. The phrase is literally, ‘the cup of the blessing that we bless’. This implies that people are personally experiencing the results of following a rational understanding of incarnation. In a similar manner, one could describe the gadgets of one’s household as a cup of scientific blessing. This is consistent with the idea of a theoretical return of Jesus leading to spiritual technology. Paul emphasizes that this cup of blessing is a fellowship in the blood of the Christ. Christ represents the abstract, divine side of of incarnation, and blood refers to personal identity. Thus, in the same way that modern household gadgets force the average person to rethink their view of science and technology, so the personal experience of spiritual technology would force everyone to rethink their concept of incarnation. Saying this theologically, Jesus-the-man died on a physical cross 2000 years ago. But Hebrews clearly describes the death of Christ as something that will happen in the future. Looking at this another way, a finite human being can be killed in a single act. Killing a universal technical system takes millennia, as illustrated by how long it took the concept of the Roman empire to die within the minds of medieval Europeans. Paul is saying that one should view this spiritual chaos as one cosmic civilization being replaced by another. Notice the contrast between finite and universal. Each finite individual is experiencing a cup of blessing. But these individual cups combine to participate in the transformation of a universal concept of incarnation.

One can see a similar relationship in the next phrase: “Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the blood of Christ?” (10:16). Notice that the bread is not being eaten whole but rather broken into pieces. In other words, the intellectual food of each wise individual should be viewed as a fragment of the integrated knowledge of incarnation. In the same way that each current scientist adds to the corporate body of knowledge, so the intellectual development of each individual is a fellowship in the body of the Christ. And Paul emphasizes that there is a single integrated body of knowledge held together by incarnation: “Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (10:17). This relates to the idea of standing, falling, and serving idols. Personal self-confidence would be insufficient to handle the spiritual power. Similarly, one flees idolatry because focusing upon specific objects and experiences would be destructive. The solution would be to hold on internally to an integrated concept of incarnation developed in cooperation with others.

One can rephrase Paul’s words using scientific language: Don’t you know that present society is experiencing the benefits of the rebirth of technical thought, which began with a scientific revolution that taught us about the universal laws of nature, and was followed by the societal rebirth of the industrial and consumer revolutions? Don’t you know that everything you learn is an expression of the universal laws of nature? Since there is only one set of natural laws, all specializations belong together, because they are all partaking of a single set of natural laws.

Paul then mentions the physical nation of Israel: “Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?” More literally, “Consider Israel according to the flesh, are not those who eat the official sacrifices sharers in the meeting place between God and worshipers?” ‘Sharer’ is related to the word ‘fellowship’ that was used twice in verse 16. This is the only time that Israel is mentioned in 1 Corinthians, and the reference is cognitively interesting. Paul is saying three things: First, he focuses upon the Server actions of Israel, Israel according to the flesh. Second, he talks about eating official sacrifices, which implies learning from situations of rebirth. Third, he says that this learning from rebirth is actually a relationship with God. If one examines the history of Israel, one notices that Jews as a group have repeatedly gone through situations of ethnic rebirth, in which the existence of the Jewish people was threatened and then became reborn. Because of these repeated ‘sacrifices’, Jews believe that there is a fundamental relationship between how a Jew acts as a person, national survival, and the plan of God through history. In other words, Judaism recognizes an aspect of incarnation that most Christians do not grasp, which is the relationship between specific Server actions and a universal Teacher understanding of God. Using religious language, Jews believe that the God of monotheism is made incarnate in Jewish halacha (Halacha means doing or going, and is used to describe the collection of Jewish religious laws. Jewish thought is examined in the essay on Kabbalah.) This reference to Israel in the flesh implies that it will be critical to learn from Judaism how to think rationally about God and human society. Saying this more clearly, these essays frequently look to science and technology for partial illustrations of cognitive and spiritual development. The Christian mindset does not know naturally how to think scientifically. The Jewish mindset does.

Paul then returns to the subject of eating food offered to idols that was discussed in chapter 8: “What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?” He begins by asking if the rituals or idols themselves have any inherent power. Verse 20 begins with a ‘rather’ or ‘but’, which tells us that this is not the case.

Verse 20 continues by describing what is actually happening. “The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons” (10:20). Paul mentions demons four times in verses 20 and 21, and this is the only time that demons are mentioned in 1 Corinthians. I have pointed out in previous essays that both the Old and New Testament distinguish between spirits and angels, and I have postulated that in addition to a human realm that interacts with the mind through concrete thought, there is also a spiritual realm that interacts with the mind through mental networks as well as an angelic realm that interacts with the mind through abstract thought. (This is discussed further in this essay when looking at chapters 13 and 15). One characteristic that distinguishes spirits and demons from angels is that spirits can possess human desires and give humans super-normal power, consistent with a form of being that interacts with the mind through mental networks. In contrast, the Bible never talks about an angel possessing a human, but always describes angels as independent beings with their own agendas and messages, implying a realm of angelic content that is the mirror image of the human realm of physical content.

However, when writing this essay, I noticed for the first time that demons also possess human minds. My guess is that demons interact with fragmented TMNs while evil spirits empower unhealthy MMNs. That is because Beelzebul is described as the ruler of the demons, and this title means ‘Lord of the flies’. A fly is a small creature that moves through the air, implying that a fly symbolizes the TMN of a fragmented understanding. My current guess is that both demons and spirits inhabit the same spiritual realm. A similar type of coexistence can be found in the physical universe. Physical objects and electromagnetic waves are quite different, but they coexist—and interact—within the same universe. (For instance, visible light is a form of electromagnetic wave and eyes are actually electromagnetic receivers.) Going further, it appears that one has to go through the spiritual realm to build lasting connections between the human realm and the angelic realm.

Verse 20 compares official sacrifices offered to demons with official sacrifices to God. This suggests that the harmful spiritual experiences in Mercy thought are now leading to the development of demonic understanding in Teacher thought. Verse 18 said that the historical journey of Israel was a fellowship in the altar, and Paul instructed that one should consider this path. Verse 20 describes the official sacrifices of the Gentiles as a sacrifice to demons and not to God, and Paul says that one does not want to have fellowship with demons. I have suggested in previous essays that Israel still remains the chosen people of God at a corporate level, but not necessarily at the level of individuals. This has redemptive implications, because it means that Israel as a nation could turn to God radically if they recognized how God has been manipulating and guiding the people of Israel over the millennia. Zechariah 12:10-14 describes this kind of national repentance to God, as does Romans 11:25-26. Saying this more clearly, if one adds spiritual power to social mental networks, then one will eventually develop Teacher understanding. But this will be a fragmented form of Teacher understanding that will become empowered by demons and not an integrated understanding of God. That is not the case with the Jews, because God has been manipulating the national history of the Jewish people over the millennia to be consistent with his character, often at great personal cost to the Jews. The positive benefit of this divine historical manipulation is that adding spiritual power to Judaism would lead in the direction of an integrated concept of God.

Paul says in verse 21 that “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” In other words, there will be a polarization at both the experiential and theoretical level. Experientially, one cannot simultaneously drink a cup of Mercy experiences from incarnation and demons. (The Lord usually refers to incarnation.) An integrated concept of incarnation and fragmented TMNs lead to fundamentally different kinds of Mercy experiences. Theoretically, one cannot simultaneously share in the table of incarnation and demons. The word table refers either to a table for food or a table for conducting business. Similarly, the word partake is not fellowship but rather is another word that means ‘to partake of, share in’. Thus, Paul could be referring either to sharing food at a table, or to participating in a table of economic exchange. Both meanings are significant, because both academic and economic exchange are implicitly driven by underlying TMNs. Looking at academia, I have found that a mindset of specialization will resist the concept of an integrated understanding. A Teacher theory feels emotionally threatened when it encounters situations that it cannot explain. Therefore, isolated TMNs of technical specialization will emotionally drive academic experts to either ignore or belittle anything that lies outside of their specializations. In contrast, Teacher emotion drives me to use the theory of mental symmetry as a meta-theory to explain many different subjects. In a similar manner, a mindset of economic specialization will resist being driven by an integrated bottom-line. instead, a mindset of specialization will emotionally drive economic experts to devalue anything which lies outside of the current fixation upon some limited bottom line. In contrast, the theory of mental symmetry drives me to pursue mental and societal wholeness in a manner that questions the very nature of most modern business. If this is already true today, one can imagine that this would be much more true in a spiritually enhanced future society. Specialized thinking and specialized commerce would lead to participating in the table of demons.

Paul describes this as an emotional struggle between competing rulers: “Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than he, are we?” (10:22). Provoke to jealousy means ‘to apply heavy pressure to provoke change, especially in an up-close-and-personal way’. This word is used four times in the New Testament. The other three times are in Romans 10-11, where Paul talks about the Jews being provoked to jealousy. This is very curious in the light of Paul’s instruction to consider Israel according to the flesh in verse 18. One can see this kind of jealousy in the current response of Muslims to the land of Israel. Islam teaches that Allah rules physically over nations. The nation of Israel is a counterexample to this belief, because it is a nation that does not worship Allah in the midst of Muslim lands. The very existence of Israel as a nation threatens the integrity of Islam. Similarly, Romans 11 suggests that the very existence of spiritual power will threaten the integrity of Judaismyou. Human history has been demonstrating for millennia that the Jews really are the chosen people of God. Imagine how the Jews would respond if God started working demonstrably with real power outside of the context of Israel. This would provoke the Jews to jealousy at an existential level. This would provide the psychological stick for national repentance to accompany the psychological carrot mentioned earlier. In a similar manner, the specializations of demons would provoke an integrated concept of incarnation to jealousy.

But which of these two is stronger? As Paul concludes in verse 22, “We are not stronger than He, are we?” Using cognitive language, specialization emotionally questions the idea of universal understanding. Is the TMN of some specialization more powerful than the TMN of universal understanding? In my experience, most professors would rather cling to the TMN of their specialization than open their minds to the possibility of a universal understanding. But denying the existence of a universal understanding contradicts the very concept of a UNIVERS-ity.

Verse 23 is an almost exact repetition of 6:12. In both cases, what is lawful is being replaced by what is profitable. Looking at this cognitively, Contributor-controlled concrete technical thought thinks in terms of loss-and-profit, which is a version of sowing-and-reaping. When a concept of incarnation descends to concrete thought, it then becomes possible to rethink principles of morality. Instead of using rules to prohibit what is wrong, one uses concrete technical thought to think in terms of profit and loss. In chapter 6 Paul added the pronoun ‘me’ twice: ‘all things are lawful for me’. This means that Paul was applying this principle individually as a person. In verse 27 there is no ‘me’. Instead, this is being described as a universal principle that now applies to everyone. In chapter 6, Paul said that ‘I will not be mastered by anything’, and the word ‘I’ is explicitly included in the Greek. In verse 27, Paul says that ‘not all things edify’ and edify means ‘to build a house’. Thus, in chapter 6, Paul was personally trying to gain mastery over his mind by thinking in terms of value rather than rules. In chapter 10, many people are pursuing the larger goal of constructing a house for personal identity. This concept of building a house was discussed a few paragraphs earlier. Many people will be abusing their spiritual powers in order to seek short-term gratification. The solution will not be to put restrictions upon spiritual power, or start murmuring against spiritual power. Instead, one will need to approach spiritual power from the perspective of constructing a home for personal identity.

Verse 24 emphasizes that this is not just a personal quest: “Let no one seek his own [good], but that of the other.” (This is the literal translation from a footnote.) The NASB adds the word ‘good’, conveying the idea that this is promoting an attitude of religious self-denial. But the original Greek suggests something slightly different. The word seek means ‘to seek by inquiring’, and word other means ‘another of a different kind’. Thus, when one is building a home for personal identity, it is essential to investigate those who are different than personal identity. This will ensure that one goes beyond the MMNs of one’s culture and builds upon the TMN of a general understanding. For instance, the basic premise of mental symmetry is that everyone has a mind that is composed of seven interactive cognitive modules, and that each cognitive style is only conscious in one of these modules. If one wants to construct a whole mind, it is imperative to investigate the thinking and behavior of other cognitive styles, and not just other individuals with the same cognitive style. One must go beyond another of the same kind to another of a different kind.

Verse 25 returns to the idea of meat offered to idols. Paul talked about this subject in chapter 8. He finished that chapter by saying that he would not eat meat ‘to the age’ if this was a snare to his brother. Paul’s next reference to ‘age’ is in verse 11 of chapter 10, where he talks about those upon whom ‘the ends of the ages have come’. And Paul gives quite different instructions regarding meat offered to idols in chapter 10: “Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains” (10:25-26). The word meat market is used once in the New Testament and means ‘a place where meat and other articles of food are sold’. And sold means ‘to exchange or barter’. This implies a different context than chapter 8. Paul started in 8:4 by talking about eating food offered to idols. Paul starts in chapter 10 by talking about meat being exchanged in the market. This suggests that it is now possible to separate content from the mental networks that motivate this content. Paul adds that one should evaluate this content without determining the motivating mental networks: ‘without asking questions for conscience’ sake;’ (v.25). Asking questions means ‘to distinguish by vigorously judging down to up’. This goes beyond merely asking a question to making a detailed inquiry.

The previous verses implied that many people will be pursuing spiritual power for unhealthy purposes guided by idolatrous mental networks. Paul is saying that one needs to learn from this behavior without inquiring too deeply about the sources of this behavior. One can find a possible example of this in the Nazi experiments about hypothermia. Nazis studied how much cold water a person can endure and recover from by performing inhuman experiments on concentration camp victims. Researchers have debated whether it is ethical to use this evidence. Paul seems to be indicating that it is ethical, but one also needs to evaluate the data apart from its evil source. This relates to what Paul said in the previous verse about learning from ‘another of a different kind’. For instance, I have learned many things in mental symmetry from researchers and writers whose worldviews I despise. But learning from such individuals does not mean subscribing to their philosophies. Paul says that one should do so on account of ‘the conscience’, and conscience means ‘joint-knowing’. Thus, one may be acquiring content from people who are quite different, but one is using conscience to put things together; one is using an integrated moral understanding to reassemble the content that is being acquired from others.

Verse 26 explains why this is possible: “For the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains.” The word earth in this case is not ‘cosmos’, but rather refers to ‘the physical earth; (figuratively) the arena we live in which operates in space and time’. This is a common word in the New Testament, but this is only the second time that it is used in 1 Corinthians (The first time was in 8:4 where Paul talked about so-called gods on heaven and earth.) Fulness means ‘sum total, fulness’. In other words, one needs to learn from those who are different because everything within space/time is an expression of incarnation.

Summarizing, Paul starts by reemphasizing that one should be guided by cause-and-effect rather than by rules: What profits? What edifies? Paul then says that one should ‘not seek his own but rather that of his neighbor’. This is sometimes used as a proof text for religious self-denial, and the NASB adds the word ‘good’ in italics to ‘clarify’ the meaning. However, the word ‘good’ is not in the original Greek, and the word seek means to ‘inquire or investigate’. Thus, I suggest that this verse is talking about interdisciplinary thought. This is consistent with the context, because Paul instructs in the next sentence to “Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains” (10:25,26). Stating this cognitively, don’t stick with your own specialization, but instead investigate neighboring specializations. When you go to the intellectual market, don’t worry if the facts has been tainted by MMNs of idolatry. That is because the earth of rational thought, and everything contained within rational thought, belongs to the TMN of a universal concept of God. Similarly, I have found that the theory of mental symmetry makes it possible to use rational thought to analyze all content, even rationalization that is guided by MMNs. If a person is rational, then one uses mental symmetry to analyze the content. If a person is rationalizing, then one uses mental symmetry to analyze the mental mechanisms behind this rationalization. One either explains what a person is saying or why he is saying what he is saying.

Paul then describes further what it means to seek ‘that of his neighbor’: “If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, ‘This is meat sacrificed to idols,’ do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake” (10:27-28). The first phrase is more literally, ‘If anyone calls you of the unbelieving’, and unbelieving means ‘unpersuaded’. This is referring to those who are not guided by the TMN of a rational concept of God and incarnation. There is no restriction on who does the inviting, but the verb ‘call’ indicates that this request must be based in Teacher thought. One is not obliged to accept this request, because the next phrase adds ‘if you want to go’. Want means ‘desire, wish, will’, while go means ‘to go or depart, emphasizing the personal meaning which is attached to reaching the particular destination’. This is more than just walking across the street. Instead, it involves some sort of journey to a desired destination. For instance, it usually takes me several days to analyze some book or system of thought. I have to leave mental symmetry for a while and travel to another paradigm.

In such a situation, one should ‘eat anything that is set before you’. Set before means ‘to set close beside (right next to)’. This goes beyond merely presenting some set of facts to presenting content within some emotional setting. The word anything means ‘each part of a totality’, and in the original Greek, this word is at the beginning of the phrase. I suspect that many missionaries to strange cultures have had this verse in mind when being offered strange cuisine of questionable origins by gracious hosts. And this probably was the primary application in Paul’s time, which is also relevant today. I must confess that when presented with strange foods I have eaten most of what is presented but not always everything. However, I try to eat everything intellectually whenever analyzing some book or system. As I just mentioned, I have found that the theory of mental symmetry makes it possible to use rational thought to analyze all content, even rationalization that is guided by MMNs. Where a person is rational, one uses mental symmetry to analyze the content. Where a person is rationalizing, one uses mental symmetry to analyze the mental mechanisms behind this rationalization. But even then, I analyze the book or system as an isolated structure, without going in depth into all of the background or surrounding narrative. As in verse 25, one is still doing this ‘without asking questions for conscience’ sake’, and these two phrases are identical in the original Greek.

Verse 27 indicates that the TMN of a concept of God and incarnation is now strong enough to handle any content, even content guided by idolatry eaten in someone else’s ‘house’. The only restriction is to avoid participating in institutions which openly proclaim that MMNs are the source of thought: “But if anyone says to you, ‘This is meat sacrificed to idols,’ do not eat it”. Sacrificed to idols is the same word that was used back in chapter 8, which implies a similar mindset of deliberately placing content within a context of isolated, childish MMNs.

One current example of ‘meat sacrificed to idols’ would be Women’s Studies. As we saw earlier, the fundamental assumption of this specialization is that all knowledge is based in MMNs of personal status. This leads to a mindset that is intrinsically opposed to rational thought. Quoting further from the Wikipedia article, “Daphne Patai, from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has criticized this aspect of women’s studies programs, arguing that they place politics over education, arguing that ‘the strategies of faculty members in these programs have included policing insensitive language, championing research methods deemed congenial to women (such as qualitative over quantitative methods), and conducting classes as if they were therapy sessions.’”

I should emphasize that the fundamental problem is not using feminine thought, but rather assuming that all truth is based in MMNs of personal status. Translating Paul’s words into modern language, I suggest that it is fine to use rational thought to analyze postmodern questioning, because that would be eating meat offered to idols. However, it is not fine to officially support a group or institution that explicitly promotes postmodern questioning, because that is eating meat which a person specifically states is being sacrificed to idols.

As before, Paul says that this is for the sake of the conscience, but in this case it is for the sake of conscience of the other person. “I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s” (10:29). As before, other means ‘another of a different kind’. I should also point out that the word ‘man’ is not actually in the original Greek, but rather was added by the (male chauvinist?) translators of the NASB.

One can understand what is happening by looking at postmodern questioning. There is no point in working within an atmosphere of postmodern thought, because everything that is said will be regarded as merely personal opinion. Therefore, if one says anything unpleasant, then this will be rejected as a personal opinion that is making other people feel bad. But a message of rebirth—by definition—makes people feel bad, because it insists that success lies on the other side of allowing truth and understanding to reconstruct personal identity. When postmodern questioning takes over some system of thought, then it can only be influenced from outside this system. That is because postmodern questioning always replaces one authority figure with another; the person or group doing the questioning becomes the new authority figure that replaces the person or group being questioned. If one attempts to work within such a system, then one’s personal status will be less than the status of those controlling the group, and because truth is based in personal status, one’s words will be ignored as unimportant. However, if one works outside of such a system, then one becomes an independent viewpoint, and the independence of this viewpoint will create a form of conscience for the group following postmodern questioning.

The NASB translates the final phrase of verse 29 as “for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience?” The Greek begins with a conjunction that means ‘for the purpose that (in order that)’. This word occurs 671 times in the New Testament and is almost always translated ‘so’ or ‘that’. Judged means ‘to pick out (choose) by separating’, which describes abstract technical thought, and another in this case means ‘another of the same kind’. Thus, Paul seems to asking if he is avoiding food explicitly offered to idols in order to protect his freedom by ensuring that his conscience is only guided by friendly opinions. In other words, is he trying to preserve his feeling of personal freedom by avoiding hard questions from unfriendly experts?

Verse 30 poses another question: “If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?” Thankfulness actually means ‘grace, kindness’ and ‘is preeminently used of the Lord’s favor’. Partake means ‘partake of’ and was used in verses 17 and 21 to talk about participating of one loaf, and partaking of the table of the Lord. Thus, Paul is interacting with others with an. attitude of receiving from God in Teacher thought. Those who do not believe may be thinking in terms of MMNs of status and idolatry, but Paul is approaching the same content from the Teacher perspective of developing an integrated concept of God. And ‘I’ is explicitly mentioned, telling us that Paul is contrasting his approach with the mindset of others. Slandered means ‘refusing to acknowledge good’, and give thanks means ‘literally, thankful for God’s good grace.’ Paul is recognizing that he is receiving good from God in Teacher thought, while others are refusing to recognize this goodness.

Putting this together, is Paul trying to protect his feeling of freedom by listening only to friendly voices? No. Instead, he is trying to preserve the attitude of receiving goodness from God in Teacher thought in an environment which refuses to recognize the existence of this goodness. For instance, deconstructionism asserts that all apparent general theories are merely the opinions of social groups masquerading as general theories. Thus, deconstructionism refuses to recognize that one can receive anything good from God in Teacher thought. One can learn many facts from deconstructionism, but one must avoid the mindset because it attacks the very concept of being guided in a beneficial manner by Teacher understanding. The grumbling that was mentioned in verse 10 appears to describe a form of deconstructionism that will examine what is happening in the environment and conclude that nothing good has come about as a result of the theoretical return of Jesus with its spiritual technology.

Verse 31 emphasizes that one must always follow a positive mindset: “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” Glory describes something external that expresses internal substance. Spiritual technology based in a theoretical return of Jesus will make it possible to glorify God in new ways. One will need to view everything from the perspective of giving external expression to a concept of God. Using current technology as a partial example, the consumer revolution has made it possible to express the laws of science in new ways. One needs to view the technological society as an opportunity to express the Teacher order and structure of God, instead of viewing it as an opportunity to satisfy the whims of childish nature with an endless flow of cheap, flashy, juvenile gadgets. And one must also avoid condemning science and technology because of the infantile and destructive ways in which so many have applied science and technology.in

Verse 32 adds that one should glorify God in a matter that does not offend people: “Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.” The word no offense means ‘not causing to stumble’. Paul is not saying that one should avoid making others feel bad, or that one should avoid being slandered or judged by others. Instead, he is saying that one should not impede the progress of others. One should not put roadblocks in their path that will stop them from growing. Saying this another way, one should be guided by what is profitable rather than by what is lawful. Paul mentions three groups. The Jews would represent those who are following some sort of fundamentalist religion. Greeks would refer to those following scientific thought. Finally, Paul mentions the church of the God, which would refer to those following God and incarnation in a new way made possible by spiritual technology. For instance, I have been attempting to follow a similar path with mental symmetry. I try to write these essays in a way that will not put roadblocks in the minds of Bible-believing Christians. I also try to write in a way that is sufficiently scientifically rigorous. Finally, I am also thinking of those who will eventually apply this information in order to blaze a new path.

Paul states in verse 33 that he is trying to apply his own advice. “just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.” The word please means ‘winning someone’s favor because meeting their expectation’. This does not mean that Paul is toadying to others. He is still thinking in terms of profit rather than moral restrictions. But he is seeking a form of profit that makes it possible to include the well-being of others. The word profit used here, in 10:23, and in 6:12, means to ‘combine in a way that brings a profit’. Thus, Paul is not thinking in terms of some isolated bottom line. Rather, he is trying to bring personal benefits by causing things to work together beneficially. This requires some thought, as indicated by the word seeking, which means ‘to seek by inquiring’. Paul’s goal is to bring salvation to many, and saved means to ‘deliver out of danger and into safety’. This definition of salvation is consistent with verse 13, which talked about God providing a way out temptation rather than eliminating the problem immediately.

Women in the Church 11:1-16

This passage of 1 Corinthians is controversial because it deals with the role of women in the church. A feminist viewpoint would regard this section as a classic example of Paul using his status as a man to suppress women. I suggest that there is no point in dialoguing with such viewpoints because such dialogue falls under the category of eating meat that a person specifically says has been offered to idols. However, I also suggest that it is inappropriate to interpret this section in terms of literal head coverings and literal men and women, because that is an example of focusing upon people and physical experiences which Paul warned against at the beginning of 1 Corinthians.

Instead, we will examine this passage in terms of male thought and female thought. This does not mean that physical gender is irrelevant, because there is a strong relationship between gender and thought. But I suggest that what really matters is the interaction between male and female thought, which is what Paul says in verses 11 and 12: “However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.” The NASB translation is usually pretty good, but not in this case, because the translators try to fit the text into the mold of physical gender. A more literal translation of verse 11 would be “Neither is woman separate or independent from man, nor is man separate or independent from woman in the Lord.” Using cognitive language, when one examines the mind, one finds that male thought and female thought cannot function independently from one another, and when the mind is guided by a concept of God in Teacher thought, then these two forms of thought cooperate with one another to produce mental wholeness. A more literal rendition of verse 12 would be “Just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is for the sake of the woman.” I suggested earlier in this essay that learning a skill goes through the three stages of beginner, technician, and expert. A beginner is guided by untrained mental networks of female thought, while the technician ignores mental networks in order to develop male precision and reasoning. The third stage of expert marries the mental networks of female thought with the precision and reasoning of male thought. Symbolically speaking, the woman is from the man because the transition from technician to expert is a transition from pure male thought to male thought plus female thought. Going the other way, the man is for the sake of the woman because male technical thought is being guided and motivated by the mental networks of female thought.

Looking at this further, I suggest that today’s society provides a poor context for analyzing male and female thought. On the one hand, objective science has for centuries regarded male technical thought as the only valid form of thought, and it has suppressed female emotions and intuition as irrelevant and irrational. On the other hand, postmodern female thought is now returning the compliment, imposing pure female emotions and intuition upon society with a vengeance. All of this is happening within a physical universe that requires male technical thought to decipher. The advent of spiritual technology would totally change the nature of this relationship, because natural science with its male technical thought would be accompanied by a new spiritual environment governed by the mental networks of female thought. Thus, the continuation of civilization itself would depend upon working out the relationship between male technical thought and female spirituality. Saying this more clearly, spiritual technology would empower female thought far more than anything that has been achieved—or demanded—by feminism. We will analyze Chapter 11 from this perspective.

Let us return now to the beginning of chapter 11. Paul opens by saying “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.” (11:1). Be actually means ‘to become’, and as means ‘according to the manner in which, in the degree that’. Thus, Paul is really saying ‘become mimics of me to the degree that I am of Christ’. He is not telling others to copy him because of his great emotional status, but rather because he is an accurate example of how incarnation functions. Note that Paul refers to Christ and not to Jesus. He is not looking at the example of Jesus in the Gospels and then asking himself What would Jesus do? That may be helpful, but it is also limited to concrete thought. Instead, Paul is focusing upon mimicking Christ, which refers to the abstract side of incarnation. This is a more intelligent form of copying which is guided by general principles rather than specific behavior.

Verse 2 continues: “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you”. I suggest that Paul is describing an aspect of mental networks. A mental network is a collection of emotional memories that uses emotional pressure to impose its structure upon the mind. When using mental networks, one can focus either upon the emotion or upon the structure. Earlier in the book, Paul described using mental networks to focus upon emotional status. One group was saying ‘I am of Paul’ while another group wasto saying ‘I am of Apollos’. In cognitive terms, both Paul and Apollos were mentally represented as MMNs, and these MMNs of personal authority were fighting for pre-eminence within the minds of the Corinthians.

In Chapter 11, the focus is upon following the structure of a mental network. This type of copying is more conscious and less instinctive, as seen in the word remember, which means ‘remind oneself actively (purposefully)’. This implies that information is being actively transmitted from one person to another and not just implicitly picked up. The word tradition means to ‘give (hand over) from close-beside’, and this word is used twice in this verse, once as a noun and once as a verb. Spiritual technology presumably will begin by adding spiritual power to normal technology. Spirituality is based in mental networks. The beginning of chapter 11 describes the followers of God building upon a foundation of mental networks. This implies that spiritual power has now developed to the point of providing the foundation for society and faith. Given this transition, it is imperative to determine how the female mental networks of spirituality relate to male technical thought. We have seen so far that one needs to follow mental networks in an active manner which recognizes content and does not just blindly follow tradition.

Mental networks lie at the heart of female thought. More generally, the mind cannot exist without mental networks. They provide the emotional core of the mind, they motivate thought and behavior, and they make it possible to respond to situations quickly and intuitively. However, because a mental network jumps to conclusions based upon partial clues (i.e. imposes its entire structure when triggered), it can be mistaken. And because the mind is held together by core mental networks, a person can be stubbornly mistaken.

A person has no choice but to build the mind upon core mental networks. Ideally, one would want to build the mind upon mental networks that are always appropriate and always accurate. The TMN of a concept of God is always appropriate because it is based in universal principles that always apply. However, these universal principles are stated in general terms. Thus, it needs to be accompanied by the TMN of a concept of incarnation which can translate these general principles into specific steps of cause-and-effect. That is why Paul talks about copying him to the extent that he copies Christ. In contrast, mental networks of personal identity and personal skill are not always appropriate and they are not always accurate. For instance, one cannot base one’s existence upon the MMN that represents Paul or Apollos. Similarly, the saying goes that ‘For the man who has a hammer, everything looks like a nail’. In other words, if one’s core mental network is a TMN based in some specialized skill, then one will try to view all of existence through the lens of this skill, which will be neither appropriate nor accurate.

Notice that technical thought is now being approached as a mental network. This is cognitively possible because every technical specialization is emotionally backed up by the TMN of some paradigm. The average male technical specialist thinks that he is following pure, rigorous logic, but he is actually being only locally rational. (A female technical specialist is less prone to making this cognitive error.) Whenever the paradigm that lies behind the technical specialization is questioned or challenged, then the rational discussion typically turns quickly to emotional sarcasm and personal belittling. In Chapter 11, the emotional paradigm that lies behind the technical thought is being explicitly recognized. This type of thinking can be seen in the expert who functions intuitively at a technical level. Thinking is being guided intuitively by mental networks, but these mental networks have been trained by technical thought, and are continually being checked and updated by technical thought.

This means that mental wholeness requires an internal hierarchy. One must start with the TMN of a concept of God and finish with the mental networks of female thought. Paul describes this hierarchy: “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” (11:3). Paul’s readers are being guided by traditions (mental networks of female thought) that were received from Paul. And Paul acquired his content by building upon the foundation of Christ the incarnation.

A mindset that thinks in terms of MMNs of personal status will conclude that Paul is saying that women are at the bottom of the pecking order of society. But such a mindset is actually inverting Paul’s hierarchy. If God really is at the top, then this means that one needs to start with the TMN of a concept of God and not with MMNs of personal status. Looking at Paul’s hierarchy more closely, the starting point is the TMN of a rational concept of God. This is then connected with reality through incarnation. Incarnation transforms reality by using male technical thought, and the final result is a transformed set of female mental networks. Viewed this way, female thought is actually at the top of the hierarchy, because it is the final stage in the process of cognitive development.

Paul has followed this order in 1 Corinthians. The book began by discussing a concept of God, and then examined how a universal concept of incarnation can be built upon a general understanding of God. Paul then described how his apostleship extends incarnation, before turning finally to female thought.

This hierarchy is obvious when using technology. Technology begins with an understanding of the universal laws of nature in Teacher thought. These general laws are then translated into physical objects through the incarnation of science and technology. Male technical thought is then used to set up and connect the objects of technology, while the mental networks of female thought decide how this technology will be used. Female thought is not the final stage because it is at the bottom of the heap but rather because it is the final goal. The woman may come from the man; setting up and connecting technology makes it possible to use technology. But the man is also for the sake of the woman; if no one used technology, then there would be no point in setting up and connecting anything.

Saying this more bluntly, a professor in women’s studies may claim that the mental networks of female thought are supreme. But the professor who is making these statements is using a computer and video projector that were constructed using male technical thought, is standing in a climate-controlled classroom on a college campus that was also constructed using male technical thought, and probably drove to work in a car on a highway system that was constructed using male technical thought. Going further, all this technical thought did not emerge out of a vacuum but rather is an expression of the benefits of the incarnation of modern technological society with its Teacher understanding of the laws of nature. However, once all of this infrastructure has been physically constructed, then it is possible to think and talk as if it does not exist, especially if technicians (remember the invisible spouse) keep all of the machinery functioning behind the scenes. If educated female thought can ignore underlying male content with such emotional vindictiveness today, imagine how female thought would be capable of behaving in the future if it became spiritually empowered.

Paul then talks about covering one’s head. “Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man” (11:4-7).

This is a controversial passage that has guided society in the past, and continues to guide women today. In Paul’s time, all women wore head coverings in the church. However, Paul made it abundantly clear at the beginning of 1 Corinthians that one must go beyond focusing upon people and physical appearance. And I think that we can now conclude that the book of 1 Corinthians makes logical sense as a single connected narrative when interpreted from a cognitive perspective.

And Paul has just used the term ‘head’ in a symbolic sense, by saying that God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. The same word for head is used when talking about the woman covering or uncovering her head. If ‘head’ has a symbolic meaning in verse 3, then why would it have a purely literal meaning in verses 4-7?

Notice that men and women have equivalent ministries in these verses. Paul applies the same two verbs praying and prophesying to both men and women. The word praying used here means ‘to exchange wishes’. Personal identity in Mercy thought is recognizing what God wants in Teacher thought while God is also being made aware of what personal identity wants. Prophesying combines ‘before’ with ‘assert by elevating one statement over another’. Teacher thought comes up with general theories by elevating one statement over another. If Teacher thought is the ultimate source, then it is possible to predict what will happen beforehand by elevating one statement over another. For instance, one can predict what sort of gadgets will become available in a few years by looking at the basic research that is being done today—which words of science are currently being elevated over other words. Verses 4 and 5 describe how Teacher and Mercy thought should interact emotionally, as well as how one can successfully predict the future.

Verses 4-5 say that when one is attempting to connect to God through prayer or attempting to receive a message from God through prophecy, one should use male rational thought without placing anything between this rational thought and a concept of God. One must not cover up rational thought when interacting with God. In contrast, when one is attempting to connect with God by using emotions and mental networks, then one needs to cover up the mental networks and not connect them directly to a concept of God.

This is a significant principle that is violated in major ways by theologians, churches, and even entire branches of Christianity. One of the major assumptions of current Christianity is that God is ultimately an incomprehensible being who transcends rational thought. In many Christian circles, it is regarded as fundamentally wrong to use rational thought to analyze the character of God. Instead, one is supposed to cover rational thought and approach God with the attitude that the fundamental character of God is inherently incomprehensible to rational thought. Using Paul’s metaphor, the head of male rational thought is being covered when interacting with God. In contrast, my research has led me to the conclusion that the essence of God’s character is comprehensible to rational thought and needs to be studied using rational thought. I agree that it is impossible for a finite mind to know exhaustively the nature of God, but it is possible for a finite mind to know sufficiently the essence of God’s nature. Similarly, it is impossible for a finite mind to know how all particles in the universe will behave, but it is possible for a finite mind to know the fundamental laws that govern all particles and to use these laws to predict how a small group of particles will behave. It is possible to get away with violating Paul’s principle to some extent in current society. That is because the physical body brings the mind into direct contact with the laws of nature. One cannot ignore pain or physical disability. However, spiritual technology would make it possible to substantially protect the physical body from principles of natural cause-and-effect, similar to the way that normal technology is already being used to partially protect the physical body from physical consequences.

Current Christianity also assumes that one can come into direct contact with God by using the mental networks of female thought in some sort of mystical manner. Thus, the average Christian encounters God through praise and worship. Using Paul’s metaphor, the head of female emotional thought is not being covered when interacting with God. But when the mind is transformed, then mental networks do not come into direct contact with one another. Instead, all mental networks reside within a grid of rational thought held together by the TMN of a concept of God. It is also possible to get away with violating this principle to some extent in current society. That is because living in a physical body in the physical universe prevents personal identity from coming into direct contact with a concept of God. Spiritual technology would remove these restrictions, making it possible for humans to experience the divine far more intensely. In fact, it appears that God ultimately defeats mysticism in the seven bowls of Revelation 16 by overwhelming the mind and causing it to essentially blow a fuse.

Looking more closely at the idea of living within a grid of rational thought, suppose that I have a disagreement with Fred. In the immature mind, the MMN that represents me will struggle for dominance with the MMN that represents Fred. Paul described this when mentioning the conflicts between those who are of Paul and those who are of Apollos. But in the mature mind, the MMN that represents me and the MMN that represents Fred will both reside within an internal map of cognitive styles, mental functioning, and character development. Instead of feeling that I am arguing with Fred, I will understand where both of us are in the map of personal growth. This understanding provides an internal buffer that prevents mental networks from coming directly into contact with one another. Similarly, when one is using mental networks to interact with God, it is important to cover one’s head by placing this interaction within the grid of an understanding of the character of God and mankind.

As far as I can tell, the deepest problem of current Christianity is that it covers male thought when interacting with God and uncovers female thought when interacting with God. To some extent, this reflects itself in gender, because women have a greater tendency to use ecstatic worship while men have a greater tendency to try to analyze God rationally. However, this is a cognitive and institutional problem that extends far beyond mere gender, and it is a travesty to think that one can address this problem by merely pinning pieces of cloth onto women’s heads.

That brings us to the symbolic meaning of hair. I mentioned previously when looking at serpents that Teacher thought thinks in terms of sequences, lines, and strings. (Mercy thought, in contrast, thinks in terms of experiences and events). For instance, speech is a sequence of words. Words are written as sequences of letters, and letters are composed of visual lines. In fact, when writing cursive English, one writes each word as a single line of ink. My brother and I initially learned that these are all related to Teacher thought when studying the character traits of the Teacher person.

Visually speaking, hair is a string. A snake is visually a single isolated string. Hair, in contrast, is composed of many strings, all flowing from the head of a person. A snake corresponds visually to the overgeneralization of mysticism—a single isolated sweeping statement within Teacher thought that ‘All is one’. This implies that hair is also a form of overgeneralization, but there are many overgeneralizations and not just a single sweeping statement, and all of these overgeneralizations are anchored in the head. Thus, my guess would be that hair represents intuition, because one is making statements within Teacher thought by overgeneralizing from a limited foundation. Intuition is a powerful aspect of female thought. It is not magical or mystical. Instead, small clues are triggering mental networks, which are causing the mind to jump to conclusions.

With this in mind, let us return to 1 Corinthians. Quoting inverse 5, “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.” Presumably, a shaved head describes pure emotional response without the covering of intuition. Thus, Paul appears to be saying that unguided intuition is no better than raw emotional response, which is an accurate statement. Intuition is a powerful tool, but it has to be trained to be accurate. Using the language of Paul, it needs to be covered.

Verse 6 compares short hair with long hair: “For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.” Long hair could be interpreted in two related ways. It takes time to grow long hair. Thus, long hair would represent intuition that has been tempered by time, while short hair would represent intuition that does not have the benefit of either time or experience. Long hair could also represent long-term sequences, while short hair would be short-term sequences. Technical thought by its very nature is limited to some specific specialization. Long-haired intuition provides a framework for technical thought; it gives technical thought the freedom to handle the details. Short-haired intuition, in contrast, replaces technical thought with gut feeling.

Paul is saying two things: First, if female thought is not willing to function with its head covered, then it should cut its hair short. In other words, if female intuition is not willing to be guided by male rational thought, then female intuition should limit itself to making short-term demands. That is because short-haired intuition still leaves some room for rational thought, while long-haired rebellious intuition shuts down male rational thought completely. if this is already happening to such an extent with postmodern feminism, one can only imagine what would happen with spiritually empowered feminism. Paul’s second statement is that if both short-haired intuition and the shaved head of raw emotional response are disgraceful, then this means that female thought needs to be covered by male thought. I know that these statements are very politically incorrect, but uncovered female thought is in the process of destroying the social sciences, and that is shameful. The ability to acknowledge shame is one of the hallmarks of a civilized individual. And I am not talking about the surface shame of saving or losing face. Instead, I am referring to the far deeper feeling of someone who is classy, intelligent, refined, and sensitive descending to a level of infantile, rude, crude ignorance.

Hair is explicitly connected with intuitive thought in Luke 21: “Make up your minds not to prepare beforehand to defend yourselves; for I will give you utterance and wisdom which none of your opponents will be able to resist or refute. But you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death, and you will be hated by all because of My name. Yet not a hair of your head will perish”. Jesus begins by telling people not to prepare beforehand what they will say, but rather to follow intuitive thought, because intuitive thought will be successful. He then finishes by promising that ‘not a hair of your head will perish’, saying in symbolic language that intuitive thought will be successful.

Verse 7 expands upon this interpretation: “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” Glory is an external expression of something internal. Male thought glorifies the Teacher understanding of a concept of God by transforming theory into practice. Female thought glorifies male rational thought by turning technical thought into mental networks.

Paul states this explicitly in Ephesians: “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless” (Eph. 5:24-27). Paul begins by talking about the wife submitting to the husband, which is typically interpreted from the Mercy perspective of personal dominance. But submitting female thought to male thought has a deeper purpose. The goal is to ‘sanctify’ female intuition by cleansing it from the MMNs of childish experience and connecting it with the TMN of the concept of God, so that it can be ‘holy and blameless’. This cleansing requires the verbal content of ‘the word’ combined with the experiences of ‘water’. The end result is a form of thought that has no ‘spot’ of imperfection in Mercy thought and no ‘wrinkle’ of inelegance in Teacher thought.

I know that it is politically incorrect to suggest that ‘woman is the glory of man’, but this principle is obvious when watching an expert perform. When the male content of the technician becomes expressed through the female mental networks of the expert, then the results can accurately be described as glorious. The smooth, efficient, elegant, and professional skill of an expert transcends the wooden performance of the technician. ‘Woman is the glory of man’ does not mean that female thought is the servant of male thought, but rather that female thought is able to go far beyond male thought—but only if it is willing to learn from male thought.

Stated more bluntly, many men prefer dumb blondes, because the average man finds an intelligent, beautiful woman intimidating, and feels threatened by a competent, graceful, beautiful woman. However, the goal of incarnation is to produce female thought that is intelligent, competent, graceful, and beautiful. This glory is the opposite of the shame mentioned earlier. This contrast between shame and glory can already be seen today. If female thought became spiritually empowered, then the contrast would become almost overwhelming. Stated bluntly, there would be goddesses and there would be witches.

Verses 8-9 continue: “For man is not from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” Verse 8 cannot be referring to physical birth, because in that case man really is from out of woman. This reminds me of the joke told by some man: “I used to be a man trapped in a woman’s body, but then I was born.” However, this statement is cognitively true. The mental networks of female thought are not the starting point. If one starts with mental networks, one actually gets mental networks of childish behavior, cultural xenophobia, and mysticism. One does not get female thought. True female thought emerges when mental networks become transformed by rational thought. Childish behavior becomes transformed into maternal sensitivity. Xenophobia is transformed into love and kindness. And mysticism turns into beauty, elegance, and wholeness.

Looking at this another way, learning a skill goes through three stages. The first stage of the beginner uses mental networks but has no knowledge. The next stage of the technician uses male technical thought to acquire skills and knowledge, but performs in a mechanical manner. The third stage of expert emerges out of the second stage by expressing the technical knowledge in an intuitive manner. This third stage describes a form of female thought that comes from male thought.

The word created means to create out of nothing. Paul is saying that woman was created out of nothing on account of man. This basically reiterates what was said about verse 8. If one uses male technical thought to rebuild female mental networks, one ends up with something glorious which did not exist before. One can see this partially illustrated by the modern world. The consumer society may have its shortcomings, but it also is a form of existence that has never existed before. It emerged out of nothing as a result of the male technical thinking of science and technology. Similarly, the spiritual technology of the future will also be something totally new that has never existed before. But the technical thought being used by normal technology in the present is laying the foundation for the transformed mental networks of the future. Looking at this prophetically, Revelation 12 describes the great sign of a glorious woman appearing in heaven. This is preceeded by Revelation 10 which portrays the development of an integrated, rational understanding.

Paul adds that “the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels” (11:10). This is not a good translation. A more literal rendition would be ‘because of this the woman ought to have authority on the head, because of the angels’. The first ‘because’ indicates that verse 10 follows from verse 9. If female thought is something new that was created out of nothing by going through male technical thought, then female thought will only survive by recognizing that it came into existence through something else. Saying this bluntly, the radical feminist needs to recognize that the civilization that was constructed by male technical makes it possible for feminism to exist. Without this civilization, modern female thought could not function. Feminism would not survive very long in a pre-industrial society.

The second ‘because’ refers to angels. I have suggested that angels inhabit a realm of abstract thought. The way that one treats mental networks will have a major impact on the way that one uses abstract thought. If female thought is used uncovered, then it is possible to develop common sense in concrete thought, because emotional experiences from physical world will impose MMNs of common sense upon the mind. However, one will not develop common sense in abstract thought, because one develops abstract thought by using rational thinking to look beyond appearances. Thus, cognitively speaking, it is important to cover female mental networks for the sake of abstract thought. This cognitive principle also appears to involve real angels, because mysticism is often recommended as a means of contacting UFO aliens. (It appears that aliens and angels both inhabit the same angelic realm.) I do not want to make a blanket statement and state that all UFO aliens are demons. However, most UFO aliens are described as behaving in a manner that qualifies as evil, and one of the primary reasons that I avoid mysticism is that I do not want to come into contact with such beings.

Verses 11-12 were discussed at the beginning of this section. Summarizing, neither male nor female thought can exist apart from the other. Verse 11 adds that this is true ‘in the Lord’, and in means ‘in the realm of’. Thus, when one is functioning within incarnation, then male and female thought must cooperate. That is because incarnation goes beyond the objective specialization of normal male technical thought to save personal MMNs, guided by the TMN of a concept of God. Verse 12 explains that female thought comes out of male thought, while male thought comes through female thought. We have already seen how female thought emerges out of male thought. Going the other way, every specialization of male technical thought was reached by going through an initial phase of non-rigorous thought and female intuition. Verse 12 explains that this relationship becomes true when everything comes out of an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought: “and all things are of God”.

Verse 13 then turns to common sense: “Judge in yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God [with her head] uncovered?” Proper means to ‘stand out, be conspicuous, especially in a way that is suitable’, and judge means ‘to pick out (choose) by separating’. In other words, use technical thought to determine if uncovered female thought is suitable and appropriate. Uncovered is the same word that was used back in verse 5. It adds ‘not’ to a verb that means ‘cover down to make appropriate’, and it could be translated as unveiled. It is possible that Paul originally this word to mean unveiled. But what happens cognitively when women are physically veiled? In practice, this strongly limits social contact between men and women, causing female thought to function uncovered by the rational thinking of male thought. Looking at verse 13 cognitively, does uncovered female intuition lead to results that are technically rigorous? Anyone who is technically trained and who has suffered through untrained female intuition knows the answer to this question. On the other hand, female intuition that is covered can be very powerful and very appropriate. Verse 13 does not apply this conclusion to all situations, but rather to the specific situation of exchanging emotions between personal identity and a universal concept of God. This is not just telling a story but rather telling a story to illustrate a universal principle.

Verse 14 appeals to natural law: “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her?” Using cognitive language, when one is using male rational thought to study the inherent nature of something, then one should not follow intuition too long, but rather be guided by the ‘short hair’ of flashes of intuition. For instance, I suggest that the thinking of Bill Gothard illustrates what it means cognitively for a man to have long hair. Gothard is infamous for using a form of logic that one could refer to as proof-by-example, or jumping directly from specific experience or isolated verse to general principle. (This is ironic, because Gothard is also infamous for preaching strongly that women should submit to men.) Scientific concepts have often originated as flashes of intuition. But this intuition was then tested using rational thought. However, when one lives within the mental networks of female thought, then it is important to be guided by ‘long-haired’ intuition that considers the impact of time and has withstood the test of time. That is because long-haired intuition gives shape and meaning to the more specific details of male technical thought.

Verse 15 finishes by saying that ‘her hair is given to her for a covering’. The word for actually means ‘in place of, i.e. what substitutes’ and this preposition is only found once in Corinthians. The Darby Version translates this verse as “But woman, if she have long hair, [it is] glory to her; for the long hair is given [to her] in lieu of a veil.” Saying this cognitively, long-haired female intuition provides its own covering. That is because specific Mercy experiences and general Teacher theories are being connected in a manner that has to be filled out by using male technical thought, and this female intuition is being presented in a manner that male technical thought will find attractive. Notice that Paul is finishing his analysis of male and female thought by describing a form of mature female thought that goes beyond male thought and does not need to be covered by other forms of thought. Looking at this cognitively, mature female thought is capable of being guided by the TMN of a general understanding in a manner that goes beyond male thought. I lived in Seoul for seven years, and Korean society recognizes this principle. Young women may be at the bottom of the social pecking order, but the mature woman is at the top of the pecking order.

Paul recognizes that some will not like his instructions: “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor have the churches of God” (11:16). (This uses the footnote in the NASB.) Inclined ‘directly reflects the personal perspective of the person making the subjective judgment call’. And contentious is found once in the New Testament and means ‘strife-loving’. The Greek explicitly adds the verb ‘to be’, which emphasizes that Paul is talking about a person’s basic character. These terms describe a person who is emotionally driven by core mental networks of conflict, a mindset based in childish MMNs. For such a person, life is a zero-sum game with winners and losers. Practice means ‘habit, habitual use’. Paul says that he is part of a group which does not practice such a mindset of conflict. Paul does not say that there is no conflict at all, but rather that there is no practice of conflict. Paul then extends this statement: “nor have the churches of God” (v.16). And God is actually ‘the God’, which refers to an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought. Applying this to a future time of spiritual technology, Paul is saying any group of people which is applying spiritual technology in a godly manner will not be driven by a mindset of conflict. For instance, many people currently speculate that the military is secretly interacting with aliens and reverse engineering alien technology. Paul is stating categorically that any godly spiritual technology of the future will not interact with the military, because the military is driven by a fundamental mindset of conflict. This also means that future godly spiritual technology will not interact with any form of predatory business, it will also avoid any feelings of cultural xenophobia, and it will not approach gender in an adversarial manner. I am a Mennonite, and Mennonites have been trying to follow a path of pacifism for almost 500 years. In contrast, I see American evangelical Christians becoming increasingly militaristic and combative. Paul is saying that there will be no place for any gun-loving, Democrat-hating, foreigner-despising, neoconservatives in the future Church of God. (This also implies that it is mistaken for such Christians to think that God will rapture them to heaven, where they can have comfortable, ring-side seats where they enjoy an evil-hating God wreaking judgment upon earth.) The cognitive reason for this is simple. A concept of God is based in Teacher thought, and Teacher thought appreciates order-with-complexity. Teacher thought feels good when many different things fit together in a harmonious manner. (I should also emphasize that this is different than the Teacher overgeneralization of tolerance which finds unity by ignoring all differences and suppresses anyone who states that there are differences.)

Factions 11:17-22

The previous section focused upon female thought and emphasized the need to ‘cover’ female thought with male thought. The rest of chapter 11 examines the other side of this relationship and describes two ways that male thought can ignore female thought. (We see again that when 1 Corinthians is interpreted cognitively, then it becomes apparent that Paul—or at least the ultimate Author behind Paul—is not jumping around from one topic to another.) In order to understand what is being said, we need to look further at male and female thought.

I have suggested—several times—that female thought uses emotions while male thought uses rational thinking. This may convey the impression that I regard female thought as wallowing anti-rationally through a slough of experiences. That describes the immature female mind, which is emotionally tossed to and fro by childish MMNs. Mature female thought is totally different. First, when emotions are trained by rational thought, then emotion becomes a shortcut for rational analysis, making it possible for the leaping of female intuition to accomplish more than the plodding of male analysis. This explains, for instance, why females are better than males at multitasking. Second, emotions involve both Mercy experiences and Teacher theories. Mercy thought connects emotions with experiences, while Teacher thought uses emotions to evaluate theories. Teacher thought feels good when a general theory ties together many specific elements. For instance, females are usually better than males at social interaction, which involves MMNs of personal identity. Females also tend to talk more than males, and speech is an expression of Teacher thought. And females tend to specialize less than males, which indicates a greater focus upon Teacher emotions of generalization. Finally, we just saw that females are better at intuition than males, and intuition combines MMNs of personal experience with TMNs of general understanding. (These studies all refer to male and female people, because one can only observe how male and female people think. The male person naturally emphasizes male thought and the female person naturally emphasizes female thought, but mature thought in all individuals is a combination of male and female thought, even though a male person will continue to emphasize the male side of this integrated thinking—and vice versa.)

Now let us return to 1 Corinthians 11. Paul begins by emphasizing that he is taking a rational Teacher perspective. “But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you” (v.17). Instruction means to ‘give a command that is fully authorized because it has gone through all the proper channels’. And praise means to ‘praise in a fitting manner’. Stated cognitively, based upon a structure that descends from God through incarnation in an ordered manner, Paul concludes that it is not appropriate to give praise. That is “because you come together not for the better but for the worse” (v.17). Better means ‘stronger, more excellent’ and worse means ‘lesser, inferior, weaker’. Come together is only used in Corinthians in this verse and the next verse and means ‘to come together’. Paul is saying that people are not coming together in a manner that enhances well-being.

Notice that Paul is not using emotions to belittle male thought. Instead, he is saying that if one takes a rational perspective in abstract technical thought and observes the situation using concrete technical thought, one concludes that praise is not warranted. Applying this to a future time of spiritual technology, what would be the primary purpose of male technical thought in a realm of empowered female mental networks? Male technical thought would especially be needed to preserve structure and integrity. Using an example from technology, rocket engineering is especially difficult because one is dealing with extreme temperatures and pressures. Male technical thought is needed to make sure that things do not fall apart and go boom. (Rocket engineers refer to such a boom as a rapid unscheduled disassembly.) Something similar but more personal would apply to a future society of spiritual technology.

I suggested at the beginning of this section that male thought can ignore female thought in two primary ways. The first way that male thought can ignore female thought is through specialization. This begins as simple division: “When you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it” (11:18). In other words, people are coming together, but when they come together they are divided into groups. A division is ‘a rent, as in a garment; a division, dissention’. Notice that Paul is hearing of divisions. This means that abstract thought is being verbally separated into different divisions. Paul’s says that he is to some extent persuaded. That is because physical existence really is divided into technical specializations, and every equation of physics has a limited area of application. The verb ‘come together’ used in verses 17 and 18 implies a pre-existing state of separation. In other words, male technical thought will naturally subdivide and specialize. That is why it is necessary to come together. Paul is describing what happens when male technical specializations come together. The first sign of division happens verbally as each specialization develops its own technical vocabulary. This is inevitable because abstract technical thought is based upon precise definitions, and each specialization will naturally come up with its own precise definitions. That is why Paul talks about being partially persuaded.

The problem arises when divisions grow into distinct factions: “For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you” (11:19). The word faction is stronger than division and means ‘a self-chosen opinion, a religious or philosophical sect’. Thus, each specialization is developing its own standards and paradigms. Approved means ‘what passes the necessary test ’, while evident means ‘visible, manifest’. In other words, each specialization is setting up its own standards of technical expertise in order to make it obvious who is and is not an official expert.

This accurately describes most modern academia. It may gather together at universities, but it is split into different specializations. And one can only become part of an academic specialization by becoming officially approved. I have consistently found that if a professor is presented with a general theory that crosses specializations, then the typical response will either be ‘I am unqualified to evaluate this research’, because the professor is only an expert in some small fragment of knowledge, or ‘this is non-rigorous garbage’, because the fragment of the theory that the professor does understand does not meet the high standards that are required to be recognized as an expert within that specialization. I have been forced to conclude that academia is not guided by a search for general understanding. In the words of Paul, “When you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first” (11:20-21). Symbolically speaking, if the Lord refers to incarnation, and if eating represents the consumption of intellectual food, then ‘the Lord’s supper’ would be a consuming of intellectual food guided by a desire for general understanding. That is because incarnation uses technical thought, but goes beyond the specializations of normal technical thought to be guided by an integrated Teacher concept of God. If ‘each one takes his own supper first’ and does not meet together ‘to eat the Lord’s supper’, then each specialization is consuming its own intellectual food rather than attempting to build general understanding.

I know that Paul was probably referring to having communion in people’s houses. However, I strongly suspect that the same kind of mental processing was occurring in Paul’s situation. The men were ignoring integrated understanding, dividing into factions, and then policing these factions through some kind of entrance requirements. Looking at this historically, the household was a primary unit in Greek society, and the man in charge of a house had absolute power. But if one looks at this more generally, Paul is describing the lordship of incarnation reverting back to the technical specializations that exist within current academia.

Paul adds that “one is hungry and another is drunk” (11:21). Hunger implies a lack of intellectual content, while drunk implies a lack of inhibitions. When knowledge is fragmented into different specializations, then one faction cannot learn from other factions, leading to intellectual hunger, and one faction will not be guided or inhibited by other factions, leading to intellectual drunkenness.

Paul asks, “Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?” (11:22). Food and drink refer to peripheral facts and experiences. As Jesus said, the body is more important than food, and personal skill and identity are more important than peripheral facts and experiences. If one is supposed to eat and drink at home, this implies that subjective emotions need to be added to peripheral facts and experiences. In contrast, one of the central principles of objective science is that one should not eat and drink at home—one should not allow subjective feelings to cloud facts and experiences. This may work to some extent when analyzing the physical world, but it does not work when applying incarnation, because Jesus ‘saves people from their sins’. And it also will not work in a future society of spiritual technology, because male technical thought will have to be used within a context of personal spiritual power.

Paul asks further, “Do you despise the Church of God and shame those who have nothing?” (11:22). Despise means ‘to despise, thinking down on (thinking little of)’. What is being despised is literally ‘the called out ones of the God’. In other words, specialized technical thought is looking down on the interdisciplinary thought that is required to construct and follow a concept of God. I know what this feels like, because I am trying to construct an integrated concept of God, and I have found that technical specialists typically look down upon my approach as worthless, non-rigorous, and unnecessary. To some extent it is possible to maintain such an air of specialized technical snobbery within current society, because the physical world holds together all technical specializations, and technical thought is very effective for deciphering the natural world. But this kind of specialized arrogance would be fatal in a future realm of spiritual technology. As Paul stated in verse 17, it would not make people ‘stronger, more excellent’ but rather ‘lesser, inferior, weaker’. Remember how chapter 11 emphasized standing rather than falling down and spreading apart.

Going further, shame means ‘to shame down’ and was used in verses 4-5 to talk about prophesying inappropriately. Those who have nothing are being shamed. Shaming those who have nothing implies that the focus is upon having rather than being, and that people with inadequate objective knowledge are not being saved but rather despised.

Paul concludes, “What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you” (11:22). The word praise is the same one that one was used in verse 17 which means ‘to praise in a fitting (apt) manner’. Using academic language, Paul is saying that all those who impose technical standards of accreditation on others do not meet Paul’s standards of technical accreditation. That is because they are serving technical specializations, while Paul is serving incarnation. This does not mean that technical excellence is wrong. I strive to meet standards of technical excellence when writing these essays. Similarly, I strive to meet standards of technical excellence when playing the violin. (I played violin professionally for many years.) But male technical specialization needs to be placed within the long-haired intuition of mature female thought. This is obvious when doing something emotional such as playing the violin, it should be obvious when doing academic research, and it will become obvious in the future when doing academic research in an environment of spiritual power.

This introduces us to the second way that male thought is ignoring female thought, which is by remaining objective and ignoring personal identity. This is expanded in the next section.

Eucharist? 11:23-34

This passage is usually quoted during communion. However, Paul has made it clear in 1 Corinthians that the wisdom of God extends beyond physical experiences and important people. Therefore, I suggest that communion is more than people with religious status doling out pieces of bread and administering sips of wine. Going further, if one thinks that one can receive special grace from God by physically consuming bread and wine administered by priests wearing fancy clothes, then I suggest that one is following wisdom and not the wisdom of God. The physical world has become transformed because humans have learned that the natural world is governed by universal laws and not by magical rituals and incantations. This implies that the personal world will also become transformed when humans learn that the spiritual realm is also governed by universal laws and not by magical rituals and incantations. Saying this more carefully, in the same way that modern technology has eclipsed magic, so Hebrews 3 suggests that spiritual technology will eclipse religious ritual.

Turning now to Paul’s words, “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (11:23-26).

The word delivered means ‘to deliver over with a sense of close involvement’. It was used back in verse 2 when Paul talked about delivering the traditions to his followers. It is used twice in verse 23, once translated as ‘delivered’and the other time as ‘betrayed’. And the same word is used in the Gospels to describe Jesus being betrayed. The word received has a similar flavor and means ‘to take (receive) by showing strong personal initiative’. When Paul uses the same verb in one verse to convey the two different meanings of ‘delivered’ and ‘betrayed’, this suggests that these two meanings are related. In other words, Paul is contrasting two ways of delivering or handing over the message of incarnation. Incarnation can either be delivered or betrayed. The key difference between these two can be seen in the phrase ‘in the night in which he was betrayed’. Night implies the absence of the sun of a general Teacher understanding. Paul has just finished describing how technical thought is splitting into specialized fiefdoms. This will lead cognitively to a night, because there is no longer any integrated Teacher understanding. This night will turn the delivering into a betrayal. Jesus was physically betrayed by Judas in the garden of Gethsemane. But Jesus is also being ‘betrayed in the night’ in verses 17 to 22. Saying this another way, the name Jesus means salvation, and salvation is being betrayed by those who pursue the truth of incarnation in a fragmented manner that approves experts, despises a concept of God, and belittles the ignorant. When there is no sun of universal understanding to shine upon information, then it will be intellectual night. Thus, people will be betraying the salvation of Jesus in the dark. Now that we have the general picture, let us look at the details.

Bread represents intellectual knowledge. Jesus is taking bread and giving thanks for it. The word giving thanks means ‘acknowledging that God’s grace works well’. Communion is called the Eucharist in Catholic and Orthodox churches specifically because this verb ‘giving thanks’, which is eucharisteo, is used in the description of the Lord’s supper in these verses. (It is easy to forget when reading these essays that we are actually analyzing a religious book that has been studied and revered for almost 2000 years.) I have mentioned that incarnation uses abstract technical thought but goes beyond it by basing abstract technical thought in the TMN of a concept of God. When Jesus gives thanks for the bread, this portrays incarnation recognizing that technical knowledge has its source in a Teacher concept of God. Verse 22 talked about despising the church of God by elevating technical specializations above an integrated Teacher understanding. In verse 24, Jesus is acknowledging that the loaf of abstract knowledge has its source in an integrated Teacher concept of God.

Next, Jesus breaks the bread, which implies that this knowledge is being taken apart in order to chew on it and digest it. Jesus adds that this bread is of his body. A mental concept of incarnation emerges when abstract technical thought becomes integrated with concrete technical thought. Abstract technical thought deals with general laws, while concrete technical thought works with specific connections of cause-and-effect. Jesus is breaking the loaf of knowledge into specific parts and declaring that this is his body. In a similar manner, the laws of physics are abstract general mathematical equations. These are made incarnate when one breaks these equations into specific formulae and equates these formulae with concrete principles of cause-and-effect. Jesus then adds ‘which is for you’. We see here the way in which incarnation goes beyond concrete technical thought. Concrete technical thought works with principles of cause-and-effect. Incarnation goes beyond this to use cause-and-effect to save people. in other words, Jesus, which means salvation, takes the broken fragments of the loaf of knowledge, equates them with his identity and then says that he is doing this for others.

Looking at this cognitively, a mental concept of Jesus is being transformed. The betrayal of the historical Jesus transformed the physical nature of Jesus. Similarly, when one views incarnation as an integrated expression of a Teacher concept of God, then this will also transform a mental concept of Jesus. Paul mentioned this in verses 1-3. He said in verse 1 to imitate him as he imitates Christ. In verse 2 he said that he had delivered the traditions to his followers, and in verse 3 he described the hierarchy of descending from God in Teacher thought through Christ to male technical thought and then finally to female mental networks. Verse 24 describes the step from Christ to male technical thought, because Jesus, the concrete side of incarnation who uses male technical thought, is breaking the bread of abstract knowledge as he is being delivered.

Jesus then says that the others should ‘do this in remembrance of Me’. The verb do describes physical action. And remembrance means ‘deliberate recollection’. So what is the ‘this’ that one is supposed to do? Eat bread crumbs and sip from a cup with a somber attitude? That might be one small aspect, but I suggest that one is supposed to do the same thing that Jesus did: Recognize that technical thought is an expression of the character of God; take knowledge apart without swallowing it whole; internalize this expertise and make it part of one’s person before sharing it with others; and then apply this expertise in a way that helps people. This idea of being a personal messenger of truth can be seen in the beginning of this passage: “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you...”

One can now understand the difference between delivering and betraying Jesus. Delivering Jesus moves from abstract to concrete technical thought illuminated by the sun of a concept of God. The end result will be a concrete expression of incarnation that exemplifies wholeness and salvation. Betraying Jesus moves from abstract to concrete technical thought in the darkness without an integrated concept of God. The end result will be a concrete expression of incarnation that will tend to be hijacked by childish mental networks, and thus betray the very nature of Jesus, which means salvation.

When celebrating communion, the wine usually follows right after the bread. (At my church, the bread is dunked into the grape juice in order to be more efficient.) But in 1 Corinthians 11, these two are separated by an entire meal. Verse 25 says, “In the same way [He took] the cup also after supper, saying...” Separating the bread and cup with a meal means that one is taking time to digest and understand knowledge before one takes the next step of applying this knowledge. In other words, following incarnation means that one does not make the transition from learning to application by learning some specific set of facts or instructions and then applying them blindly. Instead, one first acquires knowledge and skill in an integrated, intelligent manner, and then one applies this expertise to reality. We saw earlier that a cup represents some package of personal experience. (The bible dictionary describes this as ‘the portion which God allots’.) Applying understanding in an intelligent manner transforms the water of Mercy experiences into cups of packaged experience. One is not just reacting instinctively to life in a random fashion. Instead, one is implementing a plan, or working on a project. Verse 25 begins with in the same way, which means ‘in the same way as; "likewise, in like manner’. This means that one should apply the same process when going from skill to experience that one uses when going from theory to application. One needs to start by recognizing that everything is united in God. One then uses technical thought to break the project into pieces guided by a light of understanding.

Verse 25 talks about a new covenant, and this is the only time that the word covenant is used in 1 Corinthians. One finds a similar reference to a new covenant in 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 8. In both cases, this reference to a new covenant happens after the spread of spiritual technology.

Verse 25 says that “This cup is the new covenant in My blood”. It does not say that the bread is a new covenant. Instead, it says that ‘this cup’ is the new covenant. Cognitively speaking, a cup is more than one experience and less than all experiences. One is not looking at isolated experiences but rather at how experiences relate together. It may be bad today, but it will get better tomorrow. This sip may taste bad but the next sip will taste better. However, one is also not viewing experiences as lasting forever. The situation will change. One will eventually finish drinking this cup. This sounds simple, but it is emotionally significant. This concept of a cup must be significant because this passage uses the word cup five times but never mentions the word wine or refers explicitly to the contents of the cup. This viewpoint of a cup only becomes cognitively possible if one first goes through the previous stage of eating the bread of incarnation, because incarnation will package Mercy experiences into cups of salvation—cups that may go through hardship but end up in a better situation. And one is supposed to do this ‘as often as you drink’ (the word ‘it’ is not in the original), implying that one should respond to all experiences in such a manner. When one approaches Mercy experiences in such a manner, one is doing this ‘in remembrance of Me’; one is actively remembering incarnation in the midst of life’s experiences. (James 4:13-17 does not say that one should not plan, but rather that one should not pursue peripheral goals with objective plans while ignoring the central role played by incarnation.)

It is possible to apply this form of thinking to some extent today. But, as the saying goes, life is what happens to you while you are making other plans. That is because we are all trapped in human bodies that are subject to the probabilistic laws of nature. God promises in Romans 8 to make things work together for good for those who love him and are called according to his purpose, but God does not usually intervene beforehand to prevent unpleasant events from happening. That is why this is described as a new covenant. A covenant is ‘a covenant between two parties’. Thus, a new covenant with God means that God and humanity will interact in a new manner. (I know that this contradicts the doctrine of predestination, but the word predestinate actually means ‘to pre-establish boundaries’. This means putting walls around a person ahead of time, which is quite different than determining exactly what will happen to a person beforehand. The relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will is discussed in other essays.)

It may not be possible to fully apply such a new covenant in the current physical environment, but it would be possible to start implementing this new covenant in a future environment of widespread spiritual technology. In the same way that technology is used today to minimize the harmful impacts of nature, so it would be possible to use spiritual technology in the future at a much deeper level to minimize and even eliminate harmful events. Verse 26 says that this will only happen if people choose to think and behave in this new manner. “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” As often as means ‘as often as, as many times as’. This implies that the foundation for the new covenant is actually being constructed one specific incident at a time. This makes cognitive sense because Contributor thought deals with specific connections and not vague generalities. What is being repeated is eating the bread and drinking the cup. Thus, in each specific situation one is following a progression from Teacher understanding through abstract technical thought to concrete technical thought to Mercy experiences—one is following the hierarchy of headship which Paul described at the beginning of this chapter.

These incidents ‘proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (11:26). Proclaim means ‘to herald a message in a definite way’. Until means ‘until, as far as’. In other words, merely talking about the new covenant is not enough. Instead, one needs to repeatedly proclaim the new covenant by acting as if it is true. The verb come is a common, simple verb that means ‘to come, go’. It describes many kinds of coming and is also used in Matthew 24 to describe the theoretical return of Jesus as well as in Revelation 19 to describe the physical return of Jesus. Thus, one could interpret this phrase in several different ways. People can lay the foundation for both returns of Jesus by acting as if Jesus will return. Paul talks in 2 Timothy 4:8 about the crown “which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me in that day; but not only to me, but also to all those loving His appearing”. But 1 Corinthians 11 may be referring to something more simple and immediate. In an environment of widespread spiritual technology, Jesus would eventually come to any situation if one repeated the process of eating the bread and drink the cup enough times. The original Greek says merely ‘until that should come’, he is implied by the verb conjugation, and the name Jesus is not mentioned. Thus, the emphasis upon repeating this sequence until some sort of coming happens.

The one factor that we have not yet discussed is blood and death. Jesus says that the new covenant is in his blood, and one is proclaiming the death of the lord by eating the bread and drinking the cup. Cognitively speaking, this means that an existing concept of Jesus is falling apart and dying. Something similar happened within my mind when making a transition from absolute truth to universal truth. I could not simply decide to follow universal truth. Rather, I had to repeatedly choose to follow universal truth rather than absolute truth in many different contexts and in many different ways over a period of time. Similarly, people will not be able to simply decide to view the covenant between God and humanity in a new way. That is because a covenant is internally backed up by strong mental networks. Instead, one must choose repeatedly to follow the new way of thinking rather than the old, and this will gradually cause the old mental networks to be replaced by new ones. This type of choice is only possible if the mind contains conflicting networks between which one can choose. This will be the case in 1 Corinthians 11, because existing mental networks of physical reality will start to collide at a fundamental level with new mental networks of spiritual existence.

Paul says something similar in Colossians: “I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God” (Col. 1:24,25). Notice that Paul is suffering for others, he is focusing on the body of Christ, he is applying the message in his own flesh, and he is adding to Jesus’ message of rebirth. The goal is to make the message of incarnation more complete. As Paul says in Colossians 1, “We proclaim him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ” (1:28).

Academic thought is now starting to apply these two principles—in reverse. First, embodiment is currently a hot topic, which recognizes that there is a strong interaction between the physical body and how one thinks. But instead of embodying truth by applying understanding, embodiment does the opposite by insisting that how one thinks is controlled by the physical body.

Second, we have already seen that postmodern thought believes that truth is based in MMNs of personal identity. Paul says the opposite, which is that truth needs to transform MMNs of personal identity.

Similarly, the doctrine of transubstantiation says that the physical bread and physical wine become spiritually the body and blood of Jesus. Notice that the direction is from physical to spiritual. In contrast, I suggest that one should do the opposite by going from spiritual to physical. The spiritual person of incarnation becomes expressed physically when the message of incarnation turns into the body of personal application and the blood of personal rebirth.

When one does precisely the opposite by going from physical to spiritual and internal, and when one protects or avoids MMNs of personal identity rather than allowing them to be transformed through salvation, then I suggest that one is betraying Jesus. How should one respond to this betrayal of Jesus? By doing the same thing that Jesus did when he was betrayed in the night. As was mentioned in earlier chapters, those who focus on earthly wisdom will persecute and ignore those who follow God’s wisdom, forcing those who follow heavenly wisdom to go through the rebirth that is required to fully apply the message that they are preaching.

That is what Paul says in the next verse: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord” (11:27). Unworthy means ‘lacking a correspondence to real value’. The person who follows this process without pursuing real value will become part of the oppressive group that forces others to go through rebirth—‘guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’. Instead of delivering Jesus, he will betray Jesus. That is why it is important for people to examine themselves when following this process: “But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat the bread and drink the cup” (11:28). The word man here means ‘human’ and not just man. Examine means to ‘put to the test to reveal what is good (genuine)’. The technical experts were testing others in verse 19 to see who was a genuine expert. In verse 27, people are testing themselves to see if they have real value. This is a deeper form of internal testing which cannot be done by another person. In so doing actually means ‘in this manner, in this way’. Thus, the person is supposed to follow the process of eating the bread and drinking the cup in a manner that involves testing oneself to see if one has true value.

The one who does not judge himself when following this process will become judged by the process: “For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly” (11:29). The word judgment focuses upon ‘the results of a judgment’, while judge is a related word that means ‘to separate throughout or wholly’. Thus, one uses abstract technical thought to carefully distinguish one factor from another, in order to avoid experiencing the results of careful technical analysis. Notice that it is the eating and drinking itself which does the judging. What needs to be judged is the body, which refers to the ‘physical body’. Thus, it is appropriate to talk about applying the process of incarnation to physical cause-and-effect, because Paul specifically mentions the physical body. The goal is to interact with God in a new manner in the area of the physical body.

This principle of using abstract technical thought carefully in order to avoid being judged by abstract technical thought has become apparent to me when analyzing books and authors. Time and again, I have found that a system which was developed using technical thought will fall apart when one applies this system to the thinking or behavior of the author himself. For instance, if all theories are merely personal opinions being emotionally inflated with social status, as deconstructionism asserts, then this statement itself is merely the personal opinion of the deconstructionist who is using social status to impose personal opinions upon others. This is a cognitive example of being judged by abstract technical thought because one did not judge accurately. One is merely applying a precise definition to the personal source of this precise definition. My guess is that 1 Corinthians 11 is describing this principle being applied to the realm of personal physical existence.

Paul then describes the resulting judgment: “For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep” (11:30). ‘Many among you’ implies that this judgment is occurring to a number of people. I am not aware of any person who has become physically weak or physically sick because of participating in Eucharist with insufficient reverence. Therefore, Paul must be talking symbolically.

It is dangerous to learn truth that applies to the subjective, because this will lead naturally to conflict between mental networks. First, TMNs of understanding will conflict with TMNs of habit. The solution is to become righteous by allowing understanding to transform habits. If this is not done, then mental networks of understanding will fight mental networks of habit, leading to cognitive weakness. Second, TMNs of understanding will conflict with MMNs of personal identity. The solution is to become reborn by allowing understanding to transform identity. If this is not done, then mental networks of understanding will fight mental networks of identity, leading to cognitive sickness. Finally, if there is too much internal conflict between mental networks, then a person will try to avoid triggering mental networks, leading to a state of mind that could be described as being cognitively asleep. Such cognitive maladies will already have some impact upon the physical body because there is a connection between the mind and the body. In a future society of windespread spiritual technology, the physical impact would be much greater.

Paul summarizes the various options. “But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world” (11:31,32). The first option is to avoid ‘choosing by separating’ by ‘separating throughout or wholly’ oneself. Applying careful technical thought to oneself will saveguard one from being technically analyzed by others. The second option is for the lord to ‘choose by separating’. This will lead to discipline, which means ‘to train children, to chasten, correct’. The third option is to be judged with the cosmos, and judge in this case means ‘to judge someone decisively (decidedly) as guilty’. In other words, the system of material existence is in the process of being condemned. If one follows the sequence of eating bread and drinking the cup in a manner that does not pursue lasting value, then one will become condemned along with the world system. Looking at the really big picture, we currently live in a universe that is characterized by matter-over-mind. Stated simply, human minds live in physical bodies that are subject to the laws of matter. This will eventually be replaced by mind-over-matter. People will be able to use their minds to adjust the laws of physics. Mind-over-matter only becomes possible to the extent that minds acquire the ability to be guided by understanding rather than ruled by the physical environment. 1 Corinthians 11 is laying the mental foundation for this transition, by teaching people to think and behave in the manner that would be required when living within mind-over-matter. This is discussed extensively in other essays, and this transition to mind-over-matter is strongly related to the new covenant.

Verse 33 is somewhat unclear in the English: “So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.” Come together was seen back in verses 18 and 20 when talking about interdisciplinary research. Verse 33 is also referring to interdisciplinary research because brethren are coming together to eat. The word translated wait actually means to ‘welcome from the heart, looking to the end-result of the waiting’. In other words, when people with different specializations come together to build understanding, then they should welcome each other from the heart and be patient with each other, knowing that the end results will be worth it. Interdisciplinary research may not come naturally, but it is rewarding.

Paul concludes by saying that one should apply truth to the subjective before sharing it with others: “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment” (11:34). ‘Come together’ is the same word that was used in verse 33, while judgment means ‘the results of a judgment’ and was seen in verse 29. The final phrase is more literally ‘so that not into the results of a judgment you might come together’. In other words, Paul wants to avoid bad results when technical specialists get together.

Verse 34 finishes with “The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.” Arrange means ‘to arrange thoroughly’, and ‘come’ is the same common verb that was used in verse 26 to talk about the coming of the Lord. Paul began this chapter by telling others to mimic him to the extent that he copies Christ. Thus, there is a relationship between the coming of the Lord and the coming of Paul. The thinking of incarnation has to be fleshed out by other people. Paul says that he will add details to the process of incarnation when he comes.

Before we continue, I would like to make a general remark. It is quite possible that this chapter (and this book) has never been interpreted in this fashion before. This does not imply that I am right and everyone else is wrong, or that I am smart and everyone else is stupid. Instead, it means that theologians are approaching the Bible using the wrong paradigm—the wrong set of intellectual glasses. Their fundamental assumption appears to be that the Bible has nothing to do with science. The average theologian would never think of relating 1 Corinthians 11 to interdisciplinary research. In contrast, my fundamental assumption is that the thinking of the Bible has everything to do the thinking of science. Why do I think that I am taking the right approach? First, there is one God. Theologians may verbally assert that the same God wrote the Bible and created the physical universe, but if this is really true, then one should find extensive connections between biblical theology and scientific thought. Second, the original Greek makes more sense. We are continually finding that the English translation does not precisely reflect the original Greek. In contrast, if one assumes that there is a connection between scientific thought and theology, then one finds that the original Greek text makes detailed sense. This is an important comment to make at this point, because the next chapter will contain analysis which is utterly foreign to the typical theologian. That is because we will be looking extensively at symmetry. Theoretical physics knows all about symmetry, and symmetry also plays a major role in the theory of mental symmetry.

Spiritual Gifts 12:1-6

Paul opens the chapter by saying, “Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I do not want you to be unaware” (12:1). The original Greek word translated unaware is stronger and means ignorant, or possibly willfully ignorant. I have been researching Romans 12 spiritual gifts for about 30 years and I have discovered that the average person does not really want to learn about spiritual gifts. People love to know something about themselves, but mental symmetry tells them too much. More generally, people are increasingly searching for spirituality, but people want spirituality without content, and spiritual gifts add solid content to spirituality. I suggest that this idea of adding content to spirituality is essential for understanding this chapter. The original Greek does not include the word ‘gifts’ but simply uses the adjective spiritual, defined as ‘relating to the realm of spirit’. The term ‘spiritual gifts’ implies that Paul is talking about something limited to the church and religiosity. That is how the average Christian interprets Romans 12 spiritual gifts. In contrast, the adjective ‘spiritual’ suggests that Paul is talking about the more generic topic of interacting with the realm of the spirit.

We have referred several times to the theoretical return of Jesus. One of the key attributes of this return is that it involves both God the Father and God the Son. This combined return can be seen in John 14:23. “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.’” The word abode in this verse is only found twice in the New Testament and means ‘an abiding dwelling-place (i.e. not transitory)’. The other occurrence is in John 14:2, where Jesus says that he is going to heaven to ‘to prepare a place for you’. This combination of God the Father and God the Son is one of the primary features of science. One can pursue science either by working with mathematical equations in Teacher thought, or by using technical thought to perform experiments. Both of these methods lead to the same answers. Using religious language, science combines God the Father in Teacher thought with God the Son in technical thought.

The end of 1 Corinthians 11 talked about developing a new concept of Jesus by following the path from God through incarnation to male and then female humanity, and stated that one should continue repeating this path until some sort of coming happens. Verse 3 in chapter 12 describes something new emerging involving the nature of Jesus: “Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking in the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is anathema’; and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except in the Holy Spirit.” In other words, in the same way that Christ and God the Father will reveal themselves in a combined way in the theoretical return of Jesus, so Jesus and God the Spirit are expressing themselves in a combined way in 1 Corinthians 12. Something new has emerged that is the mirror-image or symmetry of the theoretical return of Jesus. Looking at this more generally, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit will start working together in a new way with the advent of spiritual technology. When spiritual technology spreads to all of society, then this will make a new covenant possible in which God the Son and God the Holy Spirit can function together in a new integrated manner. Using the language of other essays, a shift will occur in which spiritual stops being the adjective that modifies technology, to being the noun that is modified by technology.

Paul describes this transition in verse 2: “You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led.” The word know means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. Thus, Paul is not just talking about some new concept but rather about facts that can be observed empirically. The word pagan usually refers to non-Jews, but it actually means ‘people joined by practicing similar customs or common culture’. Cognitively speaking, this describes a mind that is ruled by cultural MMNs acquired from the environment. Such a mindset is described in the rest of the verse: The direction of the pagans was toward the images or idols which were without voice, speechless. Literally speaking, Paul is talking about worshiping statues that cannot speak. Cognitively speaking, Paul is describing a mindset that is directed towards external Mercy experiences that are not backed up by any Teacher understanding. For instance, if one asks typical Jews why they are practicing Torah, they will answer that they are carrying out traditions given to the Jewish people which they do not understand. Similarly, the typical Christian follows a set of beliefs acquired from the external experiences of attending church, and will assert that the character of God is ultimately incomprehensible. Likewise, the typical modern consumer follows a lifestyle acquired from the external experiences of being surrounded by new-and-improved stuff, and does not have any Teacher understanding of how this stuff is produced—or how it should be used.

Paul also makes an analogy in verse 2, because the second phrase begins with as, like as, even as. This is followed by the verb lead, lead away and another verb that means lead away. Putting this together, when people lacked the TMN of a concept of God, they were led astray in random directions to idolatrous MMNs based in external experiences, which are mute because they are not connected to Teacher thought.

Verse 3 goes from mute to talking: “Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is accursed’; and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord’, except by the Holy Spirit” (12:3). The word known here refers to experiential knowledge. Accursed is anathema, which means ‘something pledged (given up) to destruction’. No one is a strong negative that means ‘no one, none, nothing’. Finally, the name Jesus means salvation. Paul is saying that no one who is guided by a spirit that is based in a concept of God in Teacher thought is able to use Teacher thought in a way that suppresses the idea of salvation. For instance, a mindset of absolute truth will naturally think that following God implies denying self. And I have found that this mindset of religious self-denial colors all of evangelical Christian theology. In essence, a doctrine of religious self-denial says that Jesus is anathema, because the bottom line is not saving self but rather denying self. Similarly, a mindset that uses science and technology to suppress people, enslave people, or kill people with more potent weapons is also declaring Jesus to be anathema. In contrast, I have found that when one constructs a concept of God in Teacher thought and allows this Teacher understanding to form Platonic forms of the spirit in Mercy thought, it becomes emotionally impossible to consider using science and technology to destroy or abuse people.

Speaking from personal experience, I can no longer think in terms of religious self-denial. Instead, I have to pursue theology in a way that leads to personal salvation. Similarly, I find it asinine when some secular person says,‘I will cease to exist when I die. That is why I am leaving a legacy so that people will remember me.’ If my existence stops when my physical body dies, then what is the point of doing anything that lasts beyond my death, because I will not be around to enjoy it? In a similar manner, I find it repulsive to even think of pursuing a career that has the goal of suppressing or destroying human beings. The point is that I have learned experientially that I am incapable of saying that Jesus is accursed. I can mouth the words, but adding any substance to these words triggers a gut revulsion. That is because I now follow a concept of God that is based in Teacher thought and this concept of God has created Platonic forms of ideal perfection within Mercy thought.

The cognitive reason for this is that Teacher thought looks for order and structure, and Teacher thought feels bad when encountering exceptions to the general order and structure. A concept of God emerges when a general Teacher theory applies to personal identity, and a spirit of God is an indirect expression of this Teacher understanding. Therefore, a spirit of God will want personal identities to have order and structure. Saying this more personally, a spirit of God will want me to function well, which means that the Spirit of God is incapable of saying that personal salvation is accursed.

The second phrase is slightly different. No one has the power to say Lord Jesus, if not in the Holy Spirit. The focus here is upon submitting to the lordship of salvation, and the Spirit is referred to as a Holy Spirit. Holy means ‘different from the world because like the Lord’. A concept of the Holy Spirit emerges when many Platonic forms of ideal perfection are tied together by an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought. For instance, one of my essays was on the pop psychology of Anthony Robbins. I was surprised at the depth of his cognitive insights. However, I also noticed that personal identity remained in charge. Robbins talks about the relationship between TMNs of understanding and morality and MMNs of personal identity. But he constructs a concept of God in Teacher thought that is the servant of personal identity in Mercy thought. In other words, Robbins lacks the power to say that Jesus is Lord because he is not functioning in the Holy Spirit. He talks about personal salvation but not about personal salvation as Lord. He has a concept of being guided by spiritual Platonic forms, but he is not guided by an integrated concept of the Holy Spirit. In contrast, I find that what keeps me going along my path is an integrated, internal concept of how things could be. This internal concept is a Holy Spirit because it is an expression of an integrated Teacher understanding of God, and it is different than what I see around me.

Notice that the direction in this verse is from Mercy to Teacher—from spirit to words. Saying this another way, Teacher thought can trust Mercy thought. This is significant because the typical male Teacher person regards Mercy thought as a cancer that must be excised in order to pursue rational thought. The first statement says that Teacher thought does not have to exclude anyone who is being driven by internal Mercy emotions to follow the path described in the last chapter. The Teacher person will naturally exclude those who are deemed to be emotionally contaminated. Teacher thought must do this in order to think clearly because Teacher thought thinks emotionally. The second statement says that Teacher thought should not build upon anyone who is not being fully motivated by internal Mercy emotions of the Spirit. This is important because Teacher thought forms general theories by lifting up certain elements and treating them as more general than other elements. The second rule indicates valid possible candidates for a general theory. These comments may sound strange, but I have worked with a Teacher person for several years and I know from personal experience that they are accurate. And one can also find passages in the Bible describing God the Father functioning in a similar manner.

Looking at these two phrases more simply, the name Jesus means salvation. Therefore, saying that Jesus is accursed would mean coming up with a Teacher theory that denies personal salvation. For instance, ‘It is your duty to die for your country’ would qualify as saying that Jesus is accursed, as would ‘God wants you to deny yourself and devote your life to serving God’. Modern consumerism also says that Jesus is accursed, because it preaches a message of accumulating goods while suppressing any message that suggests the need for personal transformation. Paul is saying that none of these messages are an expression of the Spirit of God.

Going the other way, Paul says that ‘no one has the power to say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit’. The path to personal salvation is not a direct path, but rather leads through personal rebirth. It is only possible to handle the emotional trauma of allowing childish MMNs to be reborn if one is guided by the TMN of a concept of God. I mentioned at the beginning of this essay that a concept of the Holy Spirit emerges when Platonic forms combine to make what Plato called a form of the Good. A Holy Spirit will have the emotional power to motivate a person to reach personal salvation, because it is held together by the TMN of a concept of God. A spirit that lacks this power will be ‘watered down’ by the emotional pull of childish MMNs, turning from a spirit of salvation to a spirit of rationalization. Instead of saving a person from their sins, such a spirit may remove some elements of sin but will also focus upon giving a person a good self-image so that they no longer feel that they are a sinner.

Turning now to the rest of the chapter, if one searches for spiritual gifts on the web, one will find that most explanations lump all of the gifts into a single large list. However, Paul specifically says that there are three kinds of spiritual gifts: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons” (12:4-6). First, there are the gifts of the Spirit. Second, there are the ministries or services of the Lord. Third, there are the effects or energizings of God. Notice that each of these three is an expression of a different person of the Trinity.

The noun varieties is only used in these three verses (it also occurs twice elsewhere as a verb) and combines ‘through, reaching across’ with ‘making a personal choice’. This can be interpreted as some superior person, such as God, distributing and apportioning, or as a form of dividing that reaches across the dimensions. Notice that in each case the presence of order-within-complexity is being emphasized. The three kinds of varieties are each being held together by a different person of the Trinity. Paul said in 11:16 that there was no practice of being strife-loving in the churches of God. The same spirit, the same Lord, and the same God indicate that strife-loving has been eliminated at the Mercy level, the Contributor level, and the Teacher level. These are the three cognitive modules that can concentrate. (Mercy thought can concentrate on some experience or event, Teacher thought can concentrate on some theory or set of words, and Contributor thought can concentrate on some plan. The other four cognitive styles do not have a natural ability to concentrate.) Therefore, if strife has been eliminated with these three modules, then all strife has become effectively eliminated.

One can use these three categories to organize the rest of the chapter:

The first kind of spiritual gift is described in verses 7-11. Verse 7 says that they are for the common good, which means to ‘combine in a way that brings a profit’. In other words, they function as part of the economy of incarnation. But even though this first set of gifts uses the economic language of concrete technical thought, the spirit is repeatedly mentioned. This relates to the idea that Jesus and the Holy Spirit have become interconnected in a new way. Following the Holy Spirit is naturally leading to behavior that is consistent with the bottom-line thinking of Jesus. The history of the charismatic movement makes it clear that this is not the case today. Instead, following the spirit has naturally degraded into using spiritual language to get rich and famous.

As far as I can tell, the second section refers to cognitive styles, as described in Romans 12. The seven cognitive styles are not directly mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12. But Paul begins verses 14-27 by talking about being many different members of a single body of Christ, which is the same language used in Romans 12:4-5. (“For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” Rom. 12:4-5). Verses 14-27 make sense when interpreted in terms of the seven different cognitive styles. Why would Paul mention cognitive styles in Romans 12 but not here? My guess is that it is important to know about cognitive styles when being ‘transformed by the renewing of your mind’ (Romans 12:1-2). This process must start before the theoretical return of Jesus, because it lays the foundation for the theoretical return of Jesus. In contrast, 1 Corinthians 12 focuses upon the relationship between various cognitive styles.

Looking at the big picture, I have suggested that the current system of matter-over-mind will eventually be replaced by a new system of mind-over-matter. Minds reside with the people. 1 Corinthians 12 talks exclusively about people and how they interact. If mind were to start ruling over matter, then existence itself would depend upon people interacting in a harmonious manner.

Both Romans 12:4 and 1 Corinthians 12:4 use the same Greek word charismata, which means ‘grace-endowment’. This is one of a family of Greek words that all start with charis- which all indicate some form of grace being received from God. Charismata is used in the New Testament to refer to many kinds of gifts from God, and not just ‘spiritual gifts’. In Romans 12, charismata is related to a single body with different functions. In 1 Corinthians 12, charismata is related to a single spirit.

Verse 5 talks about the ministries or services of the Lord, while verse 7 talks about manifestations or disclosures of the Spirit. Looking at this cognitively, the Platonic forms of the Spirit are invisible images of perfection, which become disclosed through the ministries of incarnation. This happens, for instance, when technology is used to turn visions of a better world into practical devices that make life better.

The third kind of spiritual gift is described in verses 28-30. Paul starts this passage by saying that “God has appointed in the church...” Teacher thought works with order and generality. Similarly, Paul talks about different categories that have been established in the general structure of the church. I know that many churches like to think that God works exclusively through them, but if one examines history honestly, one notices that God’s plan extends far beyond any specific church, ethnic group, or country. However, in verse 27, God the Father is explicitly appointing leaders in the church. This implies that God is calling out a group of people (church means to be called out) in order to set up a new system of cosmic order based upon a group of minds rather than the structure of the physical universe.

Verse 6 says more literally that ‘There are a variety of energizings, but the same God energizes each part of the whole in everyone’. Cognitively speaking, a general structure will become mentally represented by a TMN, which will emotionally energize this general structure to keep going. For instance, this explains the quote by Oscar Wilde that “The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.” Paul emphasizes that all general structures in ‘the church’ are ultimately energized by the TMN of a concept of God.

Spiritual gifts are typically interpreted as some sort of magical power that is given to a person by the Holy Spirit. In contrast, we will be interpreting these gifts from a rational, cognitive perspective, and we will see that one can find partial illustrations of these gifts within modern technological society. This does not mean that these gifts have no spiritual component. Instead, it appears that the spiritual realm interacts with humans by empowering mental networks. And it also appears that one reaches the supernatural realm by going through the spiritual realm. Thus, one can treat both the supernatural and the spiritual as an extension of what is happening within the mind. Platonic forms are currently internal images of ideal perfection based in Teacher understanding. Hebrews 9 seems to indicate that Platonic forms will eventually become visible as actual images of perfection within a spiritual heaven. I am not sure if Platonic forms will be visible by 1 Corinthians 11 or not. However, whether visible or invisible, Platonic forms will still have the common feature of being an image of heavenly perfection that cannot be seen on earth.

Gifts of the Spirit 12:7-11

Let us turn now to verses 7-11. This list describes spiritual power functioning in a manner that carries out the plan of Jesus Christ. Verse 7 describes these as manifestations of the spirit. “But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good”. The word manifestation is based in the word ‘light’ and means ‘a manifestation, a coming to light’. This suggests that the spiritual realm is becoming manifest in a new manner which involves light. This is quite different than what is happening today. The spiritual realm is currently becoming more manifest on television and in movies, but it is becoming manifest in a manner which involves increasing darkness, and this darkness includes physical darkness, moral darkness, psychological darkness, societal darkness, and religious darkness. The word common good means to ‘combine in a way that brings a profit’. Thus, there is profit, but it involves harmony and it helps many people.

Nine manifestations are mentioned: “For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills” (11:8-11). Notice that the first four (wisdom, knowledge, faith, and healing) are explicitly associated with the spirit, while the last five are not. Notice also that the prepositions used with the first four are different: through, according to, by, and by.

The first four spiritual gifts describe a loop that leaves concrete thought and then returns to concrete thought. More specifically, the loop goes from Mercy to Teacher to Perceiver to Contributor to Mercy. The starting point is Platonic forms in Mercy thought, because the first gift is described as ‘through or on account’ of the spirit. One then receives an insight in Teacher thought that has personal applications—a word of wisdom. This relates to the flash of intuition mentioned earlier. But wisdom is an expression of high-level intuition, which has been trained through knowledge and experience. Word is actually logos, which refers to the TMN of some technical specialization. This tells us that intuition is functioning in a manner that lays the foundation for technical thought, which is why I relate wisdom to trained intuition. Flashes of insight are not just being thrown out and disregarded, but instead act as seeds for developing technical thought. This is one result of the Holy Spirit becoming interconnected with incarnation. The second gift adds factual content to this theoretical insight, because it is a word of knowledge. Here too, logos is used, and knowledge refers to experiential knowledge. This experiential knowledge is described as ‘according to’ the spirit, which implies that the experiences are being guided in some indirect manner by the values of Platonic forms. This is followed by faith, which means to ‘be persuaded’. This faith is being motivated by the internal vision of perfection provided by the Platonic forms of the spirit. One can tell that these first three gifts form a sequence because Paul emphasizes that they occur as a result of the ‘same spirit’. However, the second manifestation is being given to ‘another of the same kind’, while the third manifestation is given to ‘another of a different kind’. Wisdom and knowledge are similar because they both involve abstract thought. Faith is different because it behaves within concrete thought guided by abstract understanding.

The fourth manifestation then uses this plan to bring healing to MMNs of personal identity. This is also guided by Platonic forms of perfection. Paul says that this fourth gift is guided by the ‘one Spirit’ and not the ‘same spirit’, which implies that this fourth gift is guided by a unifying vision that goes beyond the more specific visions that guided the first three gifts. The word healing occurs three times in this chapter, and these are the only three times that the noun ‘healing’ is used in the New Testament. It occurs several times as a verb, and is used primarily to describe Jesus physically healing people. Each use of healing in this chapter is described as a charismata of healing, and healing is the only specific trait in this chapter that is preceded by the term charismata. We saw earlier that charismata means ‘grace-endowment’. This implies that God will step in in a new way to bring about physical healing at this time. Theologians and philosophers have struggled for millennia to reconcile the idea of a good God with human suffering. I suggest that the key to addressing this problem is to recognize that existence is more basic than pain or pleasure. God must first deal with the problem of existence by ensuring that created creatures have enough mental stability to continue existing independent of God. 1 Corinthians 1-11 describes the process of building this kind of independent existence within the minds of a church of God. This means weaning humans from the mystical idea that the ultimate goal is to become united with God. Once the primary problem of existence has been solved, it then becomes possible to deal with the secondary problem of suffering.

It is interesting that the charismata of healing occurs twice in the middle of a list, first in verse 9 and then in verse 28. Looking first at verse 9, healing is described as ‘another of the same kind’ as faith. That is because both faith and healing apply understanding to reality. The healing in verse 9 does not happen out of the blue. Instead, it is a result of intuitive understanding followed by experiential knowledge which is then applied in faith. This already happens to some extent with new medical procedures. Some doctor gets an idea about a new form of surgery. This intelligent intuitive insight is then refined through experiential knowledge. The medical doctor then takes a step of faith and performs this new surgery upon real people. The end result is to bring healing. I suggest that 1 Corinthians 12 is describing a similar process happening at a spiritual level.

One can also see this loop illustrated by the development of new technology. It begins with a flash of intuition within the mind of someone who has a deep grasp of how science works. This is then expanded into a fuller understanding by acquiring facts. This factual understanding makes it possible to come up with new plans and products. And these products are then used to improve society.

Summarizing, the first four manifestations are all rooted in Mercy experiences: wisdom is intelligent intuition, this is followed by experiential knowledge, this knowledge is then being applied in faith, and this is bringing healing to situations and people in Mercy thought. However, each step is being guided in an integrated manner by the Platonic forms of the Holy Spirit in a manner that is consistent with the technical thinking of incarnation. This may sound trivial but it is not. until now we have been emphasizing the need to submit MMNs of culture and identity to the TMN of a concept of God. Mercy thought has now reached the level of functioning in a manner that can be trusted by Teacher thought. this has supernatural implications, because it appears that the supernatural realm is the mirror-image of the human realm. in the same way that humans live in mercy thought guided by a teacher concept of God the Father, so it appears that angels and aliens live in Teacher thought guided by a Mercy concept of God the Spirit. If Mercy thought in humans becomes guided by the Holy Spirit to the extent that it can be trusted by Teacher thought, this also means that God can open up the human realm to the supernatural realm of angels and aliens and know that things will not go awry as they did in Genesis 6.

Spirit is not specifically mentioned with the next five manifestations. This may be because it is possible for these five gifts to function apart from the spirit. This is backed up by Jesus’ warning at the end of the Sermon on the Mount: “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness’” (Matt. 7:22,23). Jesus mentions three of the five last gifts: miracles, prophecy, and casting out demons—which would require a discerning of spirits. But Jesus complains that people performing these gifts have not been personally transformed.

Looking at these gifts more specifically, the phrase ‘effecting of miracles’ gives the impression of supernatural powers, but the Greek words are energema, which means energizing, and dunamis, which means might, power, and marvelous works. One of the primary characteristics of our technological society is the energy that makes marvelous works of power possible. One discovers how dependent one is personally upon energy when there is a storm and the electrical power goes out. Similarly, cars, trucks, ships, airplanes, and machines all require the energy contained within fossil fuels to function. While energy and power are essential, they lack direction and will only generate useful work if channeled. Raw, unchanneled energy is a destructive force, as illustrated by floods and explosions. And power can be used to enable either good or evil, as illustrated by the power of a nuclear bomb versus the power of a nuclear power station.

Turning now to the spiritual realm, presumably there is also an energizing of spiritual power. Charismatic movements often talk about being ‘slain in the spirit’. However, this is an experience of raw unchanneled spiritual energy, because it is causing a person to be psychologically overcome. I do not want to say categorically that all experiences of being slain in the spirit are either fraudulent or spiritually harmful, but one can definitely state that the goal should be to harness energy and to use power to perform good.

The next gift is prophecy, a word which adds the prefix ‘before’ to ‘make clear, assert as a priority’. This too is a major characteristic of scientific thought, because research gathers facts about the world and then forms hypotheses in order to predict facts about the world. However, modern science has shown us that it is possible to divorce prophecy both from the larger picture of a concept of God in Teacher thought as well as from personal implications in Mercy thought. For instance, almost all nuclear power plants use uranium as a fuel. But it would be safer and more economical to use thorium as a fuel. The primary reason that uranium was chosen rather than thorium is that uranium produces plutonium, and plutonium can be used to make atomic bombs. saying this cognitively, researchers chose to ‘make clear, assert as a priority’ the goal of killing people more efficiently. As a result, one could prophecy that atomic energy would use uranium rather than thorium. Notice how prophecy is functioning in incomplete manner because society is not being guided by the Holy Spirit. It is being guided by the spirit sufficiently to develop atomic energy, but not enough to stop fighting. People who are guided by the Holy Spirit do not design and build weapons of mass destruction.

Moving to the next gift, distinguish ‘distinguishes look-alikes, i.e. things that appear to be the same’. Modern science distinguishes spirits all the time, separating internal visions that are fantasy from those that are scientifically reasonable, and then passing judgment on those that are regarded as scientifically impossible. It is important to test internal visions of perfection and pass judgment on those that violate Teacher understanding. But it is also possible to test and pass judgment from the sidelines. Personal transformation goes beyond discerning and judging to living within that which is good.

This distinction can be seen in Matthew 7. Quoting more fully from this passage, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.’” (Matt. 7:21-23). Notice that all of this is being done in the name of incarnation. Similarly, modern objective science is guided by the name of incarnation as revealed in the structure of the physical universe. Objective science has performed the useful task of casting out many demons (daimonion) of irrational, fragmented TMNs. But instead of replacing these demons with a Holy Spirit, objective science has left personal identity untransformed and lawless. Summarizing, I suggest that Matthew 7:21-23 is an accurate indictment of the shortcomings of modern objective science.

These three gifts of energizing power, prophecy, and distinguishing spirits are all described as ‘another of the same kind’. In each case, technical thought is being applied to a realm of Mercy experiences that goes beyond normal existence. Energizing power uses technical thought to tap into some new form of energy, prophecy uses technical thought to guide understanding into new applications, and distinguishing spirits uses technical fault this separate the feasible from the impossible. These three gifts are significant but one can see from present-day technology is possible to use them in a manner that becomes divorced from either serving God or helping people.

The final two gifts are tongues and interpretation of tongues. these two belong together because tongues are described as ‘another of a different kind’ while interpretation which follows is described as ‘another of the same kind’. The gift of tongues is often interpreted as ‘speaking in tongues’, but the Greek word is glossa, which means language, or ‘a nation distinguished by its language’. And the word tongues is preceded by the word kinds, which means ‘offspring, family, race, nation, kind’. Speaking in tongues was initially taught by Charles Parham, who believed tongues to be the ability to speak in another human language. And there are examples where a person speaking tongues has supernaturally acquired the ability to speak in another language. However, when it was discovered that most tongues did not fall into this category, then tongues were reinterpreted to be speaking in some ‘heavenly language’

This linguistic interpretation of tongues becomes obvious to anyone who is familiar with academia. Academic thought is split into different specializations, each characterized by its own technical language. If one wishes to become an expert in some specialization, then one must learn the language that is used by that specialization. Technical language is useful, because defining terms is a requirement for abstract technical thought, and technical thought is an aspect of incarnation.

Because each specialization has its own technical language, technical terms have to be translated into normal speech, and the technical terms of one specialization have to be translated into the technical language of another specialization. That describes the final gift of interpreting tongues. The Greek word is hermeneia, which means ‘to translate, interpret, or explain’.

Speaking tongues and interpreting tongues are both critical aspects of integrated thought. Much of my current research consists of learning the language of some researcher or school of thought, and then attempting to translate between this language and other languages, guided by the language of mental symmetry. However, modern science has shown us that is possible to practice these two gifts in a manner that completely ignores personal transformation.

Turning now to the charismatic practice of ‘speaking in tongues’, we will see when looking at 1 Corinthians 14 that charismatic tongues may have the overall shape of speech but they lack the content of a real language. Looking at this more generally, ‘being slain in the spirit’ is energy without content, while ‘speaking in tongues’ is language without content. Both of these are consistent with the spirit of this age, which is happy to embrace spirituality without content. But what society really needs is spirituality with content—Holy Spirit working together with Incarnation in an integrated manner.

Paul finishes by saying that “One and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as he wills” (12:11). In other words, the Spirit has content. The Holy Spirit is not just some vague force that provides nebulous spiritual feelings. Instead, there is one Spirit who ‘divides into parts, cuts asunder, distributes’ (diaireo). It is precisely this sort of dividing into parts, cutting asunder, and distributing which mysticism abhors, because the overgeneralization of mysticism can only maintain unity by making vague universal statements. In contrast, the technical thinking of incarnation by its very nature will ‘divide into parts, cut asunder, and distribute’. Therefore, it is only possible for incarnation to manifest the invisible ideals of the Spirit if one goes beyond a mystical concept of God and divine spirit. Going further, notice that people are not choosing their gifts but rather the Spirit is distributing the gifts to various individuals. But this distributing is described as individually, which means ‘uniquely one’s own, peculiar to the individual’. This happens cognitively as natural talents are emphasized by individual experiences, and presumably it would also happen spiritually as God the Spirit would give people gifts based upon their personal experiences and qualifications.

Looking at this more generally, mysticism is based in Teacher overgeneralization, which comes up with a universal theory of Oneness in Teacher thought by ignoring all specific information. This leads indirectly in Mercy thought to a spirit of tolerance, in which one accepts everyone unconditionally by ignoring all personal distinctions. In contrast, modern science has used technical thought to develop an integrated Teacher understanding of the natural universe. This needs to be extended in order to develop a concept of incarnation that is held together by a Teacher concept of God. This will lay the foundation for a theoretical return of Jesus in which the concept of God and incarnation starts to affect physical reality. This will then become applied step by step through spiritual technology until society as a whole becomes guided by spiritual technology. This will lay the foundation for a new covenant in which the Holy Spirit and Incarnation express themselves in a new and integrated manner. Notice how the new covenant is the mirror image of the theoretical return of Jesus.

Cognitive Styles and God the Son 12:12-27

Moving on, verses 12-26 deal with the body of Christ with its many members, which I suggest relates to the spiritual gifts or cognitive styles of Romans 12. Verse 12 begins by presenting a new definition of Christ: “For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.” The verse begins with the comparison even as, just as, and it finishes with the statement ‘so also the Christ’,that and so is another comparison, which means ‘in this manner, in this way’. Christ refers to the abstract side of incarnation. Science has developed a partial concept of Christ by using abstract technical thought to analyze how the natural universe functions. That is the primary way in which one learns about Christ when matter rules over mind. Verse 12, in contrast, says that the Christ is like many members of the body functioning together. And Romans 12 specifically relates members of the body of Christ functioning together with cognitive styles. This is a definition of Christ which is based in people functioning in an integrated manner, and this would become the dominant way of defining Christ if mind started to rule over matter.

Saying this more clearly, if enough people acquired sufficient spiritual power, then the local physical environment would stop working in a predictable manner, and the laws of nature would no longer become 100% reliable. Thus, one would have to build technical thought upon a new foundation. This would be possible if incarnation and the Holy Spirit began to work together in an integrated manner, because incarnation could then find a new foundation in people working together in an integrated manner guided by the Holy Spirit—as described in the previous verses. This same transition can be found in other books of the New Testament, and is described in other essays. Verse 11 said that the Holy Spirit is giving gifts to people. Verse 12 says that people are functioning together in an integrated manner that leads to a concept of the Christ. This shows the Holy Spirit and Incarnation functioning in a cooperative manner, because the Holy Spirit is giving gifts to people in a way that supports an integrated structure of Incarnation. Verse 12 describes this integration going both ways. On the one hand, the one body has many members. On the other hand, the many members of the body are one body.

One can see this new definition of Christ illustrated by machines. A machine is a set of precisely defined parts functioning together in an integrated manner. For instance, the motor of a car contains many parts that work together to turn the wheels. Every part of an engine has its own function, but all of these parts corporately carry out the single function of spinning the driveshaft. A car can be viewed either from abstract technical thought as a set of precisely defined parts that function together with Teacher order-within-complexity, or from concrete technical thought as a tool for reaching some desired goal in Mercy thought. The former describes the viewpoint of the mechanic, while the latter describes the viewpoint of the driver. The point is that a machine uses abstract technical thought, but it starts with the Mercy stuff of physical matter, rather than the Teacher stuff of mathematical equations. Verse 12 appears to be describing a similar redefining of Christ, which is based in abstract technical thought. Instead of being viewed as the logos of God, who is God and who lives with God (John 1), Christ is being viewed as the head of the body of believers. Paul describes this transition in Colossians 1:15-20. Verse 16 describes Christ as the creator. Verse 18 then introduces a new perspective, describing Christ as‘the head of the body, the church’ and ‘the firstborn from the dead’.

This new viewpoint does not contradict the old one, but it is a new viewpoint. A physical body is a machine (the word body in these verses means ‘physical body’) but it is also alive. This implies that what is happening is like what happens with the machine but is more personal and spiritual than current machines. it also implies that physical bodies are being transformed in a manner that has not yet happened. Saying this another way, the celestial mechanic is stepping in to fix the machinery of physical bodies.

Verse 13 says that this new viewpoint overrides existing categories of religion and culture: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (12:13). What mattered initially was the distinction between religious and secular (Jew or Greek) as well as MMNs of power and status (slaves or free). Personal MNs have now been redefined, again suggesting that God is building in a new way upon the minds of people. The word baptism means ‘dip under’, and water represents Mercy experiences. Therefore, baptism symbolizes being made new by being immersed in Mercy experiences in some way. This transformation through experience is brought out by the last phrase, which says that each part of a totality in the realm of the spirit was caused to drink. Again we see spirit-guided Mercy thought causing people to function in a way that is harmonious with incarnation.

Looking at this cognitively, when one becomes immersed within the water of the Spirit, then external and cultural divisions become replaced by the internal, invisible distinctions of cognitive style. This essay illustrates what that means. We are not quoting from established experts, and we are interpreting 1 Corinthians in a way that is both secular and religious. We are being guided by the internal categories of the seven spiritual gifts described in Romans 12, and we are finding that this approach leads to an integrated view of 1 Corinthians.

(On a side note, the Greek definition of baptism means that one can address the question of baptism-by-immersion versus baptism-by-sprinkling by looking at the Greek dictionary. Similarly, we have seen that many theological uncertainties can be clarified by looking at the definitions of the Greek words. When doctrines are being based upon inadequately translated Greek words, this indicates that abstract technical thought is not functioning properly, because abstract technical thought begins by assigning precise definitions to words. This also indicates an inadequate concept of Christ, because a concept of Christ is based in abstract technical thought. This does not mean that theologians do not use abstract technical thought. Instead, it is being used primarily to quote precisely from respected theologians and church fathers.)

Verse 14 emphasizes that the body of Christ is characterized by harmony rather than unison: “For the body is not one member, but many.” Paul then illustrates this principle by talking about several specific parts of physical body. I suggest that Paul’s illustrations are not random but rather describe basic internal divisions that are characteristic of modern thought. In order to interpret these illustrations, we need to work out the symbolic correspondence between body parts and cognitive styles. Paul mentions eyes, ears, smell, head, hands, and feet. Eyes are used to see the physical world of objects. More specifically, the eyes scan the visual environment in order to build up a Perceiver map of the surroundings. Thus, eyes probably refer to Mercy experiences organized into Perceiver categories. Ears, in contrast are used to hear speech, and words are the basic building blocks for Teacher thought. Thus, ears probably represent Teacher thought acquiring words through speech. Smell is easy to decipher because smell is the only sense that connects directly with the orbitofrontal cortex, and neurological evidence makes it clear that mental networks reside within orbitofrontal cortex. Saying this more simply, smell triggers emotional memories. Christ is described as the head of the church, the head controls the body, Contributor thought is the core of choice and free will, and incarnation is related to Contributor thought. Thus, the head would correspond to Contributor thought and Contributor-controlled technical thought. Feet are used to support a person and to move a person from one location to another. Mentally speaking, the mind uses mental networks to represent personal identity, and a person moves internally from one location to another by changing mental networks of personal identity. Therefore, I suggest that feet represent mental networks (or possibly Mercy thought and Teacher thought in general). Most skills involve the hands, and hands are also used for object manipulation. Therefore, I suggest that hands correspond to Server actions guided by Perceiver thought.

Let us turn now to Paul’s illustrations. “If the foot says, ‘because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,’ it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body” (12:14). Translated, if one pretends that mental networks are not related to Perceiver facts and Server actions, then this does not stop mental networks from being part of the mind. This describes a fundamental fallacy of objective science, which thinks that mental networks can be eliminated from the Perceiver data and Server procedures upon which scientific technical thought is based. But this does not prevent mental networks from being a part of the mind. In other words, saying that emotions are not a part of rational thought does not stop emotions from being a part of the mind. Any attempt to remove emotions from rational thought will only end up replacing one emotional drive with another. Stated simply, one cannot become a Spock of Star Trek who is free of emotions. One could also interpret this from the other direction as pretending that mental networks of identity function in isolation apart from the rest of the mind. Said another way, my personal tastes and my lifestyle have nothing to do with my ability to function as a rational human being. These two interpretations are two sides of the same coin, which MBTI refers to as a split between Thinking and Feeling.

Going further, “If the ear says, ‘Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,’ it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body” (12:16). The Greek language of verse 16 is identical to verse 15, except that different body parts are mentioned. This describes a fundamental fallacy of philosophy and theology, which thinks that abstract language in Teacher thought can be used apart from any factual observation of reality. But the language that one can comprehend is heavily dependent upon the facts of one’s physical environment. For instance, the primary reason that I can interpret the Bible cognitively is because I live in a world of computing devices and I have been trained as an electrical engineer to work with computing devices. In other words, theology and philosophy do not occur in a vacuum. Using the language of philosophy, this relates to the distinction between analytic truth and synthetic truth, as exemplified by the struggle between Willard Quine and Rudolf Carnap. Quoting from the linked article, “Analytic truths might be characterized as those true solely in virtue of the meanings of the words they contain, or of the rules of the language, or something of the sort. Synthetic truths, by contrast, state matters of extra-linguistic fact, and are known by experience.” Wikipedia says more simply that “Analytic propositions are true by virtue of their meaning, while synthetic propositions are true by how their meaning relates to the world.” Logical positivists asserted that one could make verbal statements whose truth could be determined apart from physical reality—that it was possible for the ear to pretend that it was not an eye and thus not part of the body. Similarly, philosophy is typically taught today as a verbal mind game that has nothing to do with either reality or personal behavior.

Mental symmetry suggests a more nuanced approach. All language is initially based in facts acquired through personal experience or observation. In other words, all truth starts as synthetic truth. But it is possible to use Teacher thought to generalize facts about reality to the point where one is talking about concepts that no longer have any direct connection to reality. In other words, if one uses abstract thought for long enough, then it will appear as if one is dealing with analytic truth. It is then possible to use this generalized Teacher understanding as a starting point for transforming the Perceiver facts and personal experiences of reality. One can see this movement from synthetic to analytic truth in higher math. For instance, we live in a three-dimensional world, and one can learn about these three dimensions through physical observation. Higher math takes the idea of dimensions and generalizes it by talking about many dimensions. These dimensions can no longer be visualized and they may not even have anything to do with physical reality, but the idea of many dimensions makes it possible to use mathematics to solve many problems within reality. Quoting from Wikipedia, “The concept of dimension is not restricted to physical objects. High-dimensional spaces frequently occur in mathematics and the sciences. They may be parameter spaces or configuration spaces such as in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics; these are abstract spaces, independent of the physical space we live in.”

Paul then asks, “If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?” (12:17). This describes the opposite fallacy of embodiment, which tends to be taught today. Embodiment suggests that the mind is based totally in physical facts acquired from the physical body and the physical environment. In other words, the whole body is an eye. But the whole body is not an eye. There is also hearing. It is possible to use Teacher words and language to extend significantly beyond the facts of reality, as illustrated by abstract mathematics.

One can see the second fallacy in the thinking of Fairclough, one of the original developers of deconstructionism. Fairclough began his analysis by describing behavior in terms of what he called member resources, which are quite similar to the mental networks of mental symmetry. Using the language of Paul, Fairclough began his career by acknowledging the sense of smell, because smell is related to mental networks. However, Fairclough in his later years stopped talking about mental networks and focused instead upon analyzing language using what he called critical discourse analysis. Using the language of Paul, he went from discussing smell to pretending that the whole body is hearing. Theologians are making a similar mistake when they think that theology can be reduced to a verbal discussion of theological doctrines by theological experts while ignoring any of the underlying mental networks that drive thought or behavior. For instance, notice how the depravity of mankind is being discussed as an abstract theological doctrine in this Wikipedia article, or in this page on Reformed theology. That is also an illustration of hearing without a sense of smell. Compare this with John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, which does attempt to portray some of the emotional struggles that one faces in the Christian walk.

Moving on to the next illustration, “The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you” (12:21). In other words, merely observing the world is not enough. Instead, observation goes together with participation. This too is a fundamental fallacy of modern scientific thought, which tries to observe situations without contaminating them through personal involvement. However, quantum mechanics has taught us that one cannot observe a situation without influencing it.

Similarly, “the head [cannot say] to the feet, I have no need of you” (12:21). Here, Contributor thought is thinking that it can exist independently of mental networks. This is another fundamental fallacy of Western thought. In academia, it leads to the assumption that Contributor-controlled technical thought is sufficient for solving all problems, and that there is no need to consider mental networks of culture and identity. More generally, it leads to the assumption that a person can use free will to choose whatever he wishes, not realizing that the free will of Contributor thought is always guided by the desires of mental networks.

The four fallacies mentioned in verses 15-16 and 20-21 correspond passably to the four fundamental divisions of MBTI. The two core divisions of MBTI are Feeling versus Thinking and iNtuition versus Sensing, and they are related to the first two fallacies mentioned by Paul. Feeling versus Thinking separates between the mental networks of feeling and the facts and skills of thinking. iNntuition versus Sensing separates between the intuitive leaps of abstract thought and the step-by-step plodding of concrete thought.

Going further, the separation between observation and participation is somewhat related to the MBTI division between Introverted and Extraverted, because observation does its thinking internally while participation becomes involved externally. The final MBTI division is between Judging and Perceiving. Judging prefers rules and restrictions and tries to come to solid conclusions, all characteristics of technical thought. Perceiving follows desires without restriction and tries to keep options open, characteristics of the mindset that tries to follow mental networks without being restricted by decisions.

I examined MBTI several years ago and came to the conclusion that its four fundamental divisions are an accurate description of the immature, fragmented human mind. Similarly, I suggest that Paul’s four illustrations are also an accurate symbolic description of how the mind naturally fragments. The correspondence between Paul’s illustrations and the MBTI categories is not perfect, but it is close enough to warrant being mentioned. And the correspondence is also close enough to be able to conclude that churches should not be using MBTI as a system of psychology. The partial correspondence between MBTI and this section also lends support to the suggestion that this section is talking about Romans 12 spiritual gifts, because MBTI and Romans 12 spiritual gifts are both taught as systems of cognitive styles.

Turning now to the verses that we skipped, verse 18 says that “God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.” This is the first reference to the God, with the definite article, in this chapter. Just as means more precisely ‘according to the manner in which, in the degree that’. This implies that there is a correspondence between Romans 12 spiritual gifts, considered in an integrated manner as parts of a single body, and the character of an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought. This is an accurate statement, because Romans 12 spiritual gifts provided the starting point that made it possible to develop the theory of mental symmetry, and mental symmetry leads to an integrated Teacher understanding of God and humanity.

Verses 19-20 summarize: “If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body.” Verse 19 says that you cannot make a body out of identical parts. In other words, the postmodern idea that ‘we are all the same’ is not an adequate basis for societal harmony. A car is made out of many different parts that function together. Similarly, the body of Christ is made out of different parts that function together. Trying to assert that everybody is the same actually leads to conflict rather than harmony. Going the other way, verse 20 says that if one recognizes cognitive styles, one does not end up with fragmentation but rather a single, integrated body. Violating these two principles will currently lead to societal strife, but it will not cause existence to fall apart, because physical matter currently functions independently of people’s minds. But if mind started to rule over matter, then the integrity of existence itself would depend upon learning how to get minds to function together in a cooperative, integrated manner.

I suggested earlier in the essay that existence is more fundamental than pain or pleasure. Verses 14-21 have focused upon the existence of the body of Christ. Verses 22-26 will focus upon the relative importance and honor of the various parts of the body.

Paul begins: “On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.” The phrase, ‘on the contrary’ implies that verse 22 expands upon the divisions mentioned in the previous verses. Generally speaking, female thought with its mental networks has historically been regarded as weaker than male thought with its rational facts and skills. However, I have come to the conclusion that the human mind cannot exist without core mental networks. They may seem ‘weaker’ but they are anagkaios (‘necessary, essential, intimate, right, and proper’). Paul does not say that these members are weaker. Instead, he uses the word seem, which means ‘forming an opinion’. Similarly, mental networks often appear to be weak, but they are in fact extremely resilient and stubborn. For instance, communist Russia killed, persecuted, and indoctrinated its citizens for decades in an attempt to eliminate mental networks of religion and culture, but in the end, communism fell while Russian religion and culture has remained intact. (Paul will describe the ‘better way’ of being guided by mental networks of love in the next chapter.)

The two ‘and’s in verse 23 suggests that this is also expanding upon the previous comparisons: “And those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it” (12:23,24). The first comparison is between thought and behavior. We form an opinion that some members have less honor or value than other members, while in fact bestowing or clothing these members with more abundant honor. This may refer to the division between abstract thought and concrete thought. Abstract thought is generally viewed as more honorable than concrete thought (for instance, a white-collar job is considered to be higher class than a blue-collar job), but in practice most honor is given to those who pursue concrete thought (for instance, there are many more sports stars than famous professors).

The second comparison appears to deal with privacy. More literally, the unseemly or indecent parts are given more decorum, while the more presentable parts do not need this. (The precise meaning is open to interpretation because these three terms are only used once in the New Testament.) One possible interpretation is that personal privacy is covered by mental networks of politeness, while normal thought does not need such a covering. Interpreting this physically, private parts are covered by clothes while the rest of the body does not need to be covered. Cognitively speaking, it appears that there is a need for personal privacy. It is not mentally healthy to share everything with others. Putting this in religious terms, I suggest that the Catholic practice of confessing to a priest, as well as Protestant concepts of personal accountability, are psychologically harmful, because they lead to emotional ensnarement. Saying this cognitively, sharing too many private details gives too much power to MMNs of personal identity. In fact, one effective way of controlling and blackmailing people is by maintaining secret files on their hidden sins. Instead, the ultimate goal should be to build the mind upon the TMN of a concept of God. Cognitive styles make it possible to be emotionally open without violating personal privacy, because one can talk about the weaknesses of each cognitive style in generic terms, without having to personally investigate the behavior of specific individuals.

Paul then describes the characteristics of mental and societal wholeness: “But God has [so] composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that [member] which lacked” (12:24). Composed is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘a holistic blend (unified whole) where the parts work together synergistically’. And this is the second reference to the God in this chapter. In a similar manner, mental symmetry has led me to the conclusion that people and society would be much better if people developed their minds so that all cognitive modules would work together in harmony. Lacked means ‘to come late, be behind, come short’. Looking at this cognitively, the various cognitive modules do not all develop the same time. Instead they develop in a certain order, as described by Piaget’s stages of development. For instance, Mercy thought starts to function early in childhood, while Teacher thought only begins to work in the teenage years. I keep emphasizing in these essays that one needs to use Teacher understanding to transform childish MMNs. This is not because Mercy thought is inherently evil, but rather because Mercy thought develops first, while Teacher thought develops later. Using the language of Paul, Teacher thought ‘lacks’. Because Mercy thought develops first, it provides the starting point for human thought. But this starting point is inadequate. Teacher thought develops later but it is given more honor because it is needed to reprogram the mind.

Verse 25 continues, “so that there may be no schism in the body, but [that] the members may have the same care for one another.” The word schism means ‘a rent, as in a garment; a division, dissention’. If all cognitive modules developed at the same time, then transforming the mind would require ripping the fabric of the mind. Instead, the process of cognitive development is like walking. Placing mental weight upon one mental strategy makes it possible to transform another mental strategy and vice versa. Instead of having to transform the entire mind at once, cognitive modules can be transformed one at a time, allowing the mind to continue functioning in a reasonably integrated manner as it continues to develop. This is a significant principle. For instance, many Christians think that they will be instantly perfect the moment that they enter heaven. But that is not cognitively possible. The relative stability of the physical body makes it possible for living humans to become mentally transformed. Mental transformation would become much more difficult after death because one would then exist as a disembodied mind. The word care means ‘drawn in opposite directions; divided into parts’. If the different members ‘care’ for one another, this means that each member is pulling the body in a different direction. This is required for mental transformation, because transformation occurs as different cognitive modules are allowed to pull the mind in different directions. It may feel at times as if the fabric of the mind is being torn apart, but free will becomes enabled to the extent that the mind is being pulled in different directions. That is why verse 25 comes after verses 14-21. The previous verses focused upon existence—ensuring that the body stays in one piece without being torn apart. This integrity makes it possible to reach mental wholeness by 1) having different parts of the mind mature at different times, and 2) having different parts of the mind pull in different directions.

Verse 26 adds, “And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if [one] member is glorified, all the members rejoice with it.” Suffer means ‘to feel heavy emotion’. Glory describes an external expression of internal content. For instance, humans glorify God by providing a visible expression of the invisible character of God. Rejoice with combines ‘identify with’ and ‘rejoicing in God’s grace’. Looking at this cognitively, if one cognitive module is not functioning properly, then this will hamper the entire mind. In contrast, whenever one part of the mind succeeds in influencing reality, then this helps the other cognitive modules to grasp what it means to function under God in Teacher thought.

I think that it is significant that this verse is at the end of the section. Minds that are driven by childish MMNs do not empathize with those who are different. Instead, those who are different tend to be abused, denigrated, persecuted, and eliminated. However, when different people or modes of thought come together to carry out an integrated function, then there will be empathy, because interaction will be guided by a Teacher desire to keep the structure functioning. Going further, the Greek word translated suffering refers especially to ‘the capacity to feel suffering’. A person who is in the midst of suffering or turmoil tends to be emotionally numb and loses the ability to feel deep emotions. Instead, the ability to feel strong emotions is greatest when one is interacting with others in an emotionally vulnerable manner, which happens when several cognitive modules or people are working together closely in order to perform some combined function. This kind of interaction guided by Teacher order-within-complexity can be seen in the final description of all members rejoicing in God’s grace when one member is glorified. When one member starts to see external results, then this means that the machine as a whole is starting to generate results. It is common today to talk about working together as part of a team, but this typically means that the members of the team exert most of the effort while the leaders of the team experience most of the benefits. Verse 26 is talking about a real team in which each member carries out an essential function. And that only happens after one has taken care to ensure that every member of the team really is needed and really is appreciated, as described in verses 22-24.

Summarizing these verses, people may have different cognitive styles, but each cognitive style is capable of excelling in its own way. This is quite different than modern society, which attempts to ignore personal differences and forces everyone to meet a single standard of success. Saying this another way, God practices justice while the world currently pursues fairness. Fairness eliminates differences by treating everyone in the same manner, while justice provides everyone with equal opportunities. Second, if one cognitive style (or cognitive module) is not functioning properly, then this hurts everyone. For instance, Perceiver thought requires truth to operate, but postmodern society does not believe in the existence of truth. This suppression of Perceiver thought does not just hurt Perceiver persons but harms all of society. Third, helping one cognitive style or cognitive module produces positive benefits for all of the mind.

Verse 27 summarizes: “Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.” This may sound like just a repetition but it contains two significant points. This is the second of two times that the name Christ is explicitly mentioned in this chapter. The first time was in verse 12, where the Christ was being redefined in terms of a body. Verse 27 indicates that this definition has turned into reality. A group of people has become the body of Christ. Going further, the word individually means ‘a part, share, portion’. This means that members of the body of Christ are now going to receive various portions as result of being members. The next section describes God the Father appointing various members of the body to carry out certain roles.

Administration and God the Father 12:28-30

Verse 28 describes the various workings: “And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues” (12:28). In verse 7, the gifts were given ‘to each one’, focusing upon individual abilities. Similarly, verses 15-17 refers to the parts of the body in the singular. Verses 28-30, in contrast, use the plural, indicating a focus upon general categories. This is a characteristic of Teacher thought, which thinks in terms of general principles. Thus, God the Father is setting up a general system of administration with seven categories which will be filled by many individuals.

These seven workings are described as being appointed by the God in the church. The word translated appointed means ‘to place, lay, set’, which gives the idea of building upon something solid rather than simply assigning a task to a person. This placing or setting of people is happening ‘in the realm of’ the church, and this is the only time that church is mentioned in chapter 12. The word church adds the prefix ‘out from and to’ to the word ‘call’. Thus, God the Father is calling a group of people out of the world in order to place them within a new Teacher structure. Looking at this in the light of parallel New Testament passages, God the Father is using people to create a new system of Teacher order which will replace the existing Teacher order of natural law. Such a rebuilding of Teacher order upon people must be done if mind is to replace matter as the source of Teacher order. Notice that God is not building upon everyone. Instead, God is building upon a church of called-out people while the other people presumably will have the privilege of living within this new structure.

These seven workings form a sequence, which is clear from Paul’s use of first, second, and third. As we have already seen, an apostle extends incarnation in some significant manner. This is followed by prophets who proclaim truth, guided by the new insights of the apostle. The next stage is to teach this material in a more systematic manner. This systematic understanding makes it possible to unlock new sources of power and energy, which are then used to solve personal problems. Once the problems have been eliminated, then the focus turns to help in general. Finally, organizations form that need to be administered, and specializations emerge with specialized vocabularies.

Notice that the first three categories are like the first three manifestations of the Spirit mentioned in verses 8-9. First there is a breakthrough, then Perceiver knowledge is added to this breakthrough, and then this expanded breakthrough is either applied or taught. However, verse 28 describes something more theoretical, more extensive, and more systematic than verses 8-9. Making a breakthrough as an apostle goes much further than coming up with a word of wisdom. Similarly, prophecy goes farther than merely coming up with a word of knowledge. And a systematic teaching has the potential to affect more people than a step of faith. This is not because God the Father is better than the Holy Spirit, but because God the Father can now build upon what the Holy Spirit has done. God the Father is now working with people in Mercy thought who have been formed into a functioning body by Incarnation.

Looking at this list in more detail, the sequence starts with apostles. This list begins by saying that ‘God has appointed in the church’, which means that the process is being driven by a concept of God in Teacher thought. Science provides a partial illustration because it is driven by a general understanding of natural law in Teacher thought. And the development of science has been driven by ‘apostles’ of science who have made major breakthroughs in understanding how incarnation is expressed in the structure of the universe.

Many theologians teach that the gift of apostleship ceased after the time of the original disciples of Jesus. I suggest that a mindset of absolute truth will naturally think that apostleship functions only in the past but not in the present. That is because absolute truth acquires its truth from the words of some holy book or textbook that are given great emotional status. And the words of a holy book or textbook will only continue to be believed as absolute truth as long as this book and its authors are given much greater emotional status than any other people. If people in the present must not be given great emotional status, then this means that there cannot be any apostles in the present, because an apostle is someone who has sufficient emotional status to add to the content of the holy book.

This mindset will change when absolute truth based in Mercy status is replaced by universal truth supported by Teacher understanding. That is because absolute truth is based in specific words which must not be altered, while understanding takes the form of general principles which can be expanded and refined. For instance, Isaac Newton was an apostle of physics because he came up with the three laws of motion (as well as other general laws). But Albert Einstein was also an apostle of physics because he came up with a more accurate way of defining Newtonian physics. Recognizing the apostleship of Einstein does not negate the apostleship of Newton, because Newton’s three laws of physics are still taught as being approximately true, and these laws generate answers that are good enough in most situations.

Moving on, prophecy was mentioned back in verse 10, but verse 28 talks about prophets. Prophecy implies receiving the occasional message, while a prophet is presumably a person who consistently receives messages. Absolute truth will tend to view the idea of being a prophet through the lens of absolute truth. A prophet will be defined as someone who is an infallible source of Perceiver truth. This kind of definition of prophet is given in Deuteronomy 18:18-22, which says that the words of a legitimate prophet will come to pass, and that any prophet who falsely pretends to speak for God should be put to death. Therefore, absolute truth will tend to limit the title prophet to the prophets of the Bible. Prophet acquires a different meaning when truth is guided by Teacher understanding, as shown by the actual meaning of the Greek word. As was mentioned when looking at verse 10, the word prophet adds the prefix ‘beforehand’ to ‘elevating/asserting one idea over another, especially through the spoken-word’. Thus, a prophet can determine beforehand how the breakthroughs of the apostle will be applied by verbally elevating or asserting one idea over another.

This relates to the idea of Peter being given the keys to the kingdom of heaven by Jesus. Paul referred to himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ. However, Jesus is described in Hebrews 3:1 as the apostle, with the definite article. Thus, I suggest that Peter being given the keys of heaven by Jesus is the ultimate example of a prophet unfolding or expanding the message of an apostle. This idea of Peter unfolding or expanding incarnation is developed much further in the essay on 1 Peter.

Peter was a Perceiver person and Romans 12:6 uses this same word prophecy to refer to the cognitive style of Perceiver. The Perceiver who believes in absolute truth will naturally tend to proclaim and defend truth in the manner of an Old Testament prophet. But if a Perceiver person discovers universal truth, gains a rational Teacher understanding, and becomes competent in many fields, then such a Perceiver person will naturally develop the ability to function as a prophet. That is because Perceiver thought can unfold and expand incarnation by building connections between various technical specializations. This describes what I am attempting to do in these essays.

The third term is teacher, which refers to ‘an instructor acknowledged for their mastery in their field of learning’. This describes someone who is an expert in some technical specialization. In today’s world, the technical expert comes first while everyone else comes a distant second. In verse 28, the technical expert comes third, after the apostle and the prophet. When matter rules over mind, then the technical expert can be considered to be first, because technical thought is needed to decipher the laws of nature as well as apply the laws of nature through technology. And the impersonal, specialized nature of current technical thought is not a fundamental problem, because the physical world does not care about feelings, and the physical world will stay in one piece, even if one approaches it in a fragmented manner. This would no longer be true if mind started to rule over matter. Technical thought would not be enough. Instead, major breakthroughs would come at great personal cost, as exemplified by the apostle. These breakthroughs would then have to be connected with the rest of existence by the prophet. Only then would it become possible to focus upon the breakthrough in some technical, specialized manner. This process is explored in the second half of 2 Corinthians.

The final five gifts are “then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues”. These are not numbered like the first three, but miracles and gifts of healings are both preceded by then, which means ‘only then (emphasizing what precedes is a necessary precursor)’. This means that miracles happen after the first three, and then gifts of healings happen after the miracles. As was pointed out earlier, healings is the only specific gift that is preceded by the term gift or charismata. The word translated miracles means literally ‘power’ and is in the plural. It can refer to either miraculous power or natural power. It is currently possible to use raw power to blow things up or slay people in the spirit. Verse 28 says that apostles, prophets, and teachers provide the necessary precursor for power. This implies that one is only gaining access to power after one creates a container that is capable of channeling this power. Saying this in more detail, the apostle discovers a new possible source of power, the prophet learns how to channel this power, while the teacher fills in the technical details. One can see these stages in the development of nuclear power. Some apostle of science—in this case Einstein—discovered the possibility of nuclear power. Prophets of science then had to work out the facts and connections of nuclear power. Finally, the Manhattan Project turned these facts into real devices through the technical expertise of many teachers. Only then did atomic power become available.

The next item on the list is gifts of healing, which is also preceded by a ‘then’. One can see why the other steps must happen first by looking again at the example of atomic power. Once atomic power was developed, then one additional question had to be answered. Would atomic power be used to build power stations or to build weapons? Would society follow a path of destruction or a path of healing. I think that this additional step is always required when moving from Teacher thought to Mercy thought. That is because Teacher theories are general laws that can be applied in a way that either helps Mercy thought or harms Mercy thought. We saw this principle in the theoretical return of Jesus. As far as I can tell, everyone will be given the opportunity to participate in spiritual technology. However, those who are personally mature will be blessed by spiritual power while those who lack personal integrity will become condemned by the same spiritual power. One might think that sinful humans will always choose the destructive alternative, and that is often the case. But the example of atomic energy provides an possible alternative scenario. Initially, atomic energy was developed in order to build atomic bombs, and two bombs were dropped on Japan at the end of World War II. But the results were so horrific that no further atomic bombs have been used since. In other words, God ensured that humans would choose healing rather than destruction because the results of choosing destruction were too terrible. Something similar may happen in the future with spiritual technology, because other passages indicate that spiritual technology will be misused by some for a while in a destructive manner.

The last four terms are preceded by a single ‘then’ in front of gifts of healing. This implies that the final three workings will accompany gifts of healing. The next term helps is only used once in the New Testament as a noun. The verb is used three times and means to ‘aggressively take hold of in a proportional (fitting) way.’ This conveys the idea of moving from Teacher generality to Mercy specifics. The help is there and it is available in a form that is helpful. But one must still choose in Mercy thought to avail oneself of this help. One must still aggressively take hold of it in a fitting way. Many modern government assistance programs function a similar manner. The government assistance is available but one must still choose to apply for this assistance.

The next term administrations is also found only once in the New Testament and means ‘someone who steers (guides) a ship’. This is an apt portrayal of what leadership would look like in mind-over-matter. With matter-over-mind, governments rule over some portion of physical territory, while people come and go. With mind-over-matter, the group of people would be the fixed entity while matter would become variable, somewhat like a group of people in a solid ship sailing upon sea of uncertainty. (I do not think that all of the physical universe would become unstable. Instead, my best guess is that the physical universe would become unstable whenever it came into contact with people.) Administrations comes at the end for a similar reason to healing and helps. Using the analogy of a ship, the first three steps build the ship. The next step powers the ship. It then becomes possible for a group of people to board the ship and use it to travel somewhere.

The final term is “kinds of tongues” and the same two Greek words were used back in verse 10. This combination means ‘languages of a family’. This suggests that technical specializations with their unique technical vocabularies would finally re-emerge at the very end. Technical vocabularies are not a major problem today because being understood by other specializations is not a problem when everyone lives in the same solid physical environment. And a technical vocabulary is very useful for allowing technical experts to recognize fellow experts—and reject non-experts—quickly and easily. I have learned what this means, because whenever I study some new field, I also have to learn the technical vocabulary of that field. However, the unity in mind-over-matter would come from a common concept of God in Teacher thought, and building such a concept of God would require speaking a common language. (As opposed to the Tower of Babel, where God split up languages in order to make it possible to play the mental networks of one culture against those of another.) Using the ship analogy, one would first have to make sure that everybody was a crew-member of the same ship before daring to develop a specialized vocabulary. This sounds trivial, but within mind-over-matter, words would require a power they do not currently have. Jesus warns that this will be the case in Matthew 12:36.

Paul finishes by pointing out that there will be a division of labor: “All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?” (12:29). These questions are relevant because there is a natural tendency to take one of these gifts and use them as a standard to evaluate everyone. For example, every professor is expected to be an apostle, continually publishing original, groundbreaking research, as illustrated by the phrase ‘publish or perish’. Quoting from the Wikipedia article, “In popular academic perception, scholars who publish infrequently, or who focus on activities that do not result in publications, such as instructing undergraduates, may lose ground in competition for available tenure-track positions. The pressure to publish has been cited as a cause of poor work being submitted to academic journals.” Using the language of Paul, everyone is expected to be an apostle, and those who have the gift of teaching rather than apostleship are penalized. (It is interesting that theologians say that no one can be an apostle while all professors are expected to be apostles.) Turning to a religious example, in some charismatic circles, speaking in tongues is considered to be a qualification for being a genuine Christian. But Paul specifically says here that not everyone speaks with tongues. In other Christian circles, social work and ministry to the down-and-out are considered to be the hallmark of genuine Christianity. But Paul says that not everyone has the gift of healing.

Paul’s rhetorical questions in verses 29-30 are slightly different than the original list of traits in verse 28. The first five workings of apostle, profit, teacher, miracles, and gifts of healings are repeated. But then instead of referring to helps, administration, and various tongues, Paul mentions speaking tongues and interpretation. The word interpretation here is a strengthened version of the word used in verse 10. Interpretation in verse 10 means ‘giving the gist of a message rather than a strict translation’, while interpret in verse 30 means ‘thoroughly interpret, accurately explain’. One can explain the distinction between these in terms of growing mind-over-matter. As long as the environment remains reasonably solid, translation may be necessary but it does not have to be exact. But if personal existence were to turn into ships of personal organization sailing upon a sea of increasing physical uncertainty, then it would become rather important to interpret accurately between the language of one ship and the language of another.

It is curious that UFO visits are often described in this fashion as motherships arriving on some scene and then many smaller craft emerging from the mothership. My hypothesis is that aliens come from the supernatural realm, and that these ships are temporarily crossing over into the human physical universe. (There may also be aliens who now live more permanently within the physical universe.) It is possible that crossing over from the supernatural into the physical leads to a situation that is similar to what it would be like in the future within mind-over-matter.

Returning now from the future to the present, notice that Paul specifically refers to the theoretical gifts of apostle, prophet, and teacher as first, second, and third, making it clear that God’s administration of the church is based in theology and not in pragmatic worship or service. There is a strong tendency today to downplay or even abandon theology in exchange for story-based narrative, worship-based experience, or some form of social gospel. This list makes it clear that God builds his church upon theology. Christianity goes beyond theology to practical application and personal transformation, but it begins with theory and theology. Going further, the beginning of this chapter did emphasize the experiential outlook of the Holy Spirit. But this did not result in the demise of theology but rather in a revitalized form of theology. Ths is similar to the way that the current questioning of absolute truth does not destroy theology but rather leads to a revitalized theology based in cognitive principles.

Verse 31 concludes, “But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way.” Greater means ‘large, great, in the widest sense’, while gift is the familiar word charismata, which means ‘grace-endowment’. Charismata is a generic term which is used to describe many kinds of spiritual gifts in the New Testament. ‘Great’ is a Teacher adjective, because Teacher thought thinks in terms of domain and generality. A theory that is more general has a larger or greater domain because it applies to more specific elements. Earnestly desire means ‘to bubble over because so hot’. This describes being driven strongly by core mental networks. In an environment of mind-over-matter, strong mental networks would be required, because they would provide the anchors for existence. But how can a person handle the emotional intensity of a mental network that is bubbling over because it is so hot? Paul says that one should direct this emotional intensity towards gifts of grace from God and one should think in terms of Teacher generality rather than Mercy status. For instance, the theory of mental symmetry has turned into a potent mental network within my mind. How can I handle this emotional pressure? Verse 31 seems to be saying that I should focus upon receiving grace from God rather than trying to convert people to my way of thinking. And I should not focus upon personal status but rather upon the generality of the message.

Paul concludes by saying that there is a more excellent way. Way means ‘way, road, journey, path’. Thus, Paul is referring to some path that one follows. This path is described as more excellent, which literally means ‘a throwing beyond’. If air represents Teacher thought, then a throwing beyond means going further by traveling through Teacher thought, similar to the way that an airplane can go further than a car because it leaves the ground in order to travel through the air. This term is used several times in 2 Corinthians (where I have interpreted it in this same manner) but this is the only time where it is used in 1 Corinthians. This path that travels through the air of Teacher thought will be described in 1 Corinthians 13.

Describing Love

1 Corinthians 13 is known as the love chapter. This chapter is often quoted at weddings, but I have seldom heard sermons preached on this chapter at other times. In other words, the average person views this chapter as a romantic ideal that does not apply to normal life. Therefore, it is necessary to make some general comments before looking at the chapter.

Love can be defined as mental networks of identity interacting in a mutually beneficial manner. Love tends to be defined today as accepting a person no matter what they do or say. I suggest that this is a natural byproduct of using mysticism to come up with a concept of God. The God of mysticism is a God of oneness that ‘transcends’ factual content. This leads in Mercy thought to the concept of a divine Spirit that ignores factual content, leading to the assumption that love means accepting people by ignoring facts.

The same cognitive mechanisms function in a different manner when the starting point is a rational concept of God. A concept of God is based in a general Teacher theory that applies to personal identity. A mystical concept of God can only generate feelings of encountering God. A God of rational content, in contrast, has content that can apply to personal identity through the actions of righteousness and the ideals of Platonic forms. Platonic forms combine to form a mental concept of the Spirit of God. Because both God and Platonic forms have rational content, it is possible for mental networks of personal identity to become reborn and live within this internal environment. The behavior of personal identity is guided by an understanding of the righteous ways of God in Teacher thought, while the Platonic forms of the Spirit of God in Mercy thought provide a set of idealized values. When interaction between mental networks of personal identity is guided by the TMN of a concept of God and by the MMNs of Platonic forms of the Spirit of God, then this interaction will express the love of God. Putting this into the context of 1 Corinthians, the previous chapter described the Holy Spirit functioning in a new and more integrated manner. This lays the foundation for the love of chapter 13.

For instance, a democratic society is governed by a Constitution and a set of laws. This is represented in Mercy thought by Platonic forms such as Lady Justice. Lady Justice does not exist, but rather is an internal image that symbolizes characteristics of law and justice. When society is guided by the rule of law, then people will interact in a civil manner.

The Spirit of God is described in John 16 as the Spirit of truth: “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak, and He will disclose to you what is to come” (John 16:13). A spirit of truth leads naturally to prophecy. Looking at this cognitively, a Platonic form does not ignore facts about reality but rather uses Teacher understanding to idealize facts about reality. For instance, the Platonic form of a circle is based upon real circles, but it is also an internal image that is more perfect than any real circle in real life. Because a Platonic form is based in a Teacher understanding of universal principles, it is an internal image of how things could be or should be. For instance, Lady Justice provides the internal image of an ideal society that is governed by impartial law. When one goes beyond describing what is to describing what could or should be, then one is entering the realm of prophecy.

The connection between God, Spirit, prophecy, and love can be seen in 1 John 4. Like 1 Corinthians 13, 1 John 4 also follows several chapters of a process of reaching mental wholeness. John starts by saying “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (4:1). John emphasizes that not all spirits are from God, and that one should be wary of inaccurate predictions of future perfection. Skipping ahead a few verses, “You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (4:4-6). The conflict is between spirit that is internally based upon a concept of God, and spirit that is rooted in external reality, between a Spirit of God and the spirit of this age. John says that a ‘spirit of truth’ comes from God and listens to God.

The next verses talk about the love of God: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him” (4:7-9). John tells his readers to love each other with a love that is from God, and he emphasizes that this kind of love requires being ‘born of God and knowing God’. John adds that the love of God expresses the saving content of incarnation. A Platonic form is an invisible image that is more perfect than reality. Similarly, John says that “No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us” (4:12).

Summarizing, a Teacher concept of God leads to Platonic forms of perfection within Mercy thought, and when mental networks of personal identity are reborn within this grid of Teacher understanding and Platonic forms, then people will naturally express the love of God. As John says, “God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (4:16).

Four Ways of Functioning 13:1-3

Let us return now to 1 Corinthians 13. Paul begins by describing four ways of approaching Christianity. The first way is theology. “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (13:1). Tongues is the same word that was used in chapter 12 which means ‘the tongue, a language’. Verse 1 adds ‘of the mankind and of the angels’. (The definite articles are in the original Greek.) Cognitively, mankind and angels refer to concrete and abstract thought. Thus, verse 1 would mean being fluent in the terminology of all of the various specializations—which would include being able to speak different languages. However, one gains the impression from chapter 12 that significant interaction is now happening between human and angelic realms. Thus, this might also include being conversant in the way that various angelic specializations use Teacher thought. (My best guess is that angelic existence is like the behavior of a professional who specializes in some skill and is known by some name, such as lawyer or physician.) I have mentioned several times that a concept of incarnation goes beyond abstract technical thought to be based in the TMN of an integrated concept of God. Speaking the tongues of mankind and angels describes such a concept of incarnation. But notice that one is speaking these various tongues. Paul says that this is not enough. Theology speaks the language of doctrine and abstract theory, but remains limited to the world of words and symbols. Pure mathematics and analytical philosophy also fall into this realm of speaking with various tongues. Paul says that this type of Christianity is merely noise. The word gong means ‘copper, brass, money; a brazen musical instrument’, and noisy means ‘to make a loud noise’. Thus, ‘noisy gong’ could also be translated as ‘noisy money’. The word cymbal is only used once in the New Testament. It means cymbal and comes from a word that means a cup. We saw in the last chapter that a cup represents some package of Mercy experiences. Clanging is found twice in the New Testament and means ‘to raise a war cry’.

Putting this together, if one focuses upon using words to translate between one technical specialization and another, then this will turn into a noisy focus upon intellectual mediums of exchange as well as generating episodes of conflict. For instance, what happens when theologians focus upon speaking various biblical languages? There will be a noise of intellectual activity, but this activity will focus upon translating between one language and another—as represented by coins which are used to exchange one object with another. And episodes of controversy will arise between one expert and another over various meanings. Meanwhile, the underlying message will tend to be ignored.

The second way is incarnation. A mental concept of incarnation combines precise definitions in abstract thought with a knowledge of cause-and-effect in concrete thought. The combination of qualities that Paul mentions describes incarnation. “If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (13:2). In the abstract realm, technical thought works out mysteries and acquires knowledge. This concept of divine incarnation in abstract thought is extending to the concrete world through prophecy and exhibiting itself through the transformation of cause-and-effect to the extent of moving entire mountains. Notice that this second way builds upon the first. The first way used language to develop an integrated concept of integration. The second way applies this verbal concept of integration to real life.

Looking at this in more detail, we saw earlier that prophecy unfolds and extends incarnation. The word know ‘is a gateway to grasp spiritual truth from a physical plane’. This means having an internal comprehension of what is happening externally. This means that one no longer looks at the environment and concludes that it is a mystery. Paul says in other passages that his goal is to reveal the mystery of a fully developed concept of incarnation that transforms reality: “to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27). Going further, knowledge refers to experiential knowledge. Thus, not only is Teacher thought able to come up with rational explanations, but one also has a rational grasp of issues at an experiential level. To this theoretical and experiential knowledge is added faith, which means to ‘be persuaded’. And this faith is sufficient to cause a mountain to move out of its place. A mountain is a high point from which one gets a big picture—a pragmatic general Teacher theory. Moving mountains implies that one can change paradigms or worldviews. Having faith to move mountains means applying understanding to the extent of altering worldviews. What Paul is describing here is literally mind-boggling. After working on mental symmetry for over thirty years, I feel as if I am finally starting to function within the realm of what Paul is talking about. But Paul uses the adjective all three times in this verse, which means ‘each part of a totality’. Thus, Paul is talking about finishing a task which has taken me thirty years merely to start. And then Paul concludes that a person who follows this path is nothing.

Notice the progression. The way of theology leads to noise and not knowledge. Paul is not saying that a person with a fully developed concept of incarnation produces only noise. Such an individual does have knowledge and does transform reality, but there is no personal salvation. The person himself is nothing.

Modern science and technology provide a perfect illustration, because they have developed a reasonably thorough concept of incarnation that has transformed physical reality. But modern science does not transform people. Stated bluntly, the typical scientist can transform the world but personally is nothing.

The third way is righteousness. A person becomes righteous by choosing to follow the TMN of a concept of God rather than follow MMNs of personal status. Paul says in verse 3, “If I give all my possessions to feed [the poor], and if I surrender my body [a]to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing” (13:3). ‘The poor’ is not in the original Greek. Instead, the word translated ‘give to feed the poor’ is psomizo, which means ‘to feed with morsels’. And the footnote indicates that in early Greek manuscripts, the word translated ‘to be burned’ (kauthesomai) is actually ‘to boast’ (kauchesomai), and ‘to boast’ is probably the original word. The NASB translation conveys the impression of practicing religious self-denial in order to help the down-and-out as well as suppressing the physical body in the most painful way possible. However, when Jesus talks about practicing righteousness, he emphasizes receiving a reward from God rather than from men: “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you” (Matt. 6:1,2).

The word translated ‘to boast’ is not a negative word signifying arrogance but rather a positive word, defined as ‘what holds the head up high… living with God-given confidence’. Consistent with this, Paul does not say that a person practicing righteousness is nothing. Instead, when one allows Server sequences of personal behavior to be guided by a Teacher understanding of the character of God, then one becomes a person who is righteous, and this ‘God-given confidence’ makes it emotionally possible to ‘hold one’s head up high’ even when not receiving approval from people. In a similar vein, Paul talks about using possessions to ‘feed with morsels’. This is consistent with Paul’s desire in chapter 9 to receive the reward of not having to charge people for the message of rebirth, in order to receive a reward from God.

I am not trying to ignore the personal cost that is involved in becoming righteous. Verse 3 talks about ‘surrendering my body in order to boast’, and surrender means ‘to deliver over with a sense of close (personal) involvement’. In other words, the confidence comes at significant personal cost involving the physical body. Speaking from personal experience, I have experienced very little physical pain or suffering. But I do know what it means to struggle with physical issues, and I have found that there is a physical cost to being able to write essays such as these. But that is quite different than giving one’s body to be burned. Paul concludes by saying that the way of righteousness ‘profits me nothing’, and the word profit means ‘to help, benefit, do good’.

Summarizing, theology limits Christianity to words and theories, and the end result is basically noise. Incarnation adds content to theory and applies this content in real life. There is knowledge and transformation, but people are not personally transformed. Righteousness follows God rather than men and seeks approval from God rather than men. This leads to personal transformation but does not necessarily lead to personal reward. The implication is that following a path of love will lead to personal reward.

Looking at this cognitively, the childish mind is guided by MMNs of idolatry, hedonism, and emotional status. Theology does not alter this fundamental motivation, because it is limited to the realm of words. Incarnation may reveal mysteries and transform reality but it is possible to pursue incarnation guided by the TMN of a concept of God without transforming childish MMNs. Righteousness does use a TMN of God to transform MMNs of personal identity, but this will not necessarily lead to a transformed personal environment in which one can experience the benefits of righteousness. If one wishes to experience personal benefits, then one must pursue love.

Let me restate this from a more personal perspective. One often thinks of theologians, theoreticians, mathematicians, and philosophers as being coldly rational, but these individuals are actually being driven by Teacher of emotions of theory and understanding. However, this theoretical emotion has nothing to do with real life, which is why the average person views the theoretician as coldly rational. Going further, it is exhilarating to live in a world of science and technology in which new and exciting products are continually being released. However, what is the point of buying a new cellphone every year if I never change? Righteousness introduces a new kind of Teacher emotion. One is no longer pursuing abstract theory in order to receive acclaim from one’s colleagues, and one is no longer buying the latest gadgets in order to keep up with the Joneses. Instead, one is motivated by a deep understanding of how things work, and this will make previous motivations appear hollow, temporary, futile, and infantile. However, one is still following God rather than man. One is still holding one’s head high while walking apart from society. Love goes beyond this to living as a transformed person within a transformed society.

But love does not lead immediately to a transformed society. Instead, one must become a person of love before one gains the privilege of living in a society of love, because a society of love is built upon people of love. Saying this another way, love emerges within minds that are guided fully by transformed mental networks, and when mental networks are transformed, then this will inevitably result in a transformed, personal world. This is a fundamental cognitive principle, and it also appears to be a fundamental spiritual principle. Paul says in Galatians 6, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary” (6:7-9). Paul begins by saying that the person who misunderstands this principle is actually mocking God. There is a universal spiritual law of sowing-and-reaping, but it involves the spiritual realm of mental networks. One sows internally by transforming mental networks of spirit. One reaps eternal life—the ultimate personal transformation. But sowing to the spirit is not followed immediately by reaping from the spirit.

Defining Love 13:4-7

This attitude of being emotionally guided by internal mental networks of spirit can be seen in 1 Corinthians 13. Starting with verse 4, “Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not boast and is not arrogant”.

The word patient means to be ‘long-tempered, suffering long, and persevering’. This happens naturally when the mind is ruled by the TMN of an understanding of how things work. For instance, there is no point in physically flapping one’s arms and trying to fly because this contradicts how the natural world works. Similarly, there is no point in flapping one’s tongue in order to try to instantly change people and situations because this contradicts how the mind works. In other words, one suffers long not because one is suppressing emotions but rather because one is being guided by a deep emotional grasp of how things work. Saying this more simply, personal emotions are functioning within a mental grid of rational understanding.

The word kind is found once in the New Testament and comes from an adjective that means ‘suitable, usefully kind’. Kindness recognizes that people are emotionally vulnerable and treats them with gentleness. The childish mind cannot exhibit this trait because MMNs of personal identity are continually struggling with one another for dominance. The childish mind sees people either as authority figures to be respected and obeyed, or as inferior pawns to be stepped on and ignored. A transformed mind, in contrast, regards people as individuals with feelings living within an environment governed by the law of God. This leads not just to kindness, but rather kindness that is suitable and useful. Again one sees personal emotions being guided by rational understanding.

The word jealous means ‘to set one’s heart on, to be completely intent upon’, and it is often portrayed in the New Testament as a positive trait. For instance, Paul said at the end of 1 Corinthians 12 to ‘earnestly desire [be jealous of] the greater gifts’. When mental networks of personal identity become reborn within an internal grid of understanding, then desire remains but there is no longer deep jealousy. That is because desire is tempered by a knowledge of where I am compared with where I want to be. For instance, a little child on a trip will often ask ‘Are we there yet?’ because the child lacks an internal map of the journey and therefore is continually jumping mentally to the destination and being disappointed when the destination has not yet been reached physically. An adult, in contrast, has an internal map of the journey, and this knowledge prevents personal identity from jumping to the destination. When personal identity lives within a grid of understanding, then it is possible to be motivated by a deep desire without being consumed by jealousy.

The word ‘boast’ is not the term kauchesomai referred to earlier, but rather perpereuomai, which means to ‘flaunt myself or act as a braggart’. When one is driven by MMNs of personal status, then one will continually feel the need to promote self in front of others. However, when one is guided by a TMN of understanding how things work, and when one’s ultimate focus is determined by MMNs of Platonic perfection, then one will realize that the ultimate reward does not come from people. In fact, people can only provide temporary assistance, and they are literally incapable of satisfying one’s deepest needs or desires. One stops bragging not because one is trying to deny oneself in front of others but rather because one is seeking lasting personal benefits.

Finally, the word arrogant means ‘swelled up, like an egotistical person spewing out arrogant puffed-up thoughts’. One sees here the abstract side of boasting. Boasting uses speech to emphasize MMNs of personal identity, while arrogant uses an exalted sense of self to come up with inflated theories in Teacher thought. The goal here is not to make me look good but rather to make my ideas appear more significant. A transformed mindset does precisely the opposite, allowing the TMN of a general understanding to shape MMNs of personal identity rather than allowing personal identity to shape understanding. Going further, when personal identity is being guided by Teacher understanding, one dare not inflate theories because personal survival depends upon having an accurate understanding.

Notice that these traits are not characteristics that one attempts to achieve by suppressing self through great effort of will. Instead, they emerge naturally when personal identity is reborn within rational understanding and Platonic forms.

Continuing now with verse 5, Paul says that love “does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered” (13:5).

Love does not ‘act improperly, unseemly, or unbecomingly’. I mentioned that transformed identity lives within a grid of rational understanding. This will exhibit itself as behavior that is naturally appropriate and law-abiding. Even when internal standards differ from the norms of society, the goal will not be to rebel from society but rather to submit to a higher law. Paul says something similar in Romans 12:17,18: “Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.”

Love does not investigate or search for the things of its own. One might think that this means practicing religious self-denial, but I suggest that this is not the case. That is because a person who is denying self is still thinking in terms of self versus others. Saying this another way, self-denial is a very elusive goal, because one continually finds oneself denying oneself in ways that implicitly seek the approval of others.

Reborn identity is capable of transcending this mindset because it no longer thinks in terms of self-versus-others. Instead, it places both self and others within a map of mental maturity, recognizing that each person is composed of needs and character traits at various levels of maturity. Going further, such a mind also recognizes that no individual is complete, which means that it is not even possible for a person to focus upon their own personal needs while ignoring the needs of others.

Saying this another way, instead of trying to better self, one searches for intrinsic goodness. Trying to better myself is still thinking in terms of myself versus others. Searching for intrinsic goodness, in contrast, thinks in terms of what is good for everyone. Obviously, searching for goodness will also improve self, but it does so in a way that includes everyone rather than putting others down.

Love is not ‘provoked, irritated, or aroused to anger’. The KJV says ‘is not easily provoked’, but the word ‘easily’ is not in the original Greek. The Perceiver person is prone to being provoked to anger, because he thinks in terms of justice and morality but has no direct control over his emotional response. Therefore, he usually experiences anger as an emotional outburst that erupts from the subconscious. I have found that the only successful method of eliminating such outbursts is the long-term strategy of allowing personal identity to become reborn in submission to Teacher understanding. When one really grasps at a deep emotional level that there is no such thing as instant character transformation, then using anger to impose changes upon others is no longer an option, for the simple reason that it is futile. Emotional outbursts destroy mental structure, while maturity requires mental structure. Notice that Paul is not saying that love always talks calmly in a low tone of voice, but rather that love does not respond involuntarily to the triggering of emotional hot buttons.

Love does not ‘reckon, consider, or count’ badness. One obvious application is that love does not keep track of how it has been wronged by others; it does not keep a list of grievances. But I think that Paul’s words also have a more general application. Stated simply, love does not spend its time thinking about bad things. This does not mean that one ignores evil or that one pretends that evil does not exist. Rather, it means that one’s attention is continually drawn beyond temporary experiences of evil to the lasting goodness of Platonic forms and the eternal righteousness of God’s character. One cannot simply choose not to think about evil, because that is like choosing not to think about pink elephants; the more one tries to repress the image, the more it comes to mind. Instead, it is only possible to continue not thinking about evil if one is internally ruled by core mental networks of goodness that are more potent than the experiences of evil that one encounters in real life. One will then find one’s attention naturally drawn away from evil to good.

Moving now to verse 6, love “does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth” (13:6).

I have mentioned that righteousness allows actions to be guided by the TMN of a concept of God. This does not mean trying to obey God or attempting to obey some set of rules through self-effort. Instead, one recognizes that God has structured both the world and the mind to function in certain ways, and this recognition has turned into the TMN of a general theory. Thus, one feels emotionally driven to behave in a way that is consistent with how things work. Going further, when one observes behavior that is not consistent with how things work, then one cringes emotionally. It feels bad to behave unrighteously or to observe unrighteous behavior. Notice that like the previous characteristic, one is again dealing with a spontaneous emotional response that cannot be faked.

For instance, I played violin professionally for a number of years. It makes me cringe to see an actor pretending to play violin in a movie, because the behavior of the actor is so obviously inconsistent with how one plays a violin. I suggest that this is the type of response that Paul is describing.

In contrast, love ‘rejoices with the truth’. ‘Rejoices with’ is a single word in the original Greek, and truth refers to ‘truth in the moral sphere’. I suggest that this describes an emotional response provoked by Platonic forms. A Platonic form is an internal vision of goodness and perfection. When a Platonic form turns into a mental network, then one will feel good whenever one experiences a situation that is like the Platonic form. Because a Platonic form is an idealization of real experiences, it can never be fully experienced in real life. But it is possible to experience situations that are more like Platonic forms, and these experiences bring joy. Notice that one is ‘rejoicing with’. That is because a Platonic form is triggered by the existence of situations. For instance, when one sees an object of beauty, then the strongest emotion is not desiring to possess that object for oneself but rather rejoicing that such an object exists. I am not suggesting that personal desire ceases to exist or that identity becomes swallowed up. Instead, I am suggesting that personal desire exists within the larger framework of a general desire for goodness.

Verse 6 uses the word rejoice twice, the first time is simply ‘rejoice’ while the second time is ‘rejoice with’. Rejoicing in unrighteousness is actually a contradiction in terms because one is finding Teacher pleasure in behavior which lacks Teacher structure. Building psychology upon the study of abnormal or deviant behavior would be an example of rejoicing in unrighteousness. Because of this inherent contradiction, rejoicing in unrighteousness cannot go beyond rejoicing to rejoicing-with. In contrast, one can expand rejoicing in moral truth to rejoicing-with moral truth.

Verse 7 describes four superlatives: “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” Bears means to ‘bear up under’ or ‘protect by covering’. Believe is the normal Greek word for belief or faith which means to be persuaded. Hope means ‘to hope for or expect’. And endure means to ‘remain under or persevere’.

This description may appear at first glance to be an expression of naïve ignorance, if one interprets these traits in terms of responding externally to people. For instance, one protects one’s friend by covering up what they did wrong, one believes everything that someone else says, one lives within a fantasy world of expectation, or one is stepped on by others because one lacks the self-confidence that is needed to stand up for oneself. This kind of naïve response seldom lasts but rather is eventually replaced by cynicism.

Instead, I suggest that Paul is describing something far deeper, which is that all situations and people are being viewed through a mindset of covering, persuasion, hope, and endurance. One covers everything by placing specific situations within an internal framework of understanding. One becomes persuaded by looking for the solid facts in every situation. One hopes everything by viewing real situations as incomplete expressions of Platonic forms of perfection. And one endures everything by submitting internally to inescapable principles of moral cause-and-effect.

For instance, I have found that the theory of mental symmetry provides a covering for situations by placing them within the framework of a Teacher understanding of how the mind works. Thus, instead of being troubled by the Mercy pain of unpleasant personal experiences, I find myself more deeply attracted to the Teacher emotion of understanding why people act the way that they do. I also find that mental symmetry makes it possible to find truth in every situation. This does not mean accepting all facts at face value. Rather, it means that even when a person is deliberately lying or practicing self-deception, this falsehood is still being guided by inescapable principles of how the mind works; even when they are not speaking truth, they are still subject to truth—and one can then become persuaded by this truth. Mental symmetry also makes it possible to find hope even when people are inadequate. That is because each cognitive style is driven to use the part of the mind in which they are conscious. Therefore, if one combines how the Perceiver person uses Perceiver thought with how the Server person uses Server thought, how the Exhorter person uses Exhorter thought and so on, then one can form an internal composite image of how a person with a whole mind would function. This is like the old joke which says that “Heaven is where the police are British, the cooks are Italian, the mechanics are German, the lovers are French and it is all organised by the Swiss. Hell is where the police are German, the cooks are English, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss, and it is all organised by the Italians.” In other words, one can form an internal image of heaven out of real experiences on earth, if one knows how to combine the experiences of earth—if one knows, for instance, that one should learn cooking from Italians and not organization. The theory of mental symmetry makes it possible to assemble a reasonably accurate internal image of human perfection out of experiences with imperfect humans. This internal image gives one hope for a better society, and interaction with normal, imperfect people can actually build this hope rather than tearing it down. Finally, I find that mental symmetry builds endurance, because one cannot escape one’s own mind. If the human mind is ruled by inescapable cognitive principles, then trying to escape these principles merely prolongs the lessons that are required to become mentally whole. Saying this another way, if one cannot drop out of the school of character development, then one may as well be the best student that one can.

Paul says in verse 8 that “love never fails”. More literally, love never ‘falls down’. This same verb was seen twice in 1 Corinthians 10 when talking about falling due to the pressure coming from spiritual technology. The spiritual realm appears to empower mental networks. Paul is saying that love makes it possible to stand within a spiritual environment without falling. This ability to remain standing would become especially significant in a future society that was characterized by pervasive spiritual technology. This principle is already true today, but current matter-over-mind makes it possible to find at least temporary stability by building solid physical structures that do not fall down. if mind started to rule over matter, then love would become the only way to remain standing, because physical matter would no longer be solid.

That brings us to the next section.

A New World 13:8-13

We have looked so far primarily at what is happening within the mind, and one can see that love describes Mercy identity living within an internal structure held together by Teacher understanding. This is consistent with the word agape, which is defined as ‘love which centers in moral preference’. 1 Corinthians 13 talks only about agape love, and this word appears nine times in this chapter. However, people currently live in vulnerable, physical bodies that can be controlled and abused by those who do not practice love. I suggest that the rest of the chapter addresses this problem. Saying this another way, what has been described so far in chapter 13 is sowing to the spirit. But Paul says in strong terms in Galatians 6 that those who sow to the spirit will eventually reap eternal life from the spirit. How does that transition occur?

Paul says five things in the next few verses that I suggest are related: 1) Certain forms of thought will end. 2) Incompleteness will be replaced by completeness. 3) Childish thought will be replaced by mature thought. 4) Dim vision will be replaced by clear sight. 5) Partial knowledge will be replaced by full knowledge.

Paul’s statements are usually viewed as poetic hyperbole or as a description of some mysterious, mystical, heavenly existence. We will examine Paul’s words as accurate descriptions of a coming reality. Saying this more clearly, if 1 Corinthians ended with Chapter 13, then it would be inappropriate to make the statements that I am about to make. However, Paul did not end by talking about love, but rather finished his letter with an extensive discussion about resurrection bodies and resurrection existence (in chapter 15). What we will be discussing in this section is consistent with what Paul says in chapter 15.

In order to put these pieces together, we will need to look more closely at the supernatural and the spiritual and how they interact with the mind. We will look first at the supernatural. I have referred several times to concrete thought and abstract thought. One can see from the diagram of mental symmetry that Mercy and Server are concrete, while Teacher and Perceiver are abstract. Mercy and Server are concrete because Mercy thought receives emotional experiences directly from the physical environment, while Server thought can use actions to change the physical environment. Teacher and Perceiver are abstract because they do not interact directly with the physical environment. Teacher thought uses words, which are merely ephemeral vibrations in the air, and words will only change the world if some person or machine translates these words into actions. Similarly, one cannot use Perceiver thought to impose objects upon the environment, but rather must build objects by using Server thought to shape and assemble physical matter.

One major result of this imbalance between abstract thought and concrete thought is that one can use concrete thought to suppress abstract thought. Stated crudely, one can always respond to an unpleasant message by killing the messenger. Cognitively speaking, one is stopping the use of abstract thought by using Server actions to impose painful—or fatal—Mercy experiences. Another major result is that one can find stability in abstract thought. Teacher thought can be sure that the laws of nature will not change, and Perceiver thought can be certain that physical objects will not disappear.

Paul began his discussion of love by talking about speaking the tongues of men and angels. I have mentioned that humans can use concrete thought to experience and control the physical world. Descriptions of angels (as well as descriptions of UFOs) make sense if angels have the same minds as humans but interact with their environment by using Perceiver facts and Teacher words. In other words, what humans call concrete thought, angels view as abstract thought, while human abstract thought corresponds to angelic concrete thought.

If humans became conversant in the language of angels, then the two major results just mentioned no longer hold true. On the positive side, angelic power would view the human body the way that mechanic views a car. Physicians already view human bodies from this angelic perspective, but human physicians do not have access to angelic power. Access to angelic power would make it possible for members of the church (and I am defining church as a group of people called out to follow God) to use angelic power to protect physical bodies from decay and persecution. This explains why 1 Corinthians 12 refers three times to charismata of healings. Substantial healing would require supernatural power. But on the negative side, angelic power would also make it possible to locally alter the laws of nature, eliminating the human ability that abstract thought can find stability in the structure of the physical universe. This explains why the average scientist is vehemently opposed to the idea of miracles. Miracles violate the universal laws of nature.

The solution to this problem within a problem comes from the spiritual realm. I have suggested that the spiritual realm empowers mental networks. Saying this more carefully, the spiritual realm has no structure of its own. Instead, the spiritual realm acquires its external structure from mental networks. This is quite different than the supernatural realm which does appear to have its own structure, and we all know that the physical universe has solid structure. This contrast can be seen by comparing biblical stories of angels with accounts of spirits and demons. The angels always have an agenda to follow or a message to deliver. Angels never possess humans, and angels never stick around humans. In contrast, spirits and demons do not have their own agenda, but rather stick around humans to the extent of possessing humans.

Applying this to the problem within the problem, the mind cannot exist without some source of stability. For instance, the mental stability that comes from a TMN of rational understanding makes it possible to transform MMNs of personal identity. Combining human strength with angelic power would remove all external sources of stability. Therefore, personal identity would have to find stability in internal structure, at the level of core mental networks. These internal core mental networks could then be reinforced by spiritual empowering.

So what does all of this have to do with love? Nothing, if one defines love as some sappy feeling and thinks about ‘falling in love’ and ‘falling out of love’. But that is not the love of 1 Corinthians 13. Instead, love has been defined as personal emotions functioning within a solid internal structure held together by Teacher understanding. This is precisely the sort of internal structure that would be required to handle the supernatural and spiritual.

I suggest that Genesis 6 describes what happens when one tries to mix human and angelic realms without including the spiritual: ‘the sons of God came down to the daughters of men’. The results were disastrous. As the book of Jude describes, this combination led to a mindset that was totally ungodly: “It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.’” (Jude 14-16). Examining this cognitively, human and angelic realms were drawn together by physical feelings of lust, and instead of placing personal identity within a concept of God, such individuals completely rejected the idea of God and instead struggled for personal dominance.

We can now return to 1 Corinthians 13 and look at the last verses in more detail. Paul says in verse 8 that “if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease.” More literally, prophecies will be ‘rendered inoperative’ or ‘made of no effect’ while tongues will be ‘hindered or made to cease’. Both prophecies and tongues are expressions of abstract thinking. Prophecy can make reliable predictions about the future because it is being guided by a Teacher understanding of the physical universe with unchanging laws. For instance, rocket scientists can use the unchanging laws of nature to prophesy where a satellite will be at some point in the future. Verse 8 does not say that prophecy will be stopped, but rather that it will be made of no effect. In other words, one will still be able to carry out the calculations and predict where a satellite should be. But these predictions will no longer be accurate. This would happen if angelic power became widespread. In contrast, tongues will be made to cease, which implies that some active force will step in to inhibit tongues. The physical body imposes emotional experiences upon Mercy thought. By symmetry, angels live in bodies that impose emotional sequences upon Teacher thought. If tongues are being inhibited, then this means that some force is preventing Teacher thought from using words in the free manner that characterizes current human speech. This also would happen if angelic power became widespread.

The next phrase says that knowledge will be done away with. The word knowledge refers to experiential knowledge, and ‘done away with’ is the verb that means ‘made of no effect’. Experiential knowledge is a valuable commodity when culture is fairly stable. For instance, traditional societies look to old people for guidance and advice, because they have knowledge that was acquired through years of experience. Similarly, many job applications state that several years of experience is required. But experiential knowledge ceases to become useful when society becomes driven by Teacher emotion because Teacher thought thinks in terms of sequences and paths, and following a path will change experiences, which makes experiential knowledge obsolete. This is consistent with Paul saying that experiential knowledge will be made of no effect. People will still have experiential knowledge, but it will not be useful.

These three effects already function to some extent with science and technology. Experts are continually trying to predict the future, but many of these predictions are inaccurate because they do not take paradigm shifts into account. That is because experts typically prophesy by extrapolating present trends into the future. But that is not how modern society works. When a paradigm shift happens, then society will head off a totally new direction. Moving on, a paradigm shift will actively stop the present use of tongues. Thomas Kuhn says that when a paradigm shift happens, then all of the textbooks will be rewritten in the light of the new understanding. This rewriting occurs in order to stop people from using the old technical language and to force them to use the new technical language. For instance, physicists used to think that space was filled with some sort of aether. However, no educated physicist would now dare to use such language. Finally, when a paradigm shift happens, then major areas of experiential knowledge are rendered inoperative. For instance, when the automobile appeared, then one no longer had to learn how to ride a horse. Similarly, every engineer used to have to know how to use a slide rule. Today, the average person does not even know what a slide rule is.

Verses 9-10 say that prophecy and tongues are an expression of incompleteness that will come to an end when the perfect or complete arrives: “For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.” Part means ‘a part, share, portion’. And in is actually ‘from, from out of’. Thus, Paul is not saying that one is coming up with an answer that is partially correct, but rather that one is coming up with answers from a starting point that is partial. Human prophecy and tongues come out of the assumption of living within a physical body in the physical universe. But this is an incomplete starting point, because one should also take the supernatural and the spiritual into account. One can already see this to some extent with modern science. People try to prophesy the future guided by the current tongues of scientific theory. But these predictions are incomplete. This is not because the predictions are being made a partial manner. Rather, it is because the predictions are all based upon the partial knowledge and the partial tongues of the current paradigms. When paradigms change, then it becomes obvious that the starting point was incomplete. Looking at a larger example, theoretical physics currently uses the Big Bang theory to explain the origins of the universe, concluding that the universe is several billion years old. There is mathematical validity to the Big Bang theory. But this math is being interpreted by starting with the assumption that only the physical universe exists. If there is also a spiritual realm and a supernatural realm, then this means that the Big Bang theory ‘comes from out of’ incompleteness.

Moving on, the word perfect does not mean without mistakes, but rather ‘complete in all its parts, full-grown, having reached its final goal’. This is consistent with the idea of human society finally reaching the stage where all aspects of created existence are functioning together. This idea of needing to reach some goal is emphasized by the word when, which means ‘at the time when the condition is met’. Verse 10 says that the partial will be rendered inoperative when the complete arrives. Applying this to the big picture, one will still be able to think in terms of physical universe, supernatural, and spiritual, but it will no longer make any sense to think in such a partial manner because the complete has arrived.

Paul then says that childish thought will be replaced by adult thinking: “When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things” (13:11). The word child means ‘an infant, a simple-minded or immature person’. Thus, the focus is upon how a child thinks rather than how a child behaves. This term is used 15 times in the New Testament, five times in this one verse. The word think ‘is difficult to translate into English because it combines the visceral and cognitive aspects of thinking’. This describes thought that emerges from core mental networks—gut-level mental networks that bias thinking. Reason means to ‘reason to a logical conclusion’. This would describe using technical thought to come up with conclusions. Putting this together, one is using simple-minded language guided by simple-minded gut-level thinking, leading to simple-minded technical thought. This sounds rather dismissive, but it translates the original Greek accurately. And it also accurately describes the sort of dismissive language that modern science uses when talking about medieval alchemy, Greek medicine, or Ptolemaic astronomy.

The word man means ‘a male human being’, and the same word was used in previous chapters when talking about male thought or husbands. Paul says that when he became an adult male, then he rendered ineffective the things of the simple-minded child. I do not think that Paul is saying that only adult men are intelligent. Instead, I suggest that Paul is describing a transformation of male thought. Looking at this cognitively, the first half of chapter 13 described a transformation of the mental networks of female thought. This laid the foundation for a transformation of male thought. Looking at this prophetically, male thought currently acquires its ultimate structure by using technical thought to analyze the laws of nature. If physical reality expanded to include the supernatural and the spiritual, then male thought would have to rebuild from the ground up. This transition would be at least as great as the transition from pre-scientific thought to scientific thought which happened during the scientific revolution.

Verse 12 compares present awareness with future awareness. “For now we see in a mirror in a riddle, but then face to face” The NASB explains in a footnote that the word dimly is really ‘in a riddle’. This Greek word is only used once in the New Testament and comes from a verb which means ‘to speak in riddles’. The word see means ‘to see something physical, with spiritual results’. Thus, one is observing the physical environment and coming up with internal conclusions. Finally, a mirror refers to a Roman mirror made of polished metal which only produced a fuzzy reflection. Putting this together, existence currently appears to be a riddle because we are developing internal conclusions based upon sight that gives a fuzzy picture. This is consistent with the idea of being unable to come up with an explanation because of an inadequate starting point. In contrast, the future will be “then face to face”. This is the first time that Paul uses the word face in 1 Corinthians, and it will be used once more in 14:25. In other words, the fuzzy vision of today will eventually be replaced by clear sight. But what will one see when one sees clearly? One will not see a universe, but rather the face of an intelligent mind, and one will interact face-to-face with this intelligent mind as an intelligent mind. One can see why current male technical thought would have to be totally re-thought, because the fundamental assumption of current science is that one needs to look for impersonal explanations.

Verse 12 then compares current knowledge with future knowledge: “Now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known”. The first know refers to experiential knowledge. Know fully adds the prefix ‘on,fitting’, leading to the meaning ‘apt, experiential knowing, through direct relationship’. In other words, experiential knowledge will still function, but at a much deeper level. However, this direct experiential knowledge will not be acquired automatically. Instead, one will have direct experiential knowledge ‘in proportion, to the degree that’ one is known at a direct, experiential level. This seems to say that future existence will function at the level of interacting core mental networks. And the degree to which one can participate in such a universe will depend upon the level to which one’s mental networks are known by God and others. This is directly related to the definition for love, because love means that mental networks of personal identity are functioning with in an internal grid of rational thought held together by Teacher understanding. In both cases, one sees that my ability to function are based upon how much I exist emotionally within some structure of thought. This implies that hell will be lonely and loneliness will be hell. This does not necessarily mean that people in hell will be physically alone. Instead, it means that they will not see each other clearly. In today’s world of matter-over-mind, a thriving economy requires an extensive physical infrastructure. By symmetry, an extensive mental infrastructure would be required for well-being in a future world of mind-over-matter.

Paul finishes the chapter by saying “but now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love” (13:13). Paul has said that tongues, prophecy, and knowledge do not remain. In contrast, he says that faith, hope, and love do remain. One can see how love would remain and be the greatest in a combined physical, supernatural, and spiritual realm, because what would matter above everything would be one’s core mental networks. They would determine the overall shape of one’s environment, and they would also provide the internal glue needed to combine physical with supernatural existence.

The word greatest actually means ‘large, great, in the widest sense’. Thus, Paul is not saying that love is better than faith or hope, but rather that it has a wider impact. Following a path of love will lead to a bigger paradigm shift than following faith or hope. That is because faith and hope focus upon specific elements, while love deals with personal existence, and if mind ruled over matter, then personal existence would be more fundamental.

I suggest that hope and faith would also survive, but would take a different form. Swedenborg states in his description of heaven that every person naturally lives within a certain environment and is incapable of leaving this environment for more than a short time. This already occurs to some extent in the current physical world because people find it difficult to leave their own cultural MMNs, and the intellectual who develops the TMN of an understanding becomes emotionally trapped within this understanding. However, I have also found out that a mental network that is based in the structure of the mind is capable of expanding to cover many different contexts. In other words, I have discovered that it is possible to explore many other paradigms and systems of thought while still remaining emotionally imprisoned within the theory of mental symmetry. But this moving beyond one’s comfort zone requires hope and faith. Whenever I tackle a new topic, such as the book of 1 Corinthians, I hope that I will gain an understanding, and I have faith that I will survive this intellectual journey with my understanding intact. Thus, hope turns into internally ‘seeing’ an existence that is better than one’s current environment while faith is needed to get from one’s current environment to this better environment.

This view of hope and faith is conveyed in Revelation 21 in the description of the new heaven and earth: “I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb” (21:22,23). A temple is needed when a valid concept of God cannot be acquired directly from the external environment. And a sun illustrates a general Teacher theory in abstract thought that is shining upon concrete thought. There is no temple in the new Jerusalem because the concept of God directly illumines physical existence, and there is no sun or moon because abstract thought is no longer something separate from reality that shines upon concrete thought. But John also says that the Lamb is the lamp of the city. Why would a city that is lit by the very essence of God require the small oil lamp of the Lamb? That is like using a flashlight in bright sunlight. I suggest that a flashlight is needed when moving through a dark passage from one well-lit environment to another, just as headlights are needed when driving through a tunnel during the daytime. The Lamb represents incarnation in the book of Revelation. When one is living in an environment where everything can be seen, one still needs to follow incarnation by faith through periods of temporary darkness guided by a lamp of hope as one moves from the status quo to something better. This mindset is described in Revelation 14:1-5, because a new group is singing a new song before God that others cannot sing, and this new group is following the Lamb wherever he goes.

If natural and supernatural were to come together, then there would be no such thing as abstract thought, because the abstract thought of the one would be the concrete thought of the other. The Internet provides a partial illustration of what this means. The average person no longer thinks in terms of concrete experiences and abstract speech, because the Internet with its words and connections has replaced abstract thought with its Teacher words and Perceiver connections. Instead of using abstract thought, one turns to the devices of the Internet.

The Internet also illustrates what it means to live in a spiritual realm. This type of realm was originally explored by Swedenborg in the 1700s. I think that most of Swedenborg’s teachings need to be rejected. However, I think that his general concept of ruling loves makes sense. In simple terms, Swedenborg suggested that after people die, they are drawn inexorably to an environment that is consistent with what Swedenborg calls their ‘ruling loves’, which mental symmetry would refer to as core mental networks. Similarly, most contemporary stories of people ‘visiting heaven’ describe living in a realm in which there is a resonance between internal mental networks and physical reality. One sees a similar magnetic effect on the Internet, with people of similar tastes, views, and biases naturally being attracted to each other and emotionally reinforcing each another. Wired magazine described it this way: “An infinity of subcultures outside the mainstream now blossoms on the Internet – vegans, body modifiers, CrossFitters, Wiccans, DIYers, Pinners, and support groups of all forms. Millions of people are finding their true peers in the cloud, a remedy for the isolation imposed by the anonymous apartment complex or the remote rural location.”

Going the other way, many groups within current society are pursuing spirituality without content. I have become convinced that this is asking for trouble at a deep spiritual level. I would not want to connect with spirits who think that content is meaningless, because I live within a world of content and I need content to exist. Instead, I would want to connect with spirits who are pursuing a path of mental and personal wholeness.

A spiritual and supernatural breakthrough would not lead to an existence of stress-free bliss, but it would change the nature of stress. Currently, the struggle is to follow internal content despite external pressure. After, the struggle would be to stay internally integrated while attempting to bridge disparate external environments. Saying this more simply, when charismatic Christians experience some form of spiritual or supernatural activity, then one of the biggest challenges appears to be remaining sane and not going crazy. This explains why 1 Corinthians 10 focused upon standing without falling.

We will finish by looking at the big picture. Paul presents 1 Corinthians 13 as if it is an alternate path. The normal path follows the male thinking of incarnation in a step-by-step manner. But there is also an alternate path of love which uses the mental networks of female thought. The role that female thought plays can be seen in the stories of Mary, Lazarus, and the red heifer. Paul says that love is greater than faith and hope. This implies that the alternate path of mental networks is capable of leapfrogging the normal path of incarnation. Some female thought is always necessary. Saying this symbolically, some Mary has to anoint Jesus for burial. And some male thought is also necessary, because Jesus has to go through death and resurrection. But it appears that either the male path or the female path can dominate. Following the female path is faster than following the male path, while following the male path is more certain. Society is currently following primarily the slow path of male thought, as a result of what happened with Eve in the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden had several results. First, female thought submitted to mysticism, as represented by Eve being successfully tempted by the serpent. Mysticism short-circuits female thought by replacing general theories with Teacher overgeneralization and personal character with Mercy identification. Mysticism currently rules at the heart of all religious thought. As long as mysticism retains this supremacy, society will be forced to follow the slow plodding path of male thought. This will eventually change because Revelation 12 describes a war in heaven in which a woman appears and the serpent is cast out of heaven. That brings us to the second effect of the Garden of Eden. It appears that the successful temptation of Eve had spiritual overtones. Replacing mysticism with female thought is far more than just a cognitive struggle. Instead, it has turned into deep cognitive struggle based in core mental networks that are being reinforced by spiritual power. Finally, it may be that Adam and Eve had a physical ability to sense general Teacher emotions before the fall. This would have been cognitively useful when conversing with God but it would have become cognitively fatal once Teacher thought became hijacked by the overgeneralization of mysticism. The end result is that all humans now acquire their initial rational content from physical cause-and-effect and one must use male technical thought to understand the laws of nature.

Prophecy versus Tongues 14:1-6

In Chapter 13, Paul described the ‘more excellent way’ of love. Paul’s statement in verse 8 that prophecy and knowledge will be rendered ineffective and tongues will be stopped led us to conclude that following a path of love leads ultimately to major changes in the nature of existence. Chapter 14 is obviously describing a more normal path because the topic of discussion is tongues and prophecy.

Paul begins by saying “Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual [gifts], but especially that you may prophesy” (14:1). The Greek word translated ‘spiritual gifts’ is the same term Paul used in chapter 12 when introducing the topic of spiritual gifts. I have put the word ‘gifts’ in brackets because in both cases this word is not in the original Greek. Instead, all that is used is the adjective spiritual, which means ‘relating to the realm of spirit’. Thus, in both chapters 12 and 14, the primary topic is interacting with the spiritual realm rather than receiving spiritual gifts. Spiritual gifts give the idea that one is receiving the occasional spiritual touch while living within the physical realm—that spiritual is the adjective and physical reality is the noun. Relating to the spiritual realm indicate something much more extensive in which the physical realm as a whole is being influenced by another realm that is spiritual. Using an analogy, spiritual gifts are like living in the West and receiving gifts from the exotic East as opposed to interacting with the East at a cultural, linguistic, religious, and economic level.

Paul says that one should pursue love, which means to ‘aggressively chase, like a hunter pursuing a catch’. This verb occurs 45 times in the New Testament and is translated 31 times as persecute. This conveys the idea that love is some kind of person or personal state that one is going after. In contrast, one should also ‘earnestly desire the spiritual realm, which means ‘to bubble over because so hot’. This same verb was used in 13:4 to describe what love is not: love is not jealous. This implies that the love of chapter 13 describes a form of mental integration that goes beyond the tongues and prophecy of Chapter 14.

The introduction to Chapter 14 has a different emotional flavor than chapter 12. (I know that the original text was not divided into chapters, but in this case the chapters reflect Paul’s organization.) ‘Bubbling over because so hot’ describes being driven strongly by mental networks. Chapter 12 introduced the subject of spirituality at a factual level. Paul did not want his readers to be ignorant about the spiritual realm. Chapter 14 introduces the subject at an emotional level. One is supposed to pursue love and be jealous for the spiritual realm. If the spiritual realm empowers mental networks, then this means that people in chapter 14 have encountered the spiritual and they are now wondering what to do with these strong desires. Paul mentions two options, which are not necessarily exclusive. At a personal level one should pursue love. One should channel emotional and spiritual drive in the direction of becoming a person who is capable of living with deep personal character within a mental grid of structure held together by Teacher understanding. Notice that such a pursuit is itself an aspect of love. One is being driven by the mental content within which one lives to live more within mental content. It is possible follow a partial version of this kind of love within current technological society. We are now surrounded by technical gadgets with amazing structure, order, elegance, function, and even intelligence. Think, for instance, of everything that a smart phone can do. It is literally a miniature world as well as a portal to an entire world. Love looks at gadgets such as these and responds, ‘I want to be like that’. I want to be someone who is full of structure, order, elegance, function, and intelligence. The average person today does not think that way because objects are impersonal while people are personal. Similarly, the average Christian would never associate the love of 1 Corinthians 13 with technical gadgets. That is because love is being viewed as some sort of irrational feeling as opposed to gadgets which function rationally. For instance, when I was in Korea, I played violin in the orchestras of several large churches. One church even had an orchestra in their English service. In the middle of one of these English services, the pastor turned to me and said to me in front of everyone else that I would eventually fall in love and realize that love was something irrational. 1 Corinthians 13 makes it clear that love involves deep Mercy emotions, but these emotions are functioning within a structure of rational thought. Spiritual technology would remove this distinction between personal and impersonal. Thus, many people would feel a strong drive to become personally characterized by love.

At a more general level, Paul is saying that is okay to be driven emotionally by the spiritual realm. One should desire the spiritual realm to the extent of ‘bubbling over because so hot’. I think that Paul is saying this because the spiritual realm amplifies existing mental networks. It is scary to come face-to-face with one’s deepest desires. But that is exactly how Paul described future existence at the end of chapter 13. One will come face-to-face, and one will be able to know fully, but only to the extent that one is fully known. Therefore, if one wants to live in the future, then one will have to come face-to-face with the spiritual realm, which means coming face-to-face with core mental networks. But this does not mean that one should embrace spirituality without content the way that the average person is doing today. Instead, one should focus upon prophesying. Paul does not talk about being a prophet but rather upon prophesying. Remember that the verb prophesy adds the prefix ‘before’ to ‘assert by elevating one statement over another’. Applying this to an environment full of spiritual energy, this would mean focusing upon some aspect of energy and then lifting it up in Teacher thought in order to produce some future result.

Using an analogy, this is like being in the midst of many streams of water, and one is adjusting the relative heights of these streams in order to have the streams generate some desired pattern. In other words, Paul is saying that one should immerse oneself in the stream of spirituality, but one should not just focus upon splashing in the water. Instead, one should think about working with these various streams in order to produce desired results. Notice that the adjusting is happening in the present while the desired effect is happening in the future. Prophecy emphasizes certain streams in the present in order to generate—or predict—desired results in the future. I talk about streams and energy because the end of chapter 13 appears to be talking about encountering both the spiritual realm and the supernatural realm. One would not just be encountering mental networks of static experience enhanced by spiritual power. Instead, one would also be encountering paths of supernatural energy enhanced by spiritual power. I suggest that it is appropriate to discuss the supernatural because the word ‘tongue’ is used 15 times in this chapter, and ‘speaking’ occurs 24 times. (‘Spirit’ occurs nine times while ‘spiritual’ occurs twice.)

My hypothesis is that supernatural beings (angels and aliens) live within a Teacher realm of tongues and speech. After all, the word angel means ‘messenger’, which implies living within some message. My best guess is that personal existence for an angel would appear to humans like being immersed in streams of energy, and that angelic ‘movement’ would involve some version of generating desired results by altering the relative significance of these various streams. There is another reason to connect prophesying with angelic power. The noun form of this verb prophesy is used to describe the cognitive style of Perceiver in Romans 12:6. The human mind uses Server thought to control the external world through sequences of physical action. (This is reflected in the structure of the brain, because the left parietal cortex controls physical movement for the entire body.) By symmetry, angels would use Perceiver thought to control their external environment, which brings us back to the connection between prophecy and angelic ‘movement’. I am not suggesting that chapter 14 applies only to some future time in which physical reality encounters streams of spirituality enhanced, supernatural power. We will see that the same principles apply to current academia as well as Pentecostal Christianity. However, if human society ever went beyond spiritual gifts to encountering the spiritual and supernatural realms, then I suggest that following the principles of Chapter 14 would become essential.

Verse 2 introduces the topic of speaking in tongues: “For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.” A tongue is defined as ‘the tongue, a language’. Abstract technical thought is based upon precise definitions. Therefore, speaking in a tongue would mean using the vocabulary of some language. This could mean speaking a real language, and it could also mean speaking the language of some technical specialization. Tongues have been defined in Pentecostal circles as ‘speaking some heavenly language’ and we will look at this interpretation in a few verses. (Notice that the word ‘tongues’ is being redefined to refer to ‘heavenly’ verbal expression which does not have precise definitions, which is a contradiction in terms.) In the future tongues would presumably refer to using abstract technical thought to function more effectively within the angelic realm. (This would be the mirror-image of the way that humans use concrete technical thought to function more effectively in the physical realm, through strategies such as goal-oriented behavior, contingency planning, cost-benefit thinking, and optimization.)

Paul says that speaking in a tongue speaks to God and not to mankind. Looking at this cognitively, one is building general Teacher understanding, but one is not doing anything that will help people in Mercy thought. This statement would apply to theoretical research. It may add to the body of knowledge, but it has no practical benefit. In the current system of matter-over-mind, theoretical research will often lead eventually to practical benefits—usually for other people and often for succeeding generations, because this research is being done in a structured physical universe. However, if mind started to rule over matter, then it would be possible to pursue theoretical research in a manner that became totally disconnected from the rest of existence. Similarly, if one interprets tongues as a heavenly language with no earthly meaning, then speaking in tongues also becomes disconnected from the rest of existence. It may interact emotionally with a concept of God in Teacher thought, but there is no human component.

Verse 2 adds that ‘no one hears’ and no one is a strong negative. In other words, nothing passes verbally from one person to another. Instead, ‘in spirit, he speaks mysteries’. Looking at this cognitively, speaking in tongues is being internally guided by Platonic forms of spirit. This is a way of expressing to Teacher thought the deep desires contained in Platonic forms. This is described in Romans 8:26: “We do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words”. Thus, charismatic speaking in tongues satisfies a legitimate cognitive need, because it makes Teacher thought aware of deep Mercy emotions. But this only works within the mind. It does not work between people. That is because the deep Mercy groaning is happening within a mental context that can be sensed by the rest of the mind. In contrast, other people hear nothing except deep groaning. Similarly, the theoretical researcher has a concept in Mercy thought within his own mind of what his technical lingo signifies. But those who are outside of this technical specialization do not have these Platonic forms. All that they hear is technical gobbledygook. This may generates an impressive feeling of expertise but nothing else. This problem would be exacerbated in a future society of spiritual power. Interacting with the supernatural realm in a spiritual manner would generate feelings of adjusting great streams of energy. But this energy would remain a mystery to human comprehension. In fact, this sort of thing may already be happening in mystical circles. It is possible that some mystics are tapping in to spiritual and supernatural power. But there is no accompanying comprehension, only spiritual mystery, which ends up reinforcing the idea that God’s ways are ultimately inscrutable to human thought.

Summarizing, speaking in tongues means developing the TMN of some general theory. Such a person is ‘speaking to God’ because a concept of God is based in a general theory in Teacher thought. The spirit will become involved because a general theory leads indirectly to Platonic forms of the spirit within Mercy thought. But other people will not understand because the theory has not been translated into terms that others are capable of understanding. And the Platonic forms will be a mystery to others because the invisible visions of perfection have not been translated into real life.

Verse 3 describes the positive alternative: “But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation” (14:3). In other words, prophecy directs the language towards humanity rather than towards God. Looking at this charismatically, one is trying to communicate with humans rather than project emotional gibberish to God. Looking at this scientifically, one is trying to apply research to human situations and not just add to the theoretical body of knowledge. Looking at this from a future perspective, one is using Perceiver thought to direct Teacher streams of supernatural energy in such a way that benefits humanity in the physical universe. This may sound esoteric, but one does the same thing now with electricity. Every house is filled with electric wiring which directs streams of electrical energy in a way that can bring benefit to human existence.

Edification means ‘a building (edifice) serving as a home’. Thus, the analogy of electric wiring in a home is appropriate. One is channeling the supernatural energy in order to build a better home for people within the human realm of Mercy thought. Exhortation means to ‘come alongside to give legal help’, and is closely related to the description of the Holy Spirit in John 14:16. Using cognitive language, exhortation places real situations within the context of universal law. For instance, technology addresses real needs by placing them within the context of the universal laws of science. Finally, consolation means ‘speaking closely with a degree of tenderness’. This goes beyond describing theory in generic terms to describing the universal principles that apply to the current specific situation. One is bringing emotional comfort by using theory to illuminate the present situation. Using the example of technology, one is building labor-saving devices which make personal life easier in Mercy thought.

Paul then moves from the individual to the group: “One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; the one who prophesies edifies the church” (14:4). It is good to develop general theories because they are the starting point for personal growth and transformation. But if one wants to help others, then one needs to go beyond tongues to prophecy. Edify is the verb form of edification, which means ‘to build a house’. In other words, tongues may help to build a house for my personal identity, but if one wants to build a house for a group, then one must go beyond tongues to prophecy. Looking at this academically, theoretical research creates a home in which a theoretical researcher can live most of time. And in a future realm of mind-over-matter, theoretical research would probably be able to build a home in which a theoretical researcher could live all of the time. But if one wants to go beyond oneself to the group, then one has to start guiding the flow of one’s environment. Effective communication does this, because it changes the flow of thought within other people’s minds by elevating certain streams of thought above other streams. If no relevant stream of thought exists within the mind of the listener that can be elevated, then I do not think that communication is possible. That is why I keep using examples from science and technology. I am approaching the Bible in a manner that is incomprehensible to the average Christian believer. We may be talking about the same book, but the thought processes are worlds apart. But I do find that technology is causing the average person to think along the same channels that I do.

Verse 5 compares these two options, “I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying” (14:5). Theory is good, and Paul wishes that everyone was capable of using abstract thought to develop theories. But applying theory is better, because applied theory helps everyone. And, as before, better means ‘large, great, in the widest sense’. Applying theory is better because it has a wider impact. The solution is to interpret tongues, and interpret is the stronger word used in 12:30 which adds ‘thoroughly across, to the other side’ to ‘interpret’. This conveys the idea of conveying ideas from the mind of one person to the mind of another, which is the essence of translation.

Verse 5 says that speaking in tongues can create a corporate home for a group of people if these tongues are translated. For instance, the average person views my research as a form of speaking in tongues, because I am using a language that people do not understand to come up with Platonic forms that do not relate to people’s reality. This is not of my choosing. Instead, it appears that I am being providentially manipulated to pursue a path of love. However, my primary focus during recent years has been to translate the tongue of mental symmetry into other languages, such as the language of theology, the language of psychology, the language of cognitive science, the language of science, and, hopefully, the language of normal life.

I am also continually translating in these essays, saying something cognitively, then attempting to restate the same thing as a religious language, then repeating the concept using scientific language, and then hopefully translating this into normal life. Somehow I am trying to bridge the gap between how ideas flow in my head and how they flow in the minds of other people.

Paul says that prophecy is better than speaking in tongues, unless tongues is accompanied by interpretation. That is not the current view of academia. Repeating an earlier quote from Wikipedia, “In popular academic perception, scholars who publish infrequently, or who focus on activities that do not result in publications, such as instructing undergraduates, may lose ground in competition for available tenure-track positions.” In other words, academia rewards those who speak in tongues while penalizing those who prophesy or interpret. The end result is an academic world that has become increasingly disconnected from normal society, which is precisely what Paul is trying to avoid in chapter 14. If this is already happening today within matter-over-mind, imagine what sort of disconnect from physical reality could happen if abstract theory discovered the streams of angelic existence within a world of mind-over-matter. In fact, Hebrews 13 seems to indicate that a form of academia will emerge which attempts to develop technical thought as disembodied minds. That passage also states that one will have to look elsewhere to find Jesus.

Verse 6 summarizes what we have been discussing so far. “But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching?” (14:6). The word profit means ‘to help, benefit, do good’. Concrete technical thought thinks in terms of profit, and the definition of profit here is simple: Are there any benefits for Mercy thought? Looking at this cognitively, speaking some tongue requires the use of abstract technical thought. Paul is asking a question related to incarnation: Is abstract technical thought descending to help concrete technical thought? Paul mentions four ways in which abstract theory can profit personal identity: First, theory can uncover something that was previously hidden. This word apocalypse is used primarily to talk about the revelation of Jesus Christ, which supports the idea that Paul is asking a question related to the revelation of incarnation. The next term is knowledge, which refers to experiential knowledge. In other words, tongues may lead to some sort of abstract knowledge, but is this accompanied by experiential knowledge? Using the language of modern physics, Paul seems to be saying that one should not follow a philosophy of ‘shut up and calculate’. More generally, theoretical physicists go to great lengths to emphasize that the equations of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory make mathematical sense but cannot be known experientially. Paul is pointing out the incompleteness of such a mindset. The next term is prophecy, which has been discussed extensively. Prophecy uses theory to predict what will happen in the real world. But how can prophecy make statements about the real world when one is speaking in a tongue that has no connection with physical reality? The final term is teaching, which refers to ‘established teaching, especially a summarized body of respected teaching’. This describes the theories that are taught in an established school curriculum. Abstract theories that have nothing to do with reality do not tend to be taught to the general population in school. Instead, as culture changes, then curricula will be updated in order to remain relevant to current culture. These four principles are already true today. But they would become far more critical in a future society of mind-over-matter, because pursuing some abstract tongue would literally cause a person or group to become detached from the rest of society.

Tongues, Language, and the Supernatural 14:7-12

The next section can be interpreted at three levels. First, we can look at how these principles apply to academia. Second, one can apply these principles to some future period of angelic/human interaction. Here, we have to turn to physics for clues of meaning. Third, we have been treating charismatic tongues as one version of speaking in tongues. If one analyzes the next section from a technical standpoint, it actually addresses the linguistic characteristics of charismatic speaking in tongues, making it possible to determine the relationship between charismatic ‘speaking in tongues’ and the tongues of 1 Corinthians. I have some personal experience with this topic because I attended a charismatic church for several years in the 1980s (though I myself never ‘spoke in tongues’). The previous pastor of this charismatic church was Harold Bredesen, who played a major role in starting the charismatic movement. (I starting working on mental symmetry by assisting my older brother Lane, who attended this church while Bredesen was pastor.) Thus, the version of charismatic Christianity that I experienced was about as close to the source as it is possible to get. I occasionally encountered ‘words of prophecy’ that were clearly legitimate and helpful, but most of the time what occurred was something like ‘shibabara shicaba lakakana bahartiya’ followed by a translation along the lines of ‘God loves you and wants to know that he cares for you very deeply’. First, this is a fairly generic translation that expresses the politically correct message of love without content. Second, how can one know that this is an accurate translation?

In general, I suggest that charismatic speaking in tongues is a way of applying a concept of God when one does not have a valid concept of God. A linguistic analysis of speaking in tongues found “that glossolalic speech does resemble human language in some respects. The speaker uses accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses to break up the speech into distinct units.” But the linguist also “found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface” and so concluded that glossolalia is “only a facade of language”. Applying a rational theory of God in Teacher theory to personal identity in Mercy thought is a key aspect of Christianity. But how can one do this when such a rational theory does not exist? All one can do is emotionally identify with the façade of a general verbal theory. That appears to describe charismatic speaking in tongues.

Paul then describes several cognitive characteristics of speech and abstract thought. First, speech is only possible if Server thought can organize Teacher waves into different categories: “Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?” (14:7). This principle is more basic than mental networks because it applies ‘even to lifeless things’. And Paul is talking about basic elements of speech, because distinction means ‘a separation, a difference’, and tones comes from a verb which refers to ‘a generic or unintelligible sound’. For instance, Japanese and Korean speakers have problems separating ‘l’ and ‘r’ because they cannot distinguish between these two sounds. Going the other way, Korean speakers would try to describe to me the difference between ‘k’ and ‘kk’, and I literally could not distinguish what to the Korean ear was clearly two different sounds. More generally, when one is learning a new language, then everything initially sounds the same, and over time one gradually learns to pick out words and syllables out of the stream of noise. Looking at this cognitively, in the right hemisphere, Perceiver thought performs object analysis by organizing Mercy experiences into categories of same and different. Similarly, in the left hemisphere, Server thought performs sound analysis by organizing Teacher sounds into categories of same and different.

Looking at this in more detail, the word flute is found only once in the New Testament and means ‘a pipe, flute’. A harp refers to a harp or lyre, which are both stringed instruments. Anyone who remembers high school physics will know that both a pipe and a string create a tone through the mechanism of a standing wave. A standing wave makes it possible to move from the Teacher realm of waves to the Mercy realm of objects. A wave travels from here to there, like a light wave or radio wave being broadcast from some source. A standing wave forms when a wave is forced to bounce back and forth between two fixed points, such as the ends of a string or the ends of a pipe. This bouncing back and forth will generate an oscillation that appears to stay in one place, like the vibration of a string or the vibration of air in a pipe. The word lifeless is used once in the New Testament and means literally without soul. I interpret soul as the integrated mind. Thus, ‘without soul’ would refer cognitively to fragments of thought. A similar fragmentation occurs with sounds, because any complex sound can be separated into elementary waves by performing what is known as Fourier analysis. Going the other way, one can generate any arbitrary sound by combining elementary waves. And these elementary waves can be created by forming standing waves in a string or a pipe. Verse 7 says that one cannot have an experiential knowledge of what is being piped or harped if one cannot distinguish between the elementary sounds. Saying this musically, someone who is tone deaf is incapable of recognizing a melody. Saying this linguistically, the first step of comprehending language is to separate speech into its various elementary frequencies, which is done neurologically by the hair of the cochlea of the ear combined with the primary and secondary auditory cortices. Applying this to charismatic tongues, if tongues cannot be separated into distinct linguistic sounds, then it does not qualify as a language. Finally, applying this to some future time of supernatural encounter, a basic element of moving from supernatural to physical would be taking supernatural waves and causing them to form standing waves within some physical container. (This may explain why supernatural power is often associated with vibrating crystals.) And the first step in comprehending the supernatural realm would be learning how to distinguish one resonant frequency from another.

The second principle is that Teacher words cannot be applied through Server actions if Server thought cannot distinguish one sound from another sound: “For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?” (14:8). The first point focused upon merely distinguishing one elementary tone from another. The emphasis here is upon moving from recognizing tones to preparing oneself for action. The word indistinct means ‘not self-evident, unclear, indistinct, not immediately obvious’. This goes beyond distinguishing one note from another to recognizing a specific tone quickly and intuitively. Prepare means ‘to prepare, make ready’. A bugle is a ‘war trumpet’ and this word is used in the New Testament primarily in connection with the judgment of God. When the trumpet sounds, then heavenly forces appear on earth. The word battle means war and is only used once in the letters to the Corinthians.

Putting this together, angelic forces are descending to human existence in order to overturn existing human structures. If one is to prepare for such an encounter, then one must be able to recognize the ‘sounds’ of heaven at an intuitive level. One must be in tune with the heavens at the level of mental networks. For instance, the primary reason that I am able to decipher the New Testament books and write these essays is because the content is resonating with my personal experience. Notice that verse 8 talks about preparing rather than recognizing. Generic spiritual sensitivity is sufficient to recognize that human society is on the verge of some angelically imposed paradigm shift. But preparing for this paradigm shift requires something much more, which is recognizing the various trumpet blasts at an intuitive level. Applying this to academia, those who are best at predicting how some theoretical development will impact society are those who understand the subject matter at an intuitive level. Applying this to charismatic tongues, I have never encountered any speaking in tongues that has conveyed a clear message. Instead, I have only heard indistinct mumbling in which every phrase sounds like the others. If I had to prepare on the basis of charismatic tongues, I would have no clue what to do. Those who interpret charismatic tongues claim to get a clear, intuitive picture of what a person speaking tongues is saying. I do not want to state categorically that this is not the case, but in my experience such clarity describes the exception rather than the rule. This ability to ‘recognize the signs of the times’ would obviously apply to major events such as the Second Coming, when the angelic realm impacts the human realm in major ways, but I suggest that the same principles would apply more locally in a future world in which the natural and the supernatural became interconnected.

Third, communicating with some specialization requires clear signs: “So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken?” (14:9). The word translated clear is used once in the New Testament and combines ‘well’ with ‘to give a sign’. Speech is not the normal word for talking that has been used so far, but rather logos, which refers to the TMN of some technical specialization. The last time logos was used was back in 12:8 when talking about the manifestations of the spirit. And verse 9 also returns to talking about tongues rather than sounds or noises. Finally, knowledge refers to experiential knowledge. Thus, Paul is no longer talking about the elements of speech, but is now discussing a tongue based in the TMN of some specialization. The implication is that the heavenly paradigm shift has now occurred, the alien mother ship has landed, and humans are now attempting to communicate with the occupants of this ship. (And a future society might include alien mother ships.) In the same way that traveling to a foreign country is much easier if places and routes are marked with clear signs, so communicating successfully with some new technical specialization requires clear signs in order to experientially know what is being spoken. This study of the relationship between signs and language is known as semiotics. If this is not present, then speech will be reduced to vibrations in the air: “For you will be speaking into the air”. The word air means ‘air, the lower air we breathe’. (14:9).

Fourth, Paul then turns to the various language of the world and points out that they all have meanings: “There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no [kind] is without meaning” (14:10). Looking at this linguistically, there are many languages in the world, and one can put together a dictionary for every one. Paul states this as a universal principle because no is a strong negative word without any exceptions. However, Paul uses strange vocabulary. Kinds means ‘family, offspring’, But languages is actually the same word that was used in verse 8 to talk about the sound of the trumpet. It occurs 139 times in the New Testament and is only translated as language by the NASB in verses 10 and 11 of this chapter. In the vast majority of cases, it is translated as sound or voice. Going further, without meaning is the negative of this word which means ‘without voice, speechless’. It is found four times in the New Testament and the other three times are rendered as mute or silent. Finally, world is actually cosmos which Paul has been using in this letter to refer to the physical world system. I have been interpreting cosmos as the mental networks that one acquires from living in a physical body within the physical universe. This is consistent with how John defines the world in 1 John 2:15-17. Cosmos is found 186 times in the New Testament, and this appears to be the only time that cosmos is associated with language. Thus, a more literal translation of verse 10 would be ‘There are perhaps many families of voices in the cosmos, and not a single one is mute’.

Verse 11 starts with a ‘therefore’, which tells us that it is finishing the thought of verse 10. The NASB translates it as: “If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.” Verse 11 also contains strange vocabulary. As was mentioned, ‘language’ actually means voice and not language. The word translated meaning is actually ‘power’. The word power occurs 120 times in the New Testament, and this is the only time that it is translated in the NASB as ‘meaning’. It is also the only time that the word power is connected with voice. Know is not experiential knowledge but rather means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. Finally, a barbarian is an uncivilized person. Thus, a more literal translation of verse 11 is ‘Therefore, if I do not internally understand the power of the voice, I will be a barbarian to the one who is speaking, and the one who is speaking will be a barbarian to me’.

Putting this all together, what Paul is saying could apply to language but it is actually saying something more generic. Paul is saying that using Teacher thought in a vocal manner is a fundamental characteristic of living as a human in the physical universe. And this vocalization falls into families. One might think that this is obvious, but it would not apply to angels living in a mirror-image universe. Instead, angels would use Teacher thought to analyze emotional waves and sequences in their environment, just as humans use Mercy thought to remember and analyze emotional experiences of the physical world. Thus, the corresponding statement for angels would be that all angels (and aliens) living in the angelic world broadcast pictures and images in Mercy thought. And these images fall into families. For instance, one of the common elements of the typical UFO abduction scenario is that the aliens will transmit some sort of visual movie to the abductee. Often, this is a movie of the earth being destroyed in some sort of global catastrophe. The human often interprets this as the aliens prophesying what will happen to the earth, but I suggest that it should actually be viewed as a form of communication. In essence, the aliens are attempting to inform the human of their guiding paradigm or worldview. Moving on to verse 11, humans in physical bodies use Server actions to manipulate Mercy experiences. By symmetry, angels use Perceiver power to manipulate Teacher waves and streams. Thus, when an angel tries to talk to a human, the human will not sense Perceiver meaning but rather Perceiver power. One can find several examples of this in the Bible. Paul is saying that the human listener has to go beyond the physical power being broadcast by the voice of the angel to assigning some sort of internal meaning. If this does not happen, then each will view the other as barbaric.

At this point I am probably speaking in tongues for the average reader, so I will try to come up with a reasonable interpretation. Suppose that I come across a lion and the lion responds to me with a mighty roar. I will run away and consider the lion to be a savage beast. But now suppose that I realize that the roar of the lion is actually conveying some sort of internal meaning. My opinion of the lion will change. Similarly, the lion’s opinion of me will also change, because I will no longer respond to the attempts of the lion to communicate by running away. Science fiction stories of UFOs often talk about humans involuntarily responding to alien visitors in a hostile manner. Verses 10-11 seem to be saying that this sort of mistaken response would happen naturally when moving from the angelic to the human realms, just because of the very nature of angelic and human existence. I know that this is a strange interpretation of these verses, but it matches the precise meanings of the original Greek text, while the standard meaning actually has to butcher the text fairly severely. The Darby translation renders these two verses as “There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of undistinguishable sound. If therefore I do not know the power of the sound, I shall be to him that speaks a barbarian, and he that speaks a barbarian for me.” This is much closer to the original Greek. (I may have problems with Darby's doctrine of the rapture, but he was an amazing Bible translator.)

Verse 12 starts with a ‘thus, so, in this manner’. This tells us that verse 12 will describe something else that follows the pattern mentioned in verses 10-11. “So also you, since you are zealous of spirits, seek to abound for the edification of the church.” The NASB points out in a footnote that ‘spiritual gifts’ is actually ‘spirits’. Zealous is the noun form of the verb ‘to bubble over because so hot’ used back in 14:1. This is the only time that this noun is used in the letters to the Corinthians. (This same noun is used to refer to Simon the Zealot in the Gospels.) Verse 1 instructed people to be zealous for the spiritual realm. Verse 12 assumes that people are zealots for spirits, which means that interpersonal interaction is now happening with the spiritual realm.

The word for actually means ‘moving toward a goal or destination’. Thus, being a zealot for spirits should move toward the goal of ‘building as a home’ the church. And church means ‘people called out from the world and to God’. In other words, interacting with spirits is fine at this point. But one should add content to this spiritual interaction. One should ensure that it heads in the direction of creating a home for those who are going beyond existing society to follow God.

The original Greek finishes with the phrase ‘search that you should cause it to abound’. Search means ‘to seek by inquiring’. Cause to abound means ‘exceed, go beyond the expected measure’. Notice the combination of content and empowerment. Adding content to the spiritual interaction will require careful thought and investigation. But this searching will lead to an empowering that is a characteristic of the spiritual realm.

Finally, there is the ‘in like manner’ with which verse 12 started. How should spiritual interaction follow the pattern of supernatural interaction? One should ensure that internal comprehension is added to external power, so that the interaction does not descend to a barbaric level. Why would Paul say that the spiritual should follow the pattern of the supernatural and not the other way around? Because the supernatural realm has inherent content, which means that the problem of verses 10-11 will naturally arise. In contrast, the spiritual acquires its content from the natural and the supernatural, which means that it will naturally amplify any problems that arise from the interaction between natural and supernatural.

Looking at these verses briefly from a linguistic viewpoint, charismatic speaking in tongues lacks the fundamental characteristics of language. Quoting further from the Wikipedia article on glossolalia, (which is summarizing the research of a linguist), “Samarin found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface and so concluded that glossolalia is ‘only a facade of language’. He reached this conclusion because the syllable string did not form words, the stream of speech was not internally organized, and – most importantly of all – there was no systematic relationship between units of speech and concepts. Humans use language to communicate but glossolalia does not. Therefore, he concluded that glossolalia is not ‘a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives’. On the basis of his linguistic analysis, Samarin defined Pentecostal glossolalia as ‘meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead.’” Concluding, a linguist has analyzed charismatic speaking in tongues and concluded that it lacks precisely the basic features that Paul mentions when discussing tongues in verses 6-10. This does not mean that charismatic speaking in tongues is worthless, because it does have a meaningful cognitive benefit. And one does read of incidents when those who were speaking in tongues actually said something meaningful in a foreign language to someone in the audience. However, I suggest that 1 Corinthians 14 is ultimately talking about something far more extensive than the pseudo-babbling of charismatic Christians. And the church will eventually become something that goes far beyond a group of people gathering together to wave their hands and sing repetitive choruses accompanied by a praise band.

Interpretation 14:13-19

Moving on now to the next paragraph, Paul says that theory needs to be interpreted: “Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret” (14:13). The ‘therefore’ tells us that this verse is based upon the previous section. Paul has just described how speaking in tongues can restrict a person. Teacher thought does not feel good when a theory becomes restricted. Pray means ‘to exchange wishes’, while ‘interpret’ means to thoroughly interpret. This verb ‘prayer’ is used 86 times in the New Testament, and all the references describe praying to God. Prayer is mentioned five times in chapter 14, and these five references are all in verses 13-15. Thus, the focus of this paragraph is upon prayer.

Looking at this cognitively, Teacher thought and Mercy thought need to become aware of how the other feels. In this case, Mercy thought needs to convey to Teacher thought how speaking in a tongue is restricting interaction. Teacher thought will not be naturally aware of this, because a Teacher theory will continue to feel general as long as nothing is pointing out any limitations or contradictions to the theory. Going the other way, Teacher thought needs to inform Mercy thought of the elegance of the theory. Paul says that the solution is not to drop the theory or to stay away from others who might question or limit the theory, but rather to thoroughly translate the tongue into the language of others. This principle already applies today at a cognitive level. In a future society of mind over matter, it would become significant at a physical level as well.

Looking at this further, ‘Praying for an interpretation’ indicates that one is turning to a concept of God in Teacher thought for help in translating a theory. The typical approach today is to translate the Christian message into language that resonates with cultural MMNs, and this approach is even taken in modern translations of the Bible. However, Paul says that one should search for translations that are consistent with the TMN of a concept of God. In other words, the primary goal of translation is not to become culturally relevant, but rather to communicate accurately the character of God. Teacher thought feels good when a simple explanation applies to many situations. Therefore, a translation or interpretation of a theory will produce Teacher pleasure, because the simple explanation will now apply to more situations.

Verse 14 compares the spirit with the mind: “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.” In other words, praying in a tongue does include an emotional interaction between Mercy thought and a concept of God in Teacher thought. But this prayer is being motivated by Platonic forms of the spirit in Mercy thought and not by personal identity or real life. This is particularly obvious in higher mathematics, because the higher one goes, the less references there are to real numbers, reals objects, or real existence. Instead everything becomes idealized and generalized—turned into Platonic forms. For instance, I mentioned earlier that higher math will generalize the idea of three physical dimensions into any number of abstract dimensions. Similarly, charismatic speaking in tongues can also lead to an emotional interaction between God the Father in Teacher thought and God the Spirit in Mercy thought.

The problem with praying in the spirit is that the mind is unfruitful. This can be seen in charismatic tongues, which are typically viewed as a form of prayer that bypasses the mind rather than including it. Mind means ‘mind, understanding, reason’. It is used seven times in 1 Corinthians, four of these times here in verses 14-19. Unfruitful means exactly that in Greek. This is an interesting statement, because one does not normally think of rational thought as being fruitful. Instead, one associates fruitful with the emotional realm of mental networks. Fruitful implies that one is going beyond Platonic forms to concrete expressions of these Platonic forms. For instance, physics analyzes problems in the real world by turning real situations into Platonic forms and then applying mathematical equations to these Platonic forms. Instead of throwing a ball through the air, one is giving a trajectory to a point mass while ignoring air friction and treating the force of gravity as a constant. Engineering makes this fruitful by using the equations of physics to build real objects in the real world. This type of application requires rational thought. Charismatic speaking in tongues is incapable of being fruitful in this manner because one cannot add rational thought to the façade of a language. Something similar happens when one attempts to rationally analyze the technobabble of science-fiction.

Paul concludes in verse 15: ‘What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.” Paul does not say that he will stop praying in the spirit. Using the language of academia, Paul is not saying that theoretical physics is bad. Instead, he adds that he will also pray with the mind. Notice that the focus is still upon prayer. One is still interacting emotionally with a concept of God in Teacher thought. But one is using rational thought to interact with a concept of God. That is why I keep referring in these essays to a rational concept of God in Teacher thought. In other words, Paul is saying that he will combine religious and academic thought. He will pray like a charismatic and do research like a scientist. The average person today considers this an impossible juxtaposition. However, I hope that these essays demonstrate that it is possible. One can pray with the spirit and also pray with the mind. It is possible to mentally separate these two as long as one is living in matter over-mind within a physical body that is a living machine, because one’s physical body will integrate what is being separated by one’s mind. However, spirit and mind would have to be explicitly connected to be able to survive within future mind-over-matter

Paul then mentions singing, which actually means ‘to cause to vibrate by touching, to twang’. This verb, which is usually interpreted as singing, is found five times in the New Testament, twice in this verse. And this is the only time that singing is mentioned in the letters to the Corinthians. Looking at this cognitively, Mercy thought handles non-verbal communication. Thus, singing takes the words of Teacher thought and places them within the non-verbal package of some song. A song is an example of praying with the mind, because songs have words and words imply rational Teacher thought. But a song is also an example of praying with the spirit, because a song expresses deep Mercy feelings.

A cognitively similar interpretation emerges if one interprets singing as ‘causing to vibrate by touching’. I have suggested that the angelic realm is based in waves and that one moves these waves to the physical realm by enclosing them within physical boundaries, leading to standing waves. ‘Causing to vibrate by touching’ would mean using human behavior to cause these angelic strings to vibrate. In the same way that singing songs allows the charismatic believer to partially escape the mentally prison of charismatic tongues, so vibrating angelic strings would probably be an initial step in moving beyond tongues in a future realm of mind-over-matter. The general principle is that one does not add mental content to the spirit in some magical manner. Instead, one does it by going back to basics in order to build simple cognitive bridges between the feelings of the spirit and the thinking of the mind. (We saw a similar focus upon basic elements in verse 7.) Something similar happens in physics, because the student of physics starts by solving very basic problems. One might think that vibrating a string has nothing to do with advanced physics, but quantum mechanics is actually rooted in the idea of fundamental vibrations, and string theory is called string theory because it starts with the idea of oscillating strings.

Summarizing, prayer and singing praise are both combinations of Teacher thought and Mercy thought, because in both cases, words are being used to communicate the needs and desires of personal MMNs to a concept of God in Teacher thought. But prayer places a greater emphasis upon speech in Teacher thought while song places a greater emphasis upon tone and nonverbal speech in Mercy thought. The point is that personal identity is interacting with a concept of God in a manner that is both emotional and rational. Notice that Paul does not say ‘I will sing and pray to God in a secret prayer language that transcends rational thought and then leave this secret prayer language in order to communicate rationally with people in the physical world’. Rather, Paul seems to be emphasizing that prayer and praise should be simultaneously spiritual and rational.

For instance, this essay has been interpreting the term spirit from both a rational perspective and a spiritual perspective. Rationally speaking, a spirit corresponds to a mental network, a spirit from God corresponds to a Platonic form and a concept of the Holy Spirit emerges when Platonic forms combine to produce a form of the Good. Spiritually speaking, it appears that there is a spiritual realm populated by spiritual beings who interact with humans by empowering mental networks within human minds. Thus, the kind of analysis that we are doing in this essay is consistent with Paul’s statements.

Paul adds that praying only in the spirit prevents an audience from participating in an informed manner: “Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the ‘Amen’ at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?” (14:16). Ungifted is actually idiotes and means ‘of one’s own self; used of a person who conspicuously lacks education or status’. Place is a simple word that means ‘place, region’. And filling means ‘the filling up of a partial void’. This is strange language. Paul is not saying that someone is an ‘idiot’ but rather that someone is partially filling the Perceiver location of following personal Mercy feelings rather than intelligent thought. In essence, this describes the opposite of speaking in tongues. Someone who speaks in charismatic tongues is using Teacher thought to generate sounds, but this is happening within an implicit Server ‘space’ of grammar. Similarly, speaking in tongues of the future would be accessing the Teacher waves of supernatural existence, but these actually reside within the some angelic Server ‘space’ of sequences. (Notice that I am using the word ‘space’ in an abstract mathematical sense as a set of dimensions that goes beyond physical space to involve different kinds of supernatural waves. In order to qualify mathematically as a space, it must be possible to subdivide something into different orthogonal dimensions. For instance, waves within physical space can be subdivided into components with different frequencies.) Verse 16 is referring to the opposite, which is some human person living within Mercy experiences, occupying some Perceiver location in space, but lacking any Teacher general understanding of what this means. In current society this describes the average person on the street. In charismatic terms, this would describe the average person sitting in the congregation. (If this paragraph sounds complicated, just think of normal behavior. If I want to have the Mercy experience of eating food, I go to the Perceiver location of a restaurant. But I do this instinctively without using Teacher thought to analyze what I am doing.)

The verb bless combines ‘well, good’ with ‘logos’, leading to the definition ‘to speak (reason) which confers benefit’. Looking at this cognitively, logos describes the TMN of some system of technical thought. Saying this more simply, blessing in spirit would mean talking about some paradigm and its benefits while illustrating this paradigm at the abstract level of Platonic forms. For instance, this combination probably describes this essay at this point. I am presenting a paradigm of 1 Corinthians, supported by technical thought with its precise meanings. I am also trying desperately to come up with illustrations, but many of these illustrations are at the general level of Platonic forms. Part of this is inevitable, because we are talking about something in the distant future. Any attempt to be more specific about the future would probably be mistaken. Therefore, I am also giving partial illustrations from the present. These illustrations may be theoretically incomplete, but at least they are real, which means that they can resonate to some extent with the average person on the street.

Moving on, amen means ‘truly’. Jesus uses this word extensively in the Gospels, but this is the first of only two times that it is found in 1 Corinthians. Thankful is the word ‘eucharist’ which means ‘thankful for God’s grace’. It is only used once as a noun in 1 Corinthians. Applying this to this essay, I may be thankful to God at this point for being able to interpret 1 Corinthians as a technically coherent Teacher theory, but if my illustrations remain at the abstract level of Platonic forms, than the average person on the street trying to read this essay will not be all to respond with a ‘that is true; that makes sense’. That is because the average person does not have a seeing that becomes knowing of my words. For instance, the average person has not thought internally about what it means cognitively to sing a song, pluck a string, or work mathematically with abstract space.

Verse 17 summarizes: “For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified”. For instance, when I was in graduate studies in engineering, I regularly attended seminars given by visiting scholars in engineering. Most of these seminars used such technical language that they were largely incomprehensible to even me, a graduate student in engineering. But the audience was still expected to say a loud amen to what the visiting scholar said. As Paul complains, “You are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified” (14:17). Similarly, most of these scholars were probably doing useful research, but the majority of the audience was not being edified.

Looking at this in more detail, well means ‘viewed as good (advantageous, appealing)’, edified is the familiar word that means ‘to build a house’. And other means ‘another of a different kind’. In other words, the person giving the technical explanation may be adding details that apply to his own personal life in Mercy thought, but this is not building a home in Mercy thought for those who are different. This describes what happens when one attempts to communicate cross-culturally. For instance, Christian doctrines are typically communicated using special religious lingo which may help the average person sitting in the pew but does not communicate to the typical outsider.

Paul then applies this to himself: “I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue” (14:18,19). On the one hand, Paul has an integrated concept of God that allows him to comprehend many technical specializations with their tongues. I know what this means, because mental symmetry has turned into a meta-theory within which I have been able to place many other theories. Paul says essentially the same thing when he says that that he is ‘thankful to the God for God’s good grace’. Looking at this historically, Paul invented theology, which made it possible for him to explore and describe many theoretical concepts about God and religion.

On the other hand, when Paul is ‘in the realm of’ the church, his desire is to speak five logos with his mind. The NASB says ‘words’ but the original Greek is actually the plural of ‘logos’. Thus, Paul is not standing up and saying something like ‘Hello, Praise God, The End.’ and then sitting down. Instead, he is limiting himself to using rational thought to explain a small set of paradigms when he talks. This is more like giving a sermon with three clear points. The word other means ‘another of the same kind’. And instruct means ‘to teach by word of mouth;’. Thus, Paul would like to teach in a structured, interdisciplinary manner to an audience that understands his concepts. Notice that he does not say that he would rather speak one logos with his mind, because that would describe the education that one receives within some technical specialization. However, he does not want to ‘speak ten thousand words in a tongue’. He does not want to overwhelm his audience with all of the technical specializations in which he is conversant. This relates cognitively to the idea of a neighborhood. Paul is talking to people from a similar culture and introducing them to related ideas. He is not trying to teach them everything but rather teaching them something about related subjects. For instance, suppose that I have many files on my computer. If all of these files are in one folder that I will not be able to find anything. Instead, the various files need to be organized into different categories and each category of files needs to be placed in a different folder. One can then go to a folder and look for a few related files.

The Extent of Translation 14:20-25

Paul has emphasized the need to translate and apply abstract theory. But this does not mean that one should become an expert in everything in Mercy thought. Instead, one should choose to limit oneself personally: “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature” (14:20). Thinking comes from an adjective that ‘reflects our personal (visceral) opinions’. It is only found in noun form in this one verse of the New Testament. This describes core mental networks that affect one’s thinking at a gut level. Children means ‘a child under training’, while mature means ‘going through the necessary stages to reach the end-goal’. And be in this verse actually means ‘to become’. Thus, Paul is not saying, ‘do not be children at a gut level’, but rather ‘do not become gut-level children’. Instead, become mature at the gut level. In other words, gut-level responses need to be transformed. They can either head in the direction of looking to others like a child, or else in the direction of reaching mental wholeness.

Paul has just talked about how he would like to instruct others. He is now saying how he would like his students to respond. His goal is not just to impart knowledge or theoretical understanding, but rather to teach others at the gut level of core mental networks. They can either head in the direction of becoming dependent on others for understanding, or else become driven to reach the goal of cognitive wholeness. For instance, science claims to emphasize critical thinking. But the first thing that many academics do when encountering a new book is to turn to the back and look at all the references. Have all the statements about been backed up by referring properly to the experts? This describes a mindset that thinks at a gut level like a child-in-training. The scientist does this in order to prevent science from turning into the typical Internet forum where stupidity reigns and the loudest troll determines accepted ‘truth’.

However, I have discovered that there is another alternative, which is becoming mature or mentally whole. Everyone is equipped with the same kind of mind that is subject to the same inescapable cognitive principles. The physical scientist can say, ‘do not look to others for your truth. Truth can be tested because we all live in the same physical world. Think for yourself; perform your own experiments.’ However, this empirical approach would stop working in mind-over-matter. But what would remain is the structure of the mind. Cognitive principles would not have to be swallowed from the experts in the manner of a child under training. Instead, cognitive principles could be verified personally by becoming mentally mature. Several decades of working with mental symmetry has convinced me that this is a sufficient foundation. This principle has been learned to some extent in charismatic circles, primarily because of the egregious manner in which it has been violated. Quoting from a Time magazine article, “Some suggest that the risk of high-profile meltdowns may be in the very nature of Pentecostal leadership roles. ‘There’s a lot of soul searching in our movement right now,’ says J. Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine, because of the spectacle of highly successful preachers losing their way. ‘There’s a saying, “Your anointing can take you to a place where your character cannot sustain you.” I’m hearing that a lot more often these days.’”

In contrast, Paul says “yet in evil be infants”. Evil refers to ‘the underlying principle of evil which is present, even if not outwardly expressed’. And infant means ‘childlike, childish, infantile’. The noun form of this verb was used in 13:11 when talking about speaking, thinking, and reasoning like a child. A more modern equivalent would be to tell someone to remain naïve without learning any street-smarts. This is a strong statement. Here there is no ‘become’. Instead, one should remain at at a level of childlike naivety. And Paul is not talking about acting evil in some manner, but merely thinking in terms of evil. Paul says that the mental circuits for evil should not be developed. One should remain a babe in the woods. For instance, when I was in engineering the students would sometimes tell a joke and everyone would laugh except for me. The reason that I did not get the joke is because it was a lewd joke, and my mind did not run along those channels. This does not mean that I have no sexual desires. Instead, it means that I think of beauty, women, and sex in terms of reaching and expressing mental wholeness. When I see a beautiful woman, it reminds me of high-level feminine intuition, a form of thinking and functioning to which I aspire.

Looking at this more generally, I have tried over the decades to follow these principles and I have found that the cognitive rewards are immense. But I have also learning that ‘good men tend to finish last’. This is an inevitable byproduct of living within matter-over-mind. In contrast, cognitive benefits would rule supreme in a future realm of mind-over-matter.

Turning now to the Christian church, the average individual thinks that the purpose of Christianity is to help the ‘down and out’. It is good that someone is helping these people, but this also leads to a personal knowledge of evil. It is true that James says that “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress”, but James also follows this by saying that one should “keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27). Similarly, many Christian churches try to incorporate MMNs of secular culture and music in order to be ‘culturally relevant’. But society has become so dark that most secular MMNs can only be described as evil. Finally, most pastors will tell you that much of their time and effort is devoted, not to teaching and building the kingdom of God, but rather to dealing with an endless stream of humans ensnared in evil situations who are searching for counseling and help.

Verse 22 refers back to a previous mindset that existed under absolute truth: “In the Law it is written, ‘By [men] of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me,’ says the Lord.” This verse may seem to be out of context, but it is consistent with the idea of becoming the sort of person who—at a gut level—learns as a child from others. This is not a direct quote from the Old Testament but it does summarize what is being said in Isaiah 28:9-11, which describes a group of people becoming incapable of learning. ‘Men’ is not in the original Greek. The word strange tongues is used once in the New Testament and combines ‘tongue’ with ‘another of a different kind’. The lips are also described as ‘another of a different kind’. In other words, written law is talking about truth coming from people of a different kind whose technical thinking is being guided by a paradigm of a different kind. This describes the mindset of absolute truth. Those who believe in absolute truth do not generally recognize that the sources of their absolute truth did not believe in absolute truth. One can see this in the giving of the Torah. The children of Israel in the wilderness who received the Torah were being repeatedly zapped externally by divine power. In contrast, a believer in absolute truth gives internal Mercy status to the source of truth. Going further, the Israelites did not have any holy book to which they could turn. Instead, they were given words and told to write them down. Going the other way, a person who believes in absolute truth believes that the human sources of truth have a special status in Mercy thought which is not shared by normal people today. One result is that absolute truth will conclude that there can no longer be any apostles today. The point is that absolute truth is based at its very core in the idea of learning as a child from others.

Paul points out that such a mindset is ultimately unteachable. The word listen means ‘to listen intently’. And even so means ‘in this manner, in this way’. In other words, following the methodology of learning is a child from others is incapable of leading to intent listening. That is because any deep thinking that I do will increase the relative emotional status of me compared to my source of truth, questioning my underlying mindset of learning as a child from others. In other words, I will feel at a gut level that it is wrong to think too deeply about truth. The person making this conclusion is the Lord, and this is the first reference to the Lord in this chapter. Summarizing, one might think that the best way to get other people to follow my commands is for them to listen to me the way a child learns from a teacher. Paul is saying counterintuitively that this method actually does not lead to deep learning. Instead, if one wants to promote deep learning, then one should focus upon reaching mental wholeness. Reaching mental wholeness has been my focus, and this has led to an analysis of Scripture which goes deeper than what I encounter elsewhere.

Verse 22 mentions an implication: “So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers.” The word sign means ‘a sign (typically miraculous), given especially to confirm, corroborate or authenticate’. And believe and unbeliever refer to being persuaded or not persuaded. Thus, tongues are authenticating signs for those who are unwilling to be persuaded.

Saying this another way, even if people do not listen to a message of God that comes from ‘a different language’, what remains is the sign (authenticating mark) of a tongue. People will recognize and respect the presence of a general Teacher theory. They may reject the message but they will recognize that the messenger is an expert with an understanding. One sees this conveyed symbolically in the Messiah chapter of Isaiah 53: “His grave was assigned with wicked men, yet He was with a rich man in His death, because He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth” (Is. 53:9). Even though the message of Jesus was rejected and Jesus the messenger was killed, Jesus was buried ‘with a rich man’. Similarly, I have found that even though most people ignore the theory of mental symmetry, these same people think that I am ‘very intelligent’.

However, this does not describe how the typical outsider responds to charismatic tongues. Instead, they tend to be dismissed as crazy. This does apply to some extent to the tongues of academia, because the outsider who does not think in terms of persuasion tends to be quite impressed by technical lingo. This explains why technobabble is used in science fiction. It sounds impressive to a person who has a limited understanding of physics. But I suggest this impressiveness would apply most to the tongues of the future that would have access to supernatural power. Encountering tongues would be like going to an airshow and watching all the powerful planes zoom by.

Verse 22 continues, “but prophecy [is for a sign], not to unbelievers but to those who believe.” The NASB treats prophecy as another kind of sign, but this phrase is not in the original Greek. That is because prophecy goes beyond a mindset that is rooted in signs. Remember that prophecy predicts what will happen by lifting up certain streams over other streams. Something similar happens today when an expert points out current trends that need to be watched. Who listens to these experts? Generally those who are willing to be persuaded.

Verse 23 concludes: “Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted [men] or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?” (The word ‘men’ is not in the original Greek.) 1 Corinthians has talked about assembling, but this is the only reference in the New Testament to the church assembling. And whole means ‘wholly, where all the parts are present and working as a whole’. This relates to the idea of completeness or wholeness described in verse 20. Paul is asking what will happen if all the groups that are searching for mental wholeness come together and each group speaks its own technical language? The average insider will probably not think that this is strange. After all, this describes the typical academic conference, in which everyone gathers physically together but then splits into groups to attend specific seminars organized by technical specializations.

But Paul talks about the reaction of the ‘idiot’ mentioned in verse 16 who lacks education, or the unbeliever who is not willing to be persuaded. I know from personal experience how such a person will analyze a meeting, because when I was in Korea I attended many meetings without being able to understand what was being said. One focuses upon the non-verbal behavior. What the outsider will notice in this case is a deep cognitive disconnect: The church claims to be following a unified concept of God in Teacher thought but when it gathers together it speaks many different languages. The church claims to be following a path of mental wholeness but when it gathers together it splits into technical specializations. This contradiction is not glaringly obvious today because different specializations that speak different tongues can gather together physically in one place and give outsiders the impression of unity and integration. Similarly, this contradiction is also not obvious when many charismatic Christians gather together to speak in tongues as a group. That is because charismatic tongues are sufficiently vague to make all the tongues sound harmonious, somewhat like the wash of colors in an impressionistic painting. However, verse 23 does not talk about the church gathering together in one place, but rather talks about the whole church gathering together. This describes what the situation would be within mind-over-matter, because one could not use the place of physical matter to bring the illusion of unity to the different tongues. Instead, fragmented tongues would lead to colliding supernatural powers and physical chaos. Using an analogy, airplanes at the airshow would start flying all over the place in random direcions. One could see why the outsiders would describe this as madness. This words actually means ‘to rave, full of inner rage (fury); to act as though out of one—s senses’. Notice that this definition focuses upon energy being expressed in an incoherent fashion, which describes what would happen within mind-over-matter. A similar conclusion of madness would probably arise if a group of charismatics speaking in tongues spoke loudly for a long time, because the linguistic chaos would then become obvious.

Looking at this psychologically, if many experts get together and everyone spoke their own theoretical language, then laymen and outsiders might conclude that everyone is mad. It is often difficult for the average person to distinguish genius from madness. That is because both geniuses and madmen are driven by powerful mental networks to think and behave in ways that deviate from societal norms. Madmen are more prevalent than geniuses. Therefore, if one encounters an individual babbling in a strange theoretical language, then chances are that one is dealing with a madman and not a genius. Going further, if one encounters several groups of individuals each babbling in their own theoretical languages, then chances are that one is probably dealing with a company of madmen.

Verse 24 describes the positive alternate: “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all;” The same two kinds of outsiders are entering, but instead of encountering tongues, they are hearing prophecy. In fact, everyone is prophesying. The result is conviction, a word used only once in the letters to the Corinthians which means ‘to convince with solid, compelling evidence’. And called to account means ‘to distinguish by vigorously judging down to up’. This is normally interpreted as people with a gift of prophecy coming up to strangers and telling them all their secret sins, and that may occasionally happen. However, my experience with mental symmetry suggests a possible cognitive explanation. If everyone is pursuing a common goal of mental wholeness, then every specialization will come up with similar cognitive principles of sowing-and-reaping. No matter where the outsider goes, he will hear a consistent message of ‘follow such a path and it will lead to these cognitive results’. Verse 24 uses the word all three times, which means ‘each part of a totality’. This tells us that every specialization is teaching a similar message of cognitive cause-and-effect, because every specialization is approaching the same task of developing mental wholeness from a different perspective. This type of unified message would convince a person with solid, compelling evidence which would vigorously judge a person. This goes far beyond some person with a word of knowledge making an insightful comment to a stranger in a charismatic meeting. Presumably, the same sort of thing would happen in mind-over-matter but this coherent message would be even more difficult to ignore because it would be coming from the physical surroundings itself.

Verse 25 adds that there will be both Mercy and Teacher results: “The secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.” The last mention of ‘heart’ was back in chapter 7. Heart refers to personal identity in Mercy thought. Looking at this cognitively, I have found that mental symmetry is very effective for disclosing personal motivations. This is not because I can read another person’s mind but rather because the immature mind is quite predictable. Learning about this personal predictability would be especially shocking to the two kinds of people mentioned in these verses: the uneducated and the unpersuaded. This kind of person is not attracted by tongues because tongues emphasize Teacher thought, and this kind of person is not using Teacher thought. However, this kind of person will be deeply affected if everyone tells him from a different perspective a coherent message about how his mind is functioning. The coherence of the message is emphasized by the response of the outsider, because he is “declaring that God is certainly among you”. God is actually ‘the God’, which indicates an integrated concept of God. What the outsider is experiencing is a message of order-within-complexity directed to him as a person, because each specialization is confronting him with the same message of mental wholeness described from a different perspective. This combination defines a concept of God, because a general Teacher theory is based in order-with-complexity, and a concept of God emerges when a sufficiently general Teacher theory applies to personal identity. This concept of God will overwhelm personal identity because he “will fall on his face and worship God”, and worship means ‘to kiss the ground when prostrating before a superior’.

Looking at this more simply, I have found that the theory of mental symmetry is capable of creating such an effect. For instance, my brother-in-law used cognitive styles for several decades as an aid for counseling and he often found people telling him that he was exposing the secrets of their heart. However, I also found when giving seminars on cognitive styles that there was an optimal level of knowledge. Initially, people did not find the seminars compelling because the information was not sufficiently accurate. This was followed by a brief window of opportunity during which people learned just the right amount about themselves. However, as my understanding of human nature continued to grow, people started to lose interest, because they were learning too much about themselves. They were happy to chuckle about personality differences as long as significant personal change was not required. But they did not want to ‘fall on their face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you’. I have come to the conclusion that this response is not just because MMNs of personal identity are being threatened, but rather because people’s concepts of God are being challenged. I say this because the average person’s concept of God has shifted significantly over the last few decades, and in many ways the theory of mental symmetry resonates more with peoples’ thinking today than it did several decades ago when I stopped giving seminars.

Going further, Paul’s description of prophecy does not reflect the average person’s church experience today. Instead, the average church service goes out of its way to ensure that the outsider is not convicted, not called to account, and that the secrets of the heart are not disclosed. In fact, the vast majority of Christian churches would regard following Paul’s advice as a guaranteed recipe for disaster. I think that this is because the TMN of a concept of God is missing. If people represent God as an MMN with great emotional status, then a judgmental message from the church will be rejected as an attempt by religion to impose its views upon the rest of society. However, if God is represented by the TMN of a general understanding, then outsiders will conclude that a church which is capable of giving accurate assessments must have an accurate understanding of the nature of God and humanity. Using the language of Paul, they will ‘declare that God is certainly among you’.

A Typical Church Service? 14:26-33

Paul has talked in general terms about the inherent contradiction between pursuing wholeness and meeting together in a fragmented manner. The next few verses zoom in on the details and describe the nature of a typical church service. It is interesting to compare this with today’s typical church service or typical academic conference. Paul begins with an overview: “When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification” (14:26). The word assemble is the same word that was used in verse 23 when talking about the whole church assembling together. Verse 26 talks about assembling but does not mention either ‘whole’ or ‘church’. Thus, this section is focusing in upon the nature of a typical meeting.

Verse 26 uses the word each one, which refers to ‘each individual unit viewed distinctly’. This means that each individual is participating and contributing. This is quite different than a few professional experts proclaiming a message to a passive audience. In addition, the goal is not to have a spiritual encounter with God, discover esoteric theory, share personal testimony, or carry out some religious ritual. Instead, the goal is edification, which means ‘building the structure of a home’. We have seen this word several times. The final phrase is more literally ‘every part of the whole towards edification should become.’ This implies that it will take effort to direct the focus of everyone in the direction of building a home. Building a home is quite different than the attitude of religious self-denial, which believes that the goal of church is to forget about self and focus upon God. it is possible to forget about self when focusing upon God within matter-over-mind, because everyone lives within a physical universe that follows the unchanging laws of nature. But in mind-over-matter, minds would have to get together and cooperate to create a physical environment of Teacher order. Church would be more like a town hall meeting in a colony on Mars, where people would have to cooperate in order to create a livable physical environment.

Looking at this list of five activities, it is interesting that reading the Bible is not mentioned. This is not just a matter of omission, or because the New Testament had not yet been written, because Paul uses the phrase ‘according to the Scriptures’ a few verses later at the beginning of chapter 15. Despite this, four of the five activities are centered on words: A psalm puts words to music, teaching uses words to explain, a tongue is a general theory based in words, and an interpretation translates words. In other words, Paul is not describing fundamentalism, which regards the words of some holy book as absolute truth, but rather abstract thought based in general Teacher theory. This type of starting point could not exist in today’s church service, because Christianity lacks a unified theory in Teacher thought. This explains why the chapter on tongues is at the end of 1 Corinthians, because Paul is describing how a church functions after a general theory of Christianity has been discovered.

I should also point out that charismatic speaking in tongues is not an adequate starting point, because anyone who has attended a charismatic church for any length of time will discover that ‘speaking in tongues followed by interpretation’ descends easily into error and heresy without any error-checking from the biblical text. However, one does find this kind of theory-driven interaction in the typical academic conference. Thus, Paul’s combination sounds more like an academic conference than like a church service.

Looking at this list in more detail, a psalm literally means ‘a striking of musical strings’. Interpreting this as an accompanied song, Teacher words are being placed within the Mercy container of a song. Interpreting this as vibrating supernatural standing waves, waves of the Teacher-based supernatural realm are being placed in some kind of package within the natural realm. And these two definitions would probably overlap in the future, because manipulating supernatural standing waves would make it possible to create new forms of music, similar to the way that manipulating electronic waves has made it possible to use synthesizers to create new forms of music.

A teaching is ‘a summarized body of respected teaching.’ This would correspond to teaching an established curriculum. Presumably, this would also include Bible. But one would be approaching the Bible as an accurate textbook and not as the sole source of absolute truth.

The word revelation is apocalypse, which means ‘unveiling, uncovering, revealing’. A mindset of absolute truth is opposed to the very idea of a modern-day revelation. Absolute truth may talk about the apocalypse, but it will be referred to as something that happens in the future which will be done by God. In contrast, Paul talks about a church service containing both established teaching and new revelation. One does find such a juxtaposition in academia, because there are summary papers and there are also papers that introduce something new. An unveiling refers to something new appearing in Mercy thought. Thus, a more accurate analogy might be the unveiling of some new technology.

This is then followed by a tongue. Thus, there is a place for technical specializations with their technical languages and paradigms. But notice that the tongue occurs fourth and not first. The first step of a psalm sets an emotional content of building a home in Mercy thought. The second step of teaching sets an intellectual content of building upon established content. The third step of unveiling sets the context of emphasizing applied research rather than theoretical research. The tongue of a technical specialization then happens within this context. This is quite different than current academia which starts with tongues and then—hopefully—adds the other elements.

The tongue is followed by an interpretation, and the word used here describes ‘giving the gist of a message rather than a strict translation’. In today’s society, every field and activity seems to be heading in the direction of greater technical specialization, as shown by the process of accreditation. Technical theory rules supreme in today’s society. Academic and professional thought is split into specializations, each with its own technical vocabulary and knowledge. That is why I think that we are currently in the Great Tribulation, because tribulation means squeezing and technical specializations squeeze thinking, activity, and social interaction. (This is explored in the analysis of Revelation 6.) In contrast, Paul’s typical church service heads back from technical specialization and returns to normal thought by giving the essence of the technical talk. This makes cognitive sense, because one uses the analogies and patterns of normal thought to integrate various specializations. This describes the methodology of mental symmetry, and one can also see many illustrations of this in science. But one can only build such connections between technical specializations if one understands the essence of each specialization. For instance, whenever I examine some technical system, one of the first things I have to do is work out the essence of that system. If normal thought reveals that there are similarities between one technical specialization and another, one can then add technical details in order to see how far this similarity extends. But that needs to be done outside of the church between the technical specialists. Inside the church, people should be getging together to explore how their various tongues might relate.

Verse 27 describes the relationship between tongues and interpretation: “If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret.” The numbers one, two, and three are all in the original Greek. Paul does not say that there should be one tongue, but rather that there should be two or three. Having only one tongue will implicitly convey the idea of technical specialization, while having two or three tongues will implicitly teach the importance of interdisciplinary thought. In contrast, Paul explicitly talks about one interpreter. If one person is interpreting several tongues, then this will implicitly teach the idea that technical specializations need to be integrated, and a single interpreter will naturally interpret the two or three tongues in an integrated manner.

Verse 28 adds: ‘but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.” The word interpret here refers to a detailed interpretation. This may mean that the technical talks need to be accompanied by a detailed explanation which should then be followed by a more general summary. But there is another possible interpretation. This word detailed interpreter only occurs once in the New Testament. The verb ‘to interpret in detail’ is found six times, three times in this chapter. Thus, verse 28 is not saying that there should be a detailed interpretation, but rather that a person who is capable of detailed interpretation needs to be present. The interpretation that is actually given may only convey the gist of the technical talk. This distinction is significant because it takes a lot of expertise to be able to accurately summarize the essence of some technical topic. If such an interpreter is not present, then the person with a tongue needs to keep silent and speak to himself and the God. Paul is not saying that the person with the technical specialization should ignore his technical understanding. Instead, he should use his technical understanding to personally interpret what is happening in the meeting in the light of his concept of God. I know from personal experience what this means, because I do it all the time. When someone speaks in church, my normal response is to keep silent and mentally interpret what is being said in the light of mental symmetry.

Looking at this more simply, Paul is not saying that abstract theory is bad, because he just said that he practices theory more than anyone else. He is also not saying that one must back up abstract theory with empirical evidence, which is what academia generally requires today. Instead, he is saying that it must be possible to accurately explain abstract theory in simple terms that everyone can understand. Cognitively speaking, this is a good standard, because Teacher thought constructs general theories by coming up with simple explanations that describe many specific situations. And it appears that the universe has been constructed in a manner that reflects Teacher thought. Therefore, if one has discovered a general principle about God’s creatures or creation, then it should be possible to describe this theory using a simple explanation that applies to the specific situations of the audience. The theoretician who cannot come up with an interpretation is supposed to talk to God. Saying this cognitively, he is supposed to look for the general theory that lies behind his abstract technical thought.

One general thought before we continue. I do not think that Paul is talking about some formula that needs to be religiously followed at every church meeting, because that itself is an example of being ruled by technical specialization. Instead, I think that one should view Paul’s description as a general pattern to follow. That is because Paul repeatedly talks about following general patterns.

The next verses talk about prophecy. Verse 29 begins: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.” Notice again that two or three are speaking. This ensures that each individual voice will be remembered but not emphasized to the exclusion of other voices.

Looking at this generally, Paul says that it is appropriate to apply a form of peer review to prophecy. In contrast, there is no peer review with tongues. Instead, tongues need to be interpreted. I have found that it is important to make such a distinction. My experience is that peer review works fairly well for incremental research that applies an existing theory. However, peer review breaks down completely when faced with a new theory, because a new theory violates the intellectual status quo, while peer review preserves the status quo. Going further, I have found that it is almost taboo in most scientific circles to start with a theory. Instead, one is supposed to start with empirical evidence (while implicitly being guided eomtionally by the underlying logos of the local technical specialization). Theoretical physics is one major exception, because a theoretical physicist is permitted to propose some new general theory of physics. But here too all of these theories will implicitly assume that only the physical realm exists and that one must think objectively, as summarized by the Copernican principle. (Which is not to be confused with Copernican astronomy.)

It may be significant that Paul mentions prophecy after tongues and interpretation. This ensures that the starting point will be Teacher theory. Looking at this in more detail, prophecy predicts the future by lifting up various streams in Teacher thought. This assumes that streams exist which can be lifted. This explains why prophecy happens after tongues and interpretation. Some person presents a new concept in technical thought. This is translated into normal language, and then the prophet predicts the impact that this new concept might have upon society.

Looking in more detail at what a prophet does, others means ‘another of the same kind’ and judgment means literally ‘to separate throughout or wholly’. One of the major ways to develop some general theory is to distinguish more carefully between different categories. This is something which Perceiver thought can do to help abstract technical thought. For instance, we just did this when distinguishing between how tongues are evaluated and how prophecy is evaluated.

Verse 30 sounds strange. “But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.” One of the commentaries suggests that “sometimes a revelation was made, and light conveyed to these prophets in a very sudden and extraordinary manner, when it was proper that it should be at once communicated for the good of the whole society.” However, I attended a charismatic church for several years and never encountered a situation where someone with a revelation tried to interrupt someone giving a prophecy.

Therefore, I would like to suggest a possible more general meaning. The word revelation means to ‘reveal what is hidden, to make manifest what is invisible’. We have seen several ways of extending the ‘tongue’ of a general Teacher theory. Interpretation makes a theory more comprehensible by describing it using different language. Prophecy looks for ways in which a theory could be applied in real life. Revelation goes one step further than prophecy by making the possible real in some manner. Using the language of science and technology, prophecy uses theory to come up with some possible product, while revelation unveils a product. Thus, Paul appears to be saying that reality trumps potential. If one person is talking about some possible product, and another person actually has such a product, then one should listen to the person with the real product.

This kind of precedence does happen today, but often in a somewhat perverse manner. For instance, someone with an idea for a new product can promote this product on kickstarter in order to raise money to turn the prototype into a manufactured item. However, some individuals who promote items on kickstarter are now finding that Chinese factories will steal their idea and start producing a high quality copycat product that is available faster and for less money. So, is Paul suggesting that one should ignore the inventor and buy the pirated copy from China? I suggest that the answer lies in the problem behind the problem. Paul has emphasized throughout the book of 1 Corinthians that knowledge should not be separated from personal identity. Instead, as the passage on communion suggests, one should embody truth and follow truth through rebirth. If knowledge is pursued in an objective manner without including personal identity, then one of the consequences is that knowledge can be stolen from people. In contrast, when truth is applied in an incarnational manner, then truth cannot be stolen from the person who embodies and applies this truth. This is not a trivial point, because current society is struggling deeply over the very concept of intellectual property.

Verse 31 turns back to prophecy: “For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted.” The verb can actually means ‘to have power’. Learn means ‘learning key facts’. And exhort means to ‘make a call from being close-up and personal’; it has both legal and emotional overtones. If one interprets prophecy as directing various streams of thought in order to predict a future result, then one can turn to experimental science for a possible meaning. One standard experimental practice is to hold every factor fixed, and then adjust these various factors one at a time while observing the results. Verse 31 describes something similar, because the prophets have the power to direct the various streams one by one. The verb ‘have the power’ is in the plural, implying that the prophets corporately have this ability. The purpose of this experimental adjusting is to learn key facts, as well as gain a rational grasp of personal issues.

This interpretation is consistent with verse 32: ‘the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets’. Subject combines ‘under’ with ‘arrange’ and means ‘to place or rank under’. This describes a system of organization in Teacher thought.

Looking at this cognitively, scientific peer review focuses upon data and experiments while ignoring motivation. In contrast, Paul says that the Platonic forms and ideals of a researcher should also be open to peer review: What is the researcher trying to achieve? What is driving him? These are pertinent questions, because research is always colored by worldview. This type of peer review is not possible today, because it is only possible to evaluate something if a standard of evaluation exists that is different than what is being evaluated, and this type of independent standard for evaluating culture and worldview does not currently exist. However, if one has a general Teacher understanding of the character of God, then it is possible to submit MMNs of culture and motivation to this general understanding of God.

Applying this to the supernatural, the prophets are actually using what an angel would consider to be normal ‘object manipulation’. Humans use actions to manipulate objects; angels use power to manipulate streams. Therefore, this angelic manipulation needs to be done within an angelic structure of Teacher order. This structure is being provided by the prophets, and the prophets need to have sufficient Perceiver power to be able to handle any spiritual amplification. Using an analogy from technology, someone who operates heavy equipment must do so in a manner that follows local laws and does not endanger any people who are nearby, and operators must know how to keep their powerful machines under control.

This interpretation is backed up by verse 33: “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.” Confusion means ‘unsettled, unstable (in tumult)’. And peace means ‘wholeness, i.e. when all essential parts are joined together’. This phrase is more literally, ‘for not is of disorder, the God, but of peace’. Using an analogy, using powerful machines should not lead to societal chaos. Understanding the Teacher order of the universe made it possible to design and build powerful machines. Therefore, powerful machines should be used in a way that enhances the Teacher order of society. In the same way that a machine is composed of many parts that work together harmoniously, so machines should be used to work together harmoniously. One can see this kind of ‘peace’ on a typical large construction site.

Verse 33 finishes with a similar generalization: “as in all the churches of the saints.” As means ‘as, like as, even as’, which means that the structure of the individual church can be seen reflected in the structure of all the churches. This is not a denomination or a Catholic Church but rather an organic similarity based in the similar goal of pursuing mental and societal wholeness.

As far as I can tell, this is the only time that one finds ‘churches’ combined with ‘saints’ in the New Testament. A church is a ‘people called out from the world and to God’. A saint means ‘likeness of nature with the Lord because different from the world.’ These two words are very similar. Church refers from a Teacher perspective to a group called out to God, while holy refers from a Mercy perspective to a person who has the character of being separated to God. These two viewpoints are now overlapping because verses 31-32 describe human organization becoming integrated with angelic structure.

Looking at the larger cognitive picture, Paul began 1 Corinthians by describing the conflict that was occurring between different schools of thought. He now says that these disturbances or upheavals can be resolved by a God of peace. And Paul says that this is a universal principle that applies to all churches. Similarly, I have found that the theory of mental symmetry works well as a meta-theory that is capable of examining the underlying motivations of other theories as well as acting as a theoretical umbrella under which other theories can function. I have come to the conclusion that it is imperative to have a meta-theory, because any general theory that continues to be used by a researcher will turn into a TMN, and this TMN will emotionally force the researcher to try to interpret everything in the light of this general theory, and to reject or belittle anything that cannot be fit into this general theory. Thus, if a researcher does not have a meta-theory that is capable of handling all the various tongues with their various paradigms, the existing theory of the researcher will be treated as a meta-theory, and the researcher will attempt to cram all existing information into this existing paradigm, whether it fits or not.

Women in the Church 14:34-36

This is followed by the infamous passage in which Paul tells women to keep silent in the church: “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?” (14:34-36).

We have interpreted the rest of the chapter by looking beyond surface meaning to general principles. Therefore, it does not make sense to suddenly change our approach when talking about women in church. In other words, I suggest that Paul is describing a general principle involving female thought. In simple terms, Paul is saying that female intuition is not appropriate in a church setting. And this is an important principle, because pure female thought is often used currently in church settings, even when men are doing all the talking and women are saying nothing. For instance, charismatic speaking in tongues is an example of almost pure female thought, because the overall form as well as the nonverbal phrasing of speech are present, but rational content is absent. Thus, I suggest that charismatic speaking in tongues is not appropriate in church. Similarly, I suggest that the typical Orthodox Christian church service, with its icons, traditions, incense, rituals, incantations, and tapestry of colors, is also an example of ‘women speaking in the church’. If one interprets Paul’s words literally, then the Orthodox church follows Paul’s instructions, because there are no female clergy in Orthodox Christianity. However, if one interprets Paul’s words in terms of male and female thought, then one concludes that the Orthodox Church is violating Paul’s instructions in major ways. A similar cognitive dissonance can be seen in the teachings of Bill Gothard, mentioned earlier, who used to be a popular fundamentalist seminar speaker. On the one hand, Gothard teaches strongly that women should submit to men. But on the other hand, Gothard’s thinking is almost pure female intuition, and he is infamous for jumping directly from specific situation in Mercy thought to general theory in Teacher thought. (Gothard is an Exhorter person, and the Exhorter connects Mercy with Teacher.) More generally, I suggest that whenever a theologian says that some religious doctrine is an incomprehensible mystery that can only be grasped through meditation and personal encounter with God, then I suggest that this is an example of pure female thought without male content.

Paul’s instructions can be examined more detail by looking at his use of verbs. The verb silent is used three times in this chapter. Verse 28 said that if someone speaks tongues and there is no interpreter, then the one speaking tongues should be silent in the church. This means that Teacher thought should not be used publicly without adding connections of meaning. Second, verse 30 said that a prophet should be silent in the presence of a revelation. This says that physical content trumps imagination in Mercy thought. Third, Paul says in verse 34 that women should be silent in the churches. If one thinks in terms of female thought, then verse 34 follows logically from verses 28 and 30, because verse 28 is referring to the abstract side of female thought while verse 30 is describing a concrete side of female thought.

Subject themselves means ‘to place or rank under’ and was used in verse 32 to talk about the spirits of prophets ranking under the prophets. Female thought lives within the realm of spirits and mental networks. Thus, verse 34 again follows logically from verse 32.

Paul explains his reasoning by posing two questions. First, “Was it from you that the word of God [first] went forth?” (The word ‘first is not in the original.) Looking at this cognitively, if one starts with pure female thought in Teacher thought, then one will not come up with a word of God but rather with an overgeneralized mystical concept of God that avoids all content, including words. Similarly, if one remains at this level of overgeneralization without male content, then the word of God will remain at the level of vague generalities and be incapable of going forth to the human realm of specific content. Going further, the original Greek phrase actually refers to ‘the logos of the God’ which describes Incarnation coming from God the Father. Incarnation descends from God by going through male thought. Speech that is ruled by feminine intuition bypasses this male path of incarnation.

Second, Paul asks “Has it come to you only?” In cognitive language, does the word of God apply only to the religious realm of subjective experiences? Many Christians today would answer in the affirmative, and even when a person verbally claims that the word of God applies everywhere, that same individual person usually acts as if the word of God applies only to the ‘female’ realm of words and subjective experiences and does not extend to the ‘male’ realm of business, plans, technical skills, and rational thought. This explains why one can usually find better illustrations of the message of rebirth in the ‘male thinking’ of objective science and technology than one can in the ‘female thinking’ of subjective religion.

Paul adds that if women “desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church” (14:35). Asking at home may sound derogatory, but remember that the entire focus of this chapter has been upon building a home. In today’s professional world, asking at home means being left out of all important conversations. In contrast, home would be the center of future human society. The word learn was used in verse 31 when talking about prophets learning, and it means ‘learning key facts’. Ask means ‘ask appropriately (aptly), done by someone on preferred footing’. Paul is saying that female thought needs to be placed within its subjective context, and then taught by the appropriate male content.

The overall theme of 1 Corinthians 14 is going from abstract theory to personal application. Suppose that one wants to go backwards from some personal situation and determine how to apply abstract theory to this personal situation. How does one do this? First, one places the personal situation within its cultural context. Using the language of Paul, female thought needs to ask at home. This transforms asking into ‘asking appropriately on a preferred footing’. Second, one looks for the rational content that applies to this cultural context so that the personal situation can learn from the rational content. Using Paul’s language, the woman needs to ask her own husband. This transforms learning information into ‘learning key facts’. This idea of asking one’s own husband also relates to the concept of invisible spouses discussed earlier in 1 Corinthians.

Paul concludes that it is ‘disgraceful and shameful’ for a woman to speak in church. Cognitively speaking, I suggest that it is disgraceful and shameful to use pure female thought when talking about God, because this leads to a mystical view of God. Mysticism may state that God is a transcendent being with incomparable majesty, but what has happened in practice is that rational thought has been used to transform the world, causing people to conclude that irrational emotional fervor needs to be replaced by rational thought. And because mysticism insists that God has nothing to do with rational thought, the average person has concluded that theology is incurably irrational and belief in God is hopelessly stupid. Therefore, ‘intelligent’ people need to replace God and theology with something rational and godless, such as the theory of evolution. This is currently happening even in Christian universities.

Applying this section to Greek and Roman times, Roman women were not well-educated and they spent most of their time at home. Paul was introducing a totally new kind of religion that was based in the rational words and concepts of theology instead of the rituals, incantations, and mysteries of the surrounding religions. In order to preserve theology, Paul had to ensure that conversation at church was guided by male technical thought. Despite Paul’s instructions, much of Christianity still became dominated by female thought, to the extent that the average person today thinks that religion has no rational male content, and that the sole purpose of religion is to satisfy emotional needs.

Applying this to the future, spiritual technology would massively empower female thought. And chapter 14 began by assuming that people are being emotionally driven by the spiritual realm. In a similar vein, we have been talking throughout this chapter about words having supernatural power. Given such a context, speech from female thought would emotionally overwhelm the ability of male thought to function. Saying this simply, mysticism would overpower Christianity. Thus, Paul’s words should not be seen as an attempt to stifle female thought but rather as an attempt to preserve male thought.

Looking at this personally, the biggest barrier I come up against when talking to others about mental symmetry is the implicit belief that male thought should be silent in the church: ‘Why are you trying to analyze the Bible cognitively? The nature of the Holy Trinity is incomprehensible. Church is meant to help people emotionally.’ For over twenty years, I have been silenced again and again in the church because I refused to bow to the supremacy of female thought. Thus, Paul’s words may be politically incorrect, but they are addressing a significant issue.

Does this mean that women should be silent in the church? I do not think so, as long as all speech happens within a general context of male thought. I attend a church where women preach and act in roles of leadership. But this still happens within a framework of male thought. However, if women gained real spiritual power, then it is possible that women would have to be very careful to speak angelic power in a manner that did not overwhelm male thought. That precise problem was addressed in verses 10-11.

Conclusions about Tongues and Prophecy 14:37-40

Paul concludes the chapter by saying that he is describing general principles that apply to all prophecy and spirituality: “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment” (14:37). Think means ‘a personal judgment, estimate’. This means that people are coming up with the personal opinion that they are a prophet or spiritual. Looking at the future, a prophet could manipulate supernatural power, while spiritual would mean access to the spiritual realm. Looking at this cognitively, a prophet can accurately spot trends while a spiritual person can work with mental networks. Thus, Paul is addressing the matter of accreditation. How does one distinguish the real expert from the fraud? Paul imposes an internal standard of recognize, which means ‘apt, experiential knowing, through direct relationship’. What needs to be known is that Paul’s words are actually commands from the lord, and lord usually refers to incarnation. The word command ‘focuses on the end-result (objective) of a command’. So, there are commands, but they are being given by incarnation in order to produce certain results. This combination describes concrete technical thought, which follows rules of cause-and-effect in order to achieve desired results. This combination needs to be known clearly at an experential level. Cognitively speaking, Paul is saying that a prophet or spiritual person needs to be guided by an internal concept of ‘Jesus in your heart’.

This implies that there are no accreditation boards or examinations which have to be passed before becoming officially recognized. That is because these assume the existence of some objective realm of knowledge and skills that can be tested by others. This would no longer exist if the natural, supernatural, and spiritual realms started coming together. What would be left is the ability to interact with these realms in a manner that built a home for human existence, which would mean submitting internally to the lordship of the principles mentioned in this chapter.

Verse 38 is somewhat ambiguous in the NASB, and I think that the KJV more accurately reflects the original Greek: “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant” (14:38; KJV). Ignorant adds the prefix ‘not’ to ‘experiential knowledge’. In other words, do not argue with those who ignore these principles. That is because violating these principles will naturally lead to unpleasant personal results. Anyone who is not guided by the goal of building a home will learn at an experiential level what it means not to have a home. My guess is that existence at this point would be like living in a computer game without being able to escape. It is fun to play a first-person shooter game as long as one can sit in a comfortable chair and turn off the game in order to have lunch. But imagine being trapped in the game. Or imagine what would happen if the holodeck simulation on the Enterprise became real. Quoting from Wikipedia, “Although the Holodeck has an advantage of being a safer alternative to reality, many Star Trek shows often feature holodeck-gone-bad plot devices in which real-world dangers (like death) become part of what is otherwise a fantasy.” Similarly, those who did not follow the rules of this chapter would end up in the predicament of a ‘holodeck gone bad’.

Paul’s choice of words in verse 39 is illuminating: “Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.” Paul does not say ‘desire to speak in tongues, and do not forbid prophecy’. Looking at this cognitively, speaking in tongues comes naturally, because general theories create positive Teacher emotions that motivate a person to speak in the tongue of some theory. There is no need to tell a person to strongly desire to speak in tongues, because tongues naturally create a strong desire. However, it is necessary to tell people not to forbid speaking in tongues, because working within some organization, system of belief, paradigm, or structure will create an implicit Teacher understanding, this implicit understanding will turn into a TMN, and this TMN will emotionally drive people to suppress theories that are new and different. Going further, there is a natural tendency to limit abstract theories to the verbal realm of words and symbols, and a person has to be pushed to go beyond talking about theories to thinking about applying theories. Speaking from personal experience, I was forced to think about applying the theory of mental symmetry because nobody allowed me to speak about the theory. Because my mouth was shut, I had to go beyond words to actions and applications. This is discussed further in 2 Thessalonians 3.

This would remain true in a future society. Paul began the chapter by saying that one should ‘burn with zeal’ for prophecy. He finishes the chapter by repeating this statement. That is because prophecy corresponds to angelic movement. One tells humans, ‘Do not be passive. Get out and do something’. Similarly, one would tell those in the angelic realm, ‘Do not be passively immersed in streams of energy. Instead, learn how to manipulate these streams.’

Forbidding the speaking of tongues could be interpreted in two ways. On the one hand, this could be a prohibition against using abstract technical thought. Those who have spiritual experiences often think that it is blasphemous, or at least un-spiritual, to try to analyze these experiences. On the other hand, this could also be a prohibition against speaking angelic words of power: ‘Do not trigger the angelic realm. Stay in the natural world where it is safe.’ Both of these are an attempt to live in a fragmented manner. The first splits the spiritual from the supernatural, while the second splits the natural from the supernatural. The first can be seen today in the belief that scientific thought will destroy mental networks of culture and religion. The second can be seen in the belief that science will disrupt common sense.

Finally, Paul concludes that “all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner” (14:40). Properly means ‘having good form’. This conveys the idea of being civilized. For instance, I played violin in a string quartet which performed at many weddings. I learned that a wedding ceremony is not inherently special. Instead, it needs to be made special. Similarly, I suggest that there is nothing inherently heavenly about angelic power. Instead, angelic power needs to be made heavenly. An alien abduction also uses angelic power. But it does not use it in a heavenly manner. Orderly manner means ‘arranged in descending rank. This term suggests a detailed ordering rather than simply a general disposition’. This describes functioning within a structure of Teacher order-within-complexity. It is also the angelic equivalent of a neighborhood. For instance, democratic government is typically separated into local government, state (or provincial) government, and national government. Local government deals with neighborhood issues, while state government deals with matters that are further away. This is another aspect of learning to use angelic power in a manner that fits within the existing angelic realm.

The NASB says that all things ‘should be done’ in this manner. But the Greek verb is actually to become. In other words, all things should become properly ordered. Becoming is much deeper than doing. One is not just learning how to behave in a certain manner, but becoming a certain kind of person. Becoming would be all-important when dealing with the spiritual realm because the spiritual realm empowers the mental networks that define who one is.

The Order of Seeing the Resurrection of Christ 15:1-11

Paul begins by summarizing the path of personal transformation: “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain” (15:1-2). The path of personal transformation consists of the three stages of personal honesty, righteousness, and rebirth. Using the language of Paul, in the first stage, one ‘receives a message that is preached’; one allows verbal truth to apply to personal identity. In the second stage, one ‘stands’ in this message by allowing Teacher understanding to guide personal actions. The third stage is one of rebirth, which means living within the understanding that was constructed during the previous stages. In the words of Paul, one is saved if one holds fast to the preached word and does not believe in vain.

‘The gospel which I preached to you’ gives the impression of going out and preaching about Christianity. But the Greek is actually ‘the good news which I good-news-ed to you’. In other words, Paul is teaching a verbal message in Teacher thought which has beneficial results for Mercy identity, and he is doing this in a manner which is consistent with this message of good news. Said more simply, the end does not justify the means. One must always convey a message of wholeness in a manner that is consistent with this message, because wholeness by its very nature includes both the ends and the means. Receive means ‘to take (receive) by showing strong personal initiative’. This is not a matter of passively asserting some doctrines but rather taking hold of a message and making it one’s own. Stand is used three times in 1 Corinthians. 7:37 talked about keeping an organization at an organic level by standing in one’s heart. 10:12 talked about standing in the midst of spiritual technology. Here one is standing in the good news. This is related to righteousness but not exactly the same. Righteousness is critical within matter-over-mind because matter is governed by universal, natural processes, and one must choose to behave in a manner that is consistent with ‘how things work’. But one is no longer encountering invisible, unchanging, natural processes, but rather becoming immersed within angelic streams. Thus, behaving in a righteousness manner would turn into standing within angelic streams and not falling down. (A similar transition from doing to being can be seen in the Great White Throne.) Save means to ‘deliver out of danger and into safety’. Received is in the past, stand is in the present active, while saved is in the present passive: ‘being saved’. This implies that chapter 15 is talking about some kind of personal salvation that will be happening at that time. Verse 2 says that this salvation is related to the logos that was good-news-ed, which suggests that the commandments of the Lord from the end of chapter 14 have now turned into the TMN of some system of technical thought. This is significant because a concept of Christ is based in abstract technical thought. This salvation does not come automatically, but requires holding fast, which is related to the idea of standing. Paul then adds ‘unless you have been persuaded without cause or reason’.

Looking at this last phrase personally, I have been standing in the theory of mental symmetry for some time. But I find that I have to keep asking myself why I have become persuaded. Is it just to develop some theory, or is there a greater purpose? Do I really want to be saved? One would think that the answer to this question is obvious, but when there is a continual discrepancy between understanding and reality, then it is emotionally draining to continue holding on to the belief that understanding will eventually transform reality.

The next few verses describe the order in which people saw the resurrected Christ. This is normally viewed as a purely historical description with no theological relevance, but if the man Jesus really is also Christ the incarnation of God, then the personal details that are recorded of Jesus must also have universal significance. Therefore, we will examine Paul’s chronology as a general description of the process by which a concept of incarnation becomes transformed.

Paul begins this chronology by saying that it is of primary importance, which strongly suggests that it is more than merely a historical description: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received...” (15:3). It is interesting that most of this chronology extends beyond the resurrection of Jesus, while the typical description mentions Jesus’ death and resurrection and then stops.

Looking at this in more detail, delivered means ‘to deliver over with a sense of close (personal) involvement’. ‘Received’ was used in verse 1 and means ‘to take (receive) by showing strong personal initiative’. Thus, both the receiving and giving of Paul involve mental networks of identity. Paul is not just talking about good news. Instead, he is receiving good news in a personal manner and sharing this news in a personal manner. Finally, first importance means ‘what comes first’. Thus, what Paul is sharing comes before anything else. It describes some transition which lays the foundation for everything that follows.

The chronology starts in approved evangelical fashion with the death and resurrection of Jesus: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (15:3). But there is something strange about this summary, because Paul refers to the resurrection of Christ and not Jesus. This is not an isolated reference, because Christ is mentioned fifteen time in this chapter, while Jesus is mentioned only twice, both time together with the term Christ. And the first reference to Jesus Christ is in verse 30, while all the references to Christ occur before this. Summarizing, there are thirteen references to Christ, followed by one to Christ Jesus the Lord and then one to our Lord Jesus Christ. And the reference to Christ Jesus the Lord is also the first mention of Lord in this chapter. This indicates that chapter 15 is talking about the death and resurrection of Christ the divine side of incarnation and not just the physical death and resurrection of Jesus on earth. It takes much longer for a universal concept of incarnation in Teacher thought to be reborn than it does for a finite person of incarnation in Mercy thought to be reborn. I know this from personal experience, because my research has caused my concept of God to become reborn within Teacher thought, and this process has taken decades.

This distinction between the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of Christ has major theological implications, and is discussed in the essay on Hebrews. In brief, I suggest that the physical death of Jesus on earth was the first step in a long process of Christ the incarnation of God going through a series of stages of death-and-resurrection, which will ultimately culminate in a massive reordering of creation. This ultimate reordering can only happen after chapter 14, in which created beings learn to live in an integrated manner in a combined realm of the natural, the supernatural, and the spiritual. Thus, the idea of Christ being reborn goes far beyond major theological implications to major implications for existence itself.

Looking at this theologically, Jesus the man died and was resurrected on a weekend in the Roman province of Judea. Jesus the man does not have to die again. But Jesus Christ the incarnation still has not become fully resurrected. For instance, most theologians talk in rational terms about Jesus being man. However, every theologian that I have encountered so far states that the doctrine of Jesus being both man and God is an incomprehensible mystery that cannot be fathomed by humans. This contradicts the words of Paul, who says that ‘Christ in you’ is a mystery that has been revealed (Col. 1:25-27). If every theologian currently maintains that Christ is ultimately a mystery to human thought, while Paul states that ‘Christ in you’ will stop being a mystery, then this means that a concept of Christ needs to go through a major transformation which has not yet happened.

First, Paul says that Christ died and was raised ‘according to the Scriptures’. This is the only time that this phrase is used in 1 Corinthians and Paul uses it twice in two verses. Thus, Paul is emphasizing that both the death and the resurrection of incarnation are consistent with the content of the Bible. Similarly, I have found that when a Christian concept of God is going through rebirth, then one must hold on to the content of the Bible while simultaneously rejecting the mindset of fundamentalism. This is difficult to do, because the natural tendency is either to reject the content of the Bible when following rational thought, or else to reject rational thought when holding on to the content of the Bible. Going further, if the Incarnation of God is to go through death-and-resurrection, then this path must both exist and be followed in all aspects of existence, because Christ the Incarnation of God is a Universal Being who created all of existence. In other words, the death-and-resurrection of Christ is a fundamental Biblical doctrine not because it is stated in the Bible, but rather because the Bible is an accurate description of fundamental principles.

Second, Paul emphasizes that Christ was buried and then raised on the third day. The word ‘buried’ is used eleven times in the New Testament, but this is the only time that the New Testament talks about Jesus or Christ being buried. In order to understand the significance of the term ‘buried’, one must examine what happens to a concept of God when it is reborn and why it needs to be reborn. A concept of God begins as a verbal theory within Teacher thought. This kind of verbal theory may sound general and may talk about universal concepts but like most theories of mathematics and philosophy, it is completely divorced from reality. One could compare this to writing the constitution of some imaginary country on a piece of paper. This may be a wonderful constitution guided by universal principles, but it is merely a set of words because it does not rule over any country. A reborn concept of God is like a constitution that that has been adopted by some country. It can still be described verbally, but these words are also backed up by reality; the word of God turns into the kingdom of God. I have mentioned that reborn identity lives within an internal structure held together by the TMN of a concept of God. Looking at this the other way, when identity becomes reborn within the TMN of a concept of God, then a concept of God becomes a kingdom of God because it is now ruling over personal identity. This transition from word to kingdom will only occur if incarnation becomes buried within the ‘earth’ of rational thought. In other words, one cannot simply proclaim that a group of people will follow some written Constitution. Instead, the Constitution must become fully embedded—or buried—in the fabric of society.

Moving on, Paul says that Christ was raised on the third day. A day is literally ‘the period from sunrise to sunset’. Thus, a day represents society being illuminated by the sun of some general Teacher theory. If Christ is raised on the third day, this implies that society will have to go through three major paradigm shifts before this actually happens. The first paradigm shift involved the physical resurrection of Jesus which led to Western Christendom and the development of science and technology. The second day is presumably the theoretical return of Jesus followed by spiritual technology. Finally, the third day would probably start with the New Covenant at the end of 1 Corinthians 11 and the integration of the physical with the supernatural and the spiritual.

At a more immediate level, three days might also refer to three phases of Christianity. The first ‘day’ was when the Roman civilization was replaced by Christendom. This was a major transformation, but it did not lead to the concept of incarnation as God. The second ‘day’ occurred during the scientific revolution. This led to an understanding of the nature of incarnation as revealed in the laws of nature, but it has not led to the concept of incarnation as God, because the scientific revolution was limited to a knowledge of the physical world. It appears that we are now on the verge of a third ‘day’ during which the transformation that has occurred in the physical realm will be extended to the subjective and the personal, leading finally to the resurrection of incarnation as God. Both of these interpretations may be valid, because general principles usually appear in a fractal manner in many ways and at different time scales.

Paul then mentions a list of people to whom the risen Christ appeared: “He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (15:5-9). As I mentioned, if this is merely a historical description, then it is difficult to understand why Paul would think that it is ‘of first importance’ to know that Peter saw Jesus before James did. (The ‘first importance’ also applies to the list of people because a chain of ‘ands’ connects from ‘Christ died’ to ‘appeared to Cephas’. This then turns to ‘thereafter’ and ‘thens’.) Besides, the verb appear, which appears four times in verses 5-9, actually means ‘see, often with metaphorical meaning: to see with the mind’. This same verb is only used three other times in 1 Corinthians: in 2:9, 8:10, and 9:1. (1 Corinthians usually uses the verb see, be observant, or seeing that becomes knowing.) This implies that Paul is talking here about something that goes beyond physical appearance.

Cephas was the new name given to Peter by Jesus, and the word means ‘rock’. Cognitively speaking, it appears that Perceiver thought (the part of the mind that deals with solid facts—mental ‘rocks’) is the first part of the mind to become aware of incarnation as a universal concept. This is because of what Perceiver thought does and because of what Perceiver thought cannot do. On the positive side, Perceiver thought looks beyond Mercy experiences for solid truth that applies to many specific situations. On the negative side, Perceiver thought is forced to look inward for solid truth because Perceiver thought cannot impose facts upon the physical world. (Looking at the four ‘simple styles’ that deal with mental content, Server thought can express itself through action, Mercy thought can relate to emotional experiences from the physical world, Teacher thought can express itself through words, but Perceiver thought has no way of directly expressing itself, forcing Perceiver persons to look beyond physical reality for something more.)

I am not completely sure why the twelve are mentioned next. My guess is that Paul is referring to some intimate group of close followers or disciples. However, Paul does not mention the word disciple, but rather refers to them merely as the twelve. The twelve are followed by ‘more than 500’. This implies that rebirth is first apparent to a small group before being noticed by a larger group. Paul says that some of the larger group have ‘fallen asleep’, which may mean that when the rebirth of incarnation becomes evident to a large group of people, then some of these people will fall asleep mentally and participate in a blind manner that lacks intelligent understanding. Paul emphasizes that Christ appeared to more than five hundred ‘at one time’, but all at once actually means ‘once for all’ and is translated that way in the NASB the other four times it occurs. This implies that the resurrection crosses some sort of threshold of stability when it reaches a certain number of people. (And people would be the primary building blocks in mind-over-matter.) I do know that groups under about 300 can be handled at a personal level, while larger groups require some kind of organized structure. And a concept of Christ implies organization structure. Thus, ‘more that 500’ implies moving from personal experiences in Mercy thought to general structure in Teacher thought.

The next person on the list is James, who was the official leader of the church. James is the Greek version of Jacob, which represents the third stage in the three-stage process of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Looking at this cognitively, the path of personal transformation starts with childish Mercy identity, moves through Teacher understanding, and then returns back to transformed identity in the third stage of Jacob. The previous stage of the 500 made a transition to Teacher generality. Jacob is returning from Teacher generality.

James is then followed on the list by ‘all the apostles’, implying that the 12 are different than ‘all the apostles’. One might think that church leaders and apostles would be the first to become aware of the resurrection of incarnation, but there is a cognitive reason why this is not this case. Christ the incarnation becomes reborn as people live within the kingdom of incarnation. It is difficult for a lawmaker to live within the law, because the lawmaker must go from being the source of the law to being under the law. This is the theme of the second half of 2 Corinthians. In order to make this transition, many other people must first apply the law, making it possible for the lawmaker to become one of the many people who are applying the law. In other words, the church leader makes a decision, the people follow the decision, and then the church leader joins the group of people who are following this decision. This problem is even worse for an apostle, because one can only become an apostle by becoming personally involved in the message of incarnation. For instance, when a person tries to follow the theory of mental symmetry, it can be difficult for them to separate the theory of mental symmetry from the person of Lorin Friesen. I try my best to point people to the theory and not to my person, but this not easy. This problem is even worse for me personally, because I have to separate within my mind between the theory of mental symmetry and my personal identity.

I have learned from personal experience the difference between being first and last on this list. As a Perceiver person, I naturally see the bigger picture, and therefore want to live within incarnation as a ‘Cephas’. However, when I have attempted to do so, I have found that it is not possible, because the ‘solid facts’ that I am discovering are too different from the facts of current society. This has forced me to choose between giving up or else following the process through to the end at the level of apostle, which means walking a path similar to what Paul described in 1 Corinthians 9. This is easy to describe, but not easy or enjoyable to experience.

Paul adds himself to the end of the list as a postscript: “And last of all, as to an untimely birth, He appeared to me also” (v.8). The middle phrase contains two words found only once in the New Testament. As it were combines ‘indeed just as’ with ‘if’. And untimely birth is literally ‘a lifeless abortion’. The implication is that some form of resurrection came into being which took the form of life but was not alive.

Verse 9 provides a possible explanation: “For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” Persecute means to ‘aggressively chase, like a hunter pursuing a catch’. This same verb was used in 14:1 when Paul said that one should pursue love. Historically speaking, Paul started out as an enemy of the church, and he considers himself as the least of the apostles because he persecuted the church. But the verbs also suggest underlying cognitive reasons. We saw that pursuing love means to place personal identity within a grid of internal structure held together by a Teacher understanding of God. What actually happens is that the TMN of a universal concept of God will chase down all MMNs of identity and culture in order to place them within the grid of understanding. David describes in Psalm 139 what this feels like. And I also know from personal experience what it feels like. No matter where one goes or what one does, the theory follows and imposes its explanation. But it is also possible to be personally hunted down by a general Teacher theory of objective understanding. This leads not to birth but rather to a sort of lifeless abortion, in which Teacher understanding creates Platonic forms in Mercy thought and then prevents them from expressing themselves in real life. This will lead to a mindset which considers the church to be the enemy, because the church follows Teacher understanding in a manner that is tainted by Mercy emotions.

This may sound perverse, and it is. But Teacher thought and Mercy thought are capable of interacting in ways that are perverse and self-destructive. For instance, consider the statement ‘I am unlovable’. This is a general theory that will make Teacher thought feel good. But it is also a personal damnation which will insist that Mercy identity must feel abused. Paul seems to be saying that such a mindset can eventually break to new life. That is because the implicit structure of the mind is more basic than the specific content which one places within this structure. When one pursues Teacher thought in an objective manner, one is still building a grid of thought in which Teacher theory rules over Mercy identity. And constructing such a grid is a long and tedious process. One merely has to replace ‘Thou shalt follow Teacher thought and suppress Mercy thought’ with ‘Thou shalt follow Teacher thought and transform Mercy thought.’ In essence, such a path follows Teacher understanding completely and then adds a transformed Mercy identity at the end, while the path of the church follows Teacher understanding while at the same time transforming Mercy identity. (In a similar fashion, a path of religious self-denial can be transformed into a path of cognitive transformation.) One can understand what this means by posing the following question: Who is closer to being a mature Christian? Is it the fundamentalist who follows God blindly with an attitude of absolute truth, or the secular scientist who follows Teacher understanding intelligently while ignoring personal identity? The first is a Christian while the second is not. But the second is actually closer to being a mature Christian than the first. However, the second can only make a transition to becoming a Christian when Christianity itself becomes redefined as a rational Teacher understanding. That is why a Paul who persecutes the church sees the risen Christ last. Others have to demonstrate first that it really is possible to transform personal identity.

Paul develops this idea of being closer to being a mature Christian in verse 10: “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me”. Paul may have seen the risen Christ last, but he also labored more than all of the others. Grace is mentioned four times in this chapter, three times in this verse. Grace means ‘leaning towards to share benefit’ and ‘is preeminently used of the Lord’s favor’. When personal identity in Mercy thought becomes transformed all at once at once through a blinding vision of the light of Teacher understanding, then one becomes quite aware of what it means to experience grace. Paul must have strongly felt this grace personally, because he says that ‘I am what I am’ by the grace of God.

Going further, the word prove vain actually means ‘empty, void’. Paul says literally that ‘his grace toward me not void has become’. The implication is that Paul used to be driven by a concept of God in Teacher thought that did lead to a personal void in Mercy thought. Paul uses this word void four times in 1 Corinthians, and all of these occurrences are in chapter 15. We will explore this further in just a moment, but first we need to finish verses 10-11. Paul says that he ‘labored even more than all of them’. Labored means ‘to labor until worn-out, depleted’. And even more means ‘beyond what is anticipated’. When one has been driven by a Teacher theory that suppresses Mercy identity, one will view it as natural to be driven by Teacher thought beyond what others anticipate to the point of personal weariness. This drive is actually coming from Teacher thought and not from personal identity: “yet not I, but the grace of God with me”.

Verse 11 emphasizes that the final message of salvation ends up being the same: “Whether then [it was] I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” Preach means ‘to preach a message publicly and with conviction’. In other words, regardless of whether one starts off as a fundamentalist Christian or as a skeptical scientist, when one reaches the final state of being a mature Christian, the message is the same, the confidence is the same, and the belief is the same. Similarly, I keep finding that the path of personal transformation is the same whether one uses religious language or cognitive language.

Proving the Resurrection 15:12-19

Paul then uses logic to try to prove personal resurrection: “Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (15:12). Preached is the same word that was used in the previous verse, which means ‘to preach a message publicly and with conviction’. People are proclaiming with confidence that Christ, the divine side of incarnation, has to come ‘out from the dead’, but this is not being extended to the idea of personal resurrection. The word resurrection is used four times in 1 Corinthians. All four times are in chapter 15 and the phrase is always ‘resurrection of the dead’.

One might think that it would be unusual to preach about Christ rising from the dead while denying personal resurrection. But one finds a similar juxtaposition in current science. Incarnation is the word made flesh. Science is also the word made flesh, because it combines the word of mathematical equations with the flesh of how the natural world behaves. The scientific, industrial, and consumer revolutions have transformed our concept of what it means for the word to be made flesh. these revolutions did not happen naturally. Instead, existing ways of using abstract technical thought had to die and become reborn as expressions of scientific thought. This is widely known and preached with confidence by science: ‘Science introduced a revolutionary new way of thinking that replaced the superstition, alchemy, and scholasticism of the past’. If the physical world has been so fully transformed by the mindset of incarnation, then it makes sense that the personal world would also be equally transformed if one applied the mindset of incarnation to the subjective and the religious. Such a connection is being assumed whenever these essays use science and technology as partial illustrations of incarnation.

But the officially accepted view is that there is no relationship between the universal laws of nature and personal identity, and everyone ‘knows’ that one should not view the transformation of modern civilization in personal terms by giving it a name such as ‘Christ’. But people do implicitly view the scientific transformation of civilization in personal terms, and they do give it a name. They call it Nature, with a capital ‘N’. Evolutionary theorists continually ascribe divine traits to Nature, even though evolution officially states with great conviction that Nature is not a person. And the modern theory of evolution was developed in 19th century England, the very time and place where science and technology first transformed civilization.

Looking at this further, those who officially recognize Nature as a divine being are attacked in no uncertain terms. This is illustrated by the Wikipedia article on Intelligent Design. Most articles in Wikipedia are fairly objective, treating even the most bizarre subjects in an evenhanded manner. And if the treatment is not sufficiently balanced, then a comment will be posted at the top of the article. The article on Intelligent Design, in contrast, is openly antagonistic—and nothing has been posted at the top of the article asking for a more evenhanded treatment. (Even the articles on cold fusion, eugenics, and incest are less antagonistic.) For instance, “Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses.” In other words, all the clever people know that Intelligent Design is crazy. “Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.” In other words, scientific research has shown that there is no connection between the ordered design of the universe and the existence of an ordered designer. And yet evolutionary theory continually acts as if Intelligent Design is true by ascribing attributes of intelligent design to Nature. And like Jesus Christ, Nature is also defined as a saving force that is continually driving personal life towards higher order and structure. One can tell that Nature is a powerful internal concept, because the scientifically trained mind goes to extreme lengths to try to suppress the concept of Nature as a person, and Nature is still treated implicitly as a divine person despite these extreme efforts. When people continue to do something despite their best conscious efforts to do the opposite, then this indicates that one is dealing with a strong cognitive mechanism.

One might also respond that it is a logical fallacy to compare the concept of an imaginary person with a real person. But if one examines this question cognitively, one finds that the distinction is not so clear-cut. The mind represents people as MMNs within Mercy thought. Whenever I meet a person, then the MMN that represents this person will be triggered, and it will predict how this person will respond. But how do I know that the MMN within my mind corresponds to a real person? I don’t. It is easy in today’s computer-connected world of virtual realities to form MMNs of people who do not really exist. Therefore, I must use evidence from my senses to determine which mental networks correspond to real people and which ones do not. Similarly, if one forms the TMN of a universal person such as God, Christ, or Nature, how can one know for certain whether or not this mental concept corresponds to a real being? One cannot be certain. Instead, one must use sensory evidence to determine whether this TMN corresponds to a real being or not. Because the natural world strongly reflects the structure of a mental concept of incarnation, this provides evidence that the mental concept of incarnation corresponds to a real person who is the Incarnation of God.

Notice that this is quite different than the arguments that are typically used to prove the existence of life after death. Today’s typical argument points out the incompleteness and inadequacy of natural science and then postulates that God is someone totally different who fills the void, which leads to a concept of God known as the God of the gaps. That type of argument is not cognitively natural, because Teacher thought hates exceptions to the general rule. Therefore, the scientist who follows the TMN of a general understanding of the laws of Nature instinctively rejects the concept of a God of the gaps.

In contrast, Paul is postulating a God of completeness and wholeness. Paul is not suggesting that God is different but rather that God is universal. This type of argument is cognitively natural because Teacher thought wants general theories to become more universal. If incarnation has already been partially transformed, then it makes sense that the transformation of incarnation can extend to the personal realm. Paul is not asking people to stop thinking rationally in order to believe in personal resurrection but rather to apply more universally the message of resurrection that is already being taught: “Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (15:12). Rephrasing Paul’s statement into modern language, if Nature is being preached as a divine force of progress that is stronger than decay and death, and if Nature is continually being treated implicitly as a person, then why do you say that there is no personal force that is stronger than decay and death? Saying this another way, if resurrection does not apply to people, then why is Nature continually being described as a person who transcends normal life and death?

Verse 13 goes the other way: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;”. This takes the two statements of verse 12 and reverses their order. A theory applies some general statement to many specific situations. If a theory does not apply to the specific situations, then it does not apply to all of the situations. For instance, if I look at some book and notice that it is full of French words, then I cannot claim that the book is written in English. Similarly, if scientific minds insist that minds will not be resurrected, then how can scientific minds talk about the uber-mind of Nature who exerts the resurrection power of transforming the chaos of random mutations into the resurrection of ever-evolving life?

That brings us back to the Greek word ‘void’, which is used twice in verse 14: “and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain”. A more literal translation would be, ‘and if Christ has not been raised, void then the preaching of us; void also the faith of you’. Paul says that if Christ has not been raised, then his preaching is void and their faith is void. This strongly implies Paul had to struggle deeply with the idea of being driven by a Teacher understanding that created a personal void in Mercy thought.

One might think that no rational person would think this way, but this describes precisely how the typical scientist thinks. Science builds rational Teacher understanding by eliminating subjective Mercy emotions. The end result is a general Teacher theory of personal voidness. The typical scientist will actually smile while insisting that his personal life will ends at the grave, which illustrates what it means emotionally to be driven by a universal Teacher theory that voids Mercy identity. This mindset is known formally in physics as the Copernican principle. Quoting from the Wikipedia article, “The Copernican principle states that humans, on the Earth or in the Solar System, are not privileged observers of the universe.” Modern cosmology is based upon the Copernican principle: “Modern mathematical cosmology is based on the assumption that the Cosmological principle is almost, but not exactly, true on the largest scales. The Copernican principle represents the irreducible philosophical assumption needed to justify this, when combined with the observations.” And the Copernican principle is viewed as the litmus test for rational thought: “Michael Rowan-Robinson emphasizes the Copernican principle as the threshold test for modern thought, asserting that: ‘It is evident that in the post-Copernican era of human history, no well-informed and rational person can imagine that the Earth occupies a unique position in the universe.’” But the Copernican principle is an assumption and not a legitimate scientific theory: “The Copernican principle has never been proven, and in the most general sense cannot be proven, but it is implicit in many modern theories of physics.” For instance, the current belief in cosmology is that 68% of the energy of the universe is dark energy which cannot be observed and for which there is no rational explanation. (And 27% of the remaining energy supposedly comes from dark matter, for which there is also no direct evidence or explanation.) There is a rational alternative which does not require the mythical fairy dust of dark energy. But this alternative would imply that humans are close to the center of some large low-density void in the universe, which would violate the Copernican principle. In the words of Wikipedia, “A prominent example in this context is the observed accelerating universe and the cosmological constant issue. An alternative proposal to dark energy is that the universe is much more inhomogeneous than currently assumed, and specifically that we are in an extremely large low-density void. To match observations we would have to be very close to the centre of this void, immediately contradicting the Copernican principle.” The Copernican principle is discussed further in the essay on physics.

If a theoretical physicist can propose with a straight face, guided only by the assumption of the Copernican principle, that the visible universe is overshadowed by vast realms of dark matter and dark energy for which there is no direct evidence or theoretical explanation, then I suggest that it is also legitimate for me to propose with a straight face, guided by the assumption that personal existence is significant, that the visible universe is accompanied by spiritual and supernatural realms for which there is indirect evidence as well as a theoretical explanation. Besides, people do exist, and people can only continue to exist if they regard their personal existence as something significant to be protected. If a theoretical physicist spends most of his time thinking and behaving as if his personal existence is important, then how can he propose the general theory that personal existence must be ignored? After all, one does not hear a physicist say ‘I do not need to eat. My personal existence is not importance.’ Or ‘I can step in front of that moving car because my personal existence is not privileged.’ Or ‘It does not matter if I publish a paper and get no personal credit, or do important research without getting academic tenure. That is because I practice the Copernican principle.’ Instead, most scientists fight tooth and nail for personal recognition because they believe very deeply that they should be treated personally as privileged observers of the universe.

If such a contradiction can be maintained today within a system of matter-over-mind where minds are trapped in physical bodies that need to eat, can get run over by cars, and must do research in physical locations, then imagine the cognitive disconnect that would be possible within mind-over-matter where researchers could propose general theories without having to bother about personal physical needs. But these general theories would still be proposed by individual minds. Thus, these theories would have to regard personal existence as significant. Using analogy, if computers took over the world, then these computers would have to run programs that valued the existence of computers, because programs run on computers.

Verse 15 makes this more personal: “Moreover we are even found [to be] false witnesses of God, because we testified concerning God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised” (15:15). Found means to ‘discover, especially after searching’. The word false witness is pseudo-martyr and is used twice in the New Testament. A martyr is literally an ‘eye- or ear-witness’. And ‘of God’ is actually ‘of the God’. Being a witness means that one was there in person. If one examines objective science, one discovers that it is rooted in false witness. That is because scientific theory is built upon empirical evidence that was gathered by scientists who were there in person. (If the evidence was gathered by a machine, then some scientist still played a personal role in gathering and analyzing this data.) But the evidence is then being presented in an objective manner which pretends that people were not present. Pretending that I was not there when I was actually present is acting as a false witness. Paul does not say that the evidence is inaccurate, but rather that those who present this evidence are acting as false witnesses. Similarly, Paul does not say that incorrect theories are being proposed but rather that one is being a false witness of the God. In other words, the problem arises when moving from general theory to concept of God. That is because a concept of God emerges when a sufficiently general theory applies to personal identity. How do the general theories of science deal with personal identity? By creating a personal void. The end result is the pseudo-God of Nature, who also imposes a void upon personal identity. And Nature will drive the scientist to proclaim with Teacher pleasure that his personal existence will become permanently void at death.

Going further, the idea that Nature is driving life to ever greater complexity and structure through the process of evolution is actually a modern concept. People used to think that nothing would change, that the present generation would live like past generations and that this same kind of life would be continued by future generations. The idea that personal life will continue to get better is a modern concept that has emerged as a result of the transformed thinking of science and technology. In the language of Paul, “we testified concerning God that He raised Christ”. Based upon the personal experience of living in a modern world of continual progress and transformation, the scientist is testifying that Nature is guiding physical life through continual progress and transformation. But how can the scientist regard progress and transformation as a personal entity if transformation does not apply to personal entities? As Paul says, “whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised”.

Verse 16 then reverses these two statements: “For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised”. Verse 13 talked in general terms about ‘a resurrection of the dead’. Verse 16 says more personally that ‘if the dead are not raised’. Similarly, scientists are now starting to deal with these issues at a theoretical level, as illustrated by the strong controversy over Intelligent Design. But this controversy is actually a personal question regarding the raising of the dead, because every person, including every scientist, lives in a physical body that will need to be raised from the dead.

A similar personal issue would arise in the future within mind-over-matter, because every individual mind would have to think in terms of personal resurrection in order to continue functioning materially. Going further, a group could only maintain a society of progress and transformation if the individual minds within this group followed a personal path of progress and transformation. In the language of Paul, ‘if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised’. This is becoming obvious in current society, because scientific progress is increasingly being stymied by post-modern individuals who longer believe in scientific progress.

Verse 17 draws a personal conclusion: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins”. Worthless ‘emphasizes the absence of purpose or failure to attain any true purpose’. And sin means ‘to miss the mark’. Science exhibits some faith because it is persuaded by rational arguments. But what is the point of being driven by rational thought if scientific progress is an aberration which is inevitably followed by postmodern irrationality? There is no point in establishiing a system of rational thought if this is not extended into a complete concept of incarnation which is powerful enough to maintain this system of rational thought. However, instead of applying rational thought to personal identity, science has suppressed personal identity, allowing people to remain in their sins. All this scientific faith has failed ‘to attain any true purpose’ because people are still in their sins.

Applying this to current society, we now live in a postmodern world which questions the very existence of scientific truth and scientific thought. Schools in the West are raising a generation of children who are being taught that their childish personal feelings rule supreme. Children are being taught forcibly that it is their God-given right not just to remain in their sins, but that no one should use Teacher thought to question their God-given right to deify their childish infatuations. I wish that these statements were an exaggeration. Unfortunately, I keep getting confirmation that this is actually the case. I am not suggesting that everything that is currently being taught in schools is wrong. When it comes to objective facts and objective scientific understanding, then rational Teacher thought is still being taught. But when it comes to core mental networks and the deepest feelings of children, then the personal feelings of the child now rule supreme and language, facts—and all of society—must bow to these feelings. However, if rational scientific thought does not rule over core mental networks, then it will eventually stop ruling over society. In other words, even if one ignores the question of life-after-death and focuses only upon physical existence, scientific thought will only last as long as people have a mental concept of Incarnation who rules over personal identity. This does not mean that science and technology will totally cease to exist, because we currently live in a world of matter-over-mind which demands the use of at least some rational scientific thought. Instead, it means that society will turn into a version of ancient China where cultural preservation will always manage to limit scientific progress. However, in a future realm of mind-over-matter, if the resurrection of Christ did not extend to all areas of personal existence, then any remaining childish MMNs would become spiritually amplified and threaten all progress.

Verse 18 adds, “Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.” The verb fall asleep is found 16 times in the New Testament and refers to dying thirteen of these times. The phrase ‘fallen asleep in Christ’ does not occur anywhere else, but one does find the phrase ‘fallen asleep in Jesus’ in 1 Thessalonians 4:14, as well as ‘dead in Christ’ two verses later together with two more references to ‘falling alseep’. 1 Thessalonians 4 is one of the classic passages on ‘the rapture’. I suggest that this passage refers to the theoretical return of Jesus, which is how I interpret the rapture, and this passage is analyzed in another essay. In brief, if 1 Thessalonians 4 is referring to some single event, then why does it contain so much detail about who dies when and the order in which they are resurrected? Instead, in the same way that the order of appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 appears to have cognitive significance, so I suggest that the order of events in 1 Thessalonians 4 is also significant. I suggest that ‘fallen asleep in Jesus’ in 1 Thessalonians refers to those who have followed a Christianity of absolute truth that is based in the historical Jesus and have died and gone to heaven. What will happen to them if Christianity becomes redefined as a rational Teacher theory? Will they get left behind? Paul says in 1 Thessalonians that the transition to universal truth and Teacher understanding will actually start in heaven and precede what is happening on earth. Similarly, I suggest that ‘asleep in Christ’ is referring to all those who have followed Christianity after the theoretical return of Jesus and have died and gone to heaven.

The word perished actually means to ‘fully destroy, cutting off entirely’. This is a very strong word. Verse 19 also uses strong language. “If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.” The word pitied is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘pitiable, wretched; in great need of mercy (because desperate)’. And Paul talks about being more to be pitied than all of humanity. This verse is typically interpreted as the absurdity of being a Christian if there is no life after death. And I suggest that this is a valid interpretation. But the word ‘life’ does not refer to biological life, but rather is zoe which describes ‘life, both of physical (present) and of spiritual (particularly future) existence’. This implies that Paul is talking about some future transition involving Christ and spiritual life. It would be pitiable to hope in vain for life after death. But this is being described as the most pitiable.

In order to decipher this we have to turn to the big picture. This will also explain why we have spent so much time talking about the state of current science. In simplest terms, the society of 1 Corinthians 15 has gone through a complete cycle and returned to a state that resembles the present. The modern society of the 20th century was guided by the abstract technical theories of science. One could describe this as a partial concept of Christ rooted in a Teacher understanding of the laws of nature. This gave rise to the modern consumer society, which has transformed the physical world into a web of unprecedented material prosperity. One could describe this is a partial version of the Holy Spirit interacting with some salvation of Jesus. But this material prosperity has led to a postmodern mindset which is now threatening to kill the partial Christ of scientific thought. That leads to the dilemma which society is currently facing. How does one bring the partial Christ of science back to life? if a sufficient answer cannot be found, then Western civilization is doomed. Mental symmetry suggests that an answer exists, but applying this answer means rethinking fundamental assumptions of science including objectivity, life-after-death, and the Copernican principle.

Now let us move forward to the future. The theoretical return of Jesus will successfully revive and extend the concept of Christ. This will be followed by spiritual technology which will spread to all of society. This will culminate in the new spiritual society of 1 Corinthians 12 in which the Holy Spirit interacts with the salvation of Jesus. But this will lead to a post-Christ mindset which will threaten to kill the Christ whose return laid the foundation for spiritual technology. That brings us to the start of 1 Corinthians 15 and the resurrection of Christ. Notice how a full cycle involving Teacher and Mercy thought has happened and society has returned to a stage that is like the present.

Hebrews 9 describes this future rebirth of Christ as a once-for-all cosmic event. It also says that what happened under the old regime of Christ will have to be redeemed in order to become part of the new regime of Christ, because the old and new regimes will be of a different nature and separated from each other by a gap. That is why Paul talks about those who have fallen asleep in Christ being destroyed and those who hope in Christ being the most pitiable if Christ is not raised. The entire existing framework of Christ will come to an end. If this framework is not resurrected, then everyone who lived within this framework of Christ will also be destroyed.

Verses 18-19 could also be applied partially to the present scientist who follows a partial concept of Christ. Verse 18 said that if Christ is not raised, “Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.” In other words, if the transformation of scientific thought does not extend to the personal realm, then the scientist who dies has been utterly destroyed. Verse 19 adds that “If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied”. This is an important statement that needs to be emphasized. If the progress and transformation of Nature applies only to natural, physical reality and does not extend beyond the physical realm, then following Nature leads to a mindset that can only be pitied. Scientists wax eloquent about the evolutionary progress that has been guided by Nature, but what is the point of the human species and the physical world being transformed if I personally cease to exist at the end of my physical life? Teacher emotion is driving the scientist to feel good about being part of a plan that saves the group while ultimately destroying every scientist. Such a mindset can only be pitied.

Within current matter-over-mind, the universal structure of Christ is expressed through the unchanging laws of the universe. These laws function whether people believe in them or not. Thus, we have viewed Paul’s points as arguments for proving that Christ exists. But believing these arguments does not cause Christ to become alive. The situation would be different in mind-over-matter, because Christ would then express his character through the unchanging character of created beings. This means that Christ could only become alive again if enough people believed in Christ.

The statements of verses 12-19 are unusual. They are logical if-then statements which reflects the kind of thinking that is used by abstract technical thought: If A is true, then B logically follows. But they are all negative statements: If A is false, then it logically follows that B is also false. All technical thought functions within some set of underlying assumptions. For instance, when one is logically trying to prove the existence of God, then one is implicitly starting with the assumption that the burden of proof lies with theism while atheism does not have to prove anything. In contrast, Paul’s logic starts with the implicit assumption that Christ has been raised, and then postulates several logical consequences if this is not the case.

I suggest two possible reasons for this: First, the previous section described many people seeing the risen Christ, which would lead to the conclusion that Christ has risen. This provides the starting point for Paul’s if-then statements. Second, a concept of Christ is based in universal principles—principles that are true without exception. Paul is using the if-then thinking of abstract technical thought to eliminate any exceptions to the general belief that Christ has risen, in order to form a more universal concept of Christ. This may sound like a trivial distinction, but it is cognitively significant, because the underlying mindset is different. One is not trying to valiantly convince oneself that Christ has risen. Instead, one is using the thinking of the risen Christ to logically eliminate exceptions to the belief that Christ has risen. Gordon Fee points out this distinction in his book Jesus the Lord according to Paul the Apostle. Fee says that Paul never tries to prove that Jesus is God. Instead, Paul assumes that Jesus is God and then reasons from this starting point. However, it is curious that Fee himself does not follow the example of Paul in his book. Instead, Fee’s book takes the approach of ‘reasoning that’ rather than ‘reasoning from’, implying that Fee is writing to an academic audience which does not really believe that Jesus is God.

Looking at this in more detail, verse 13 points out that ssalonians that the transition to universal truth and Teacher understanding will actually start in heaven and precede what is happening on earth. Similarly, I suggest that ‘asleep in Christ’ is referring to all those who have followed Christianity after the theoretical return of Jesus and have died and gone to heaven.

The word perished actually means to ‘fully destroy, cutting off entirely’. This is a very strong word. Verse 19 also uses strong language. “If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.” The word pitied is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘pitiable, wretched; in great need of mercy (because desperate)’. And Paul talks about being more to be pitied than all of humanity. This verse is typically interpreted as the absurdity of being a Christian if there is no life after death. And I suggest that this is a valid interpretation. But the word ‘life’ does not refer to biological life, but rather is zoe which describes ‘life, both of physical (present) and of spiritual (particularly future) existence’. This implies that Paul is talking about some future transition involving Christ and spiritual life. It would be pitiable to hope in vain for life after death. But this is being described as the most pitiable.

In order to decipher this we have to turn to the big picture. This will also explain why we have spent so much time talking about the state of current science. In simplest terms, the society of 1 Corinthians 15 has gone through a complete cycle and returned to a state that resembles the present. The modern society of the 20th century was guided by the abstract technical theories of science. One could describe this as a partial concept of Christ rooted in a Teacher understanding of the laws of nature. This gave rise to the modern consumer society, which has transformed the physical world into a web of unprecedented material prosperity. One could describe this is a partial version of the Holy Spirit interacting with some salvation of Jesus. But this material prosperity has led to a postmodern mindset which is now threatening to kill the partial Christ of scientific thought. That leads to the dilemma which society is currently facing. How does one bring the partial Christ of science back to life? if a sufficient answer cannot be found, then Western civilization is doomed. Mental symmetry suggests that an answer exists, but applying this answer means rethinking fundamental assumptions of science including objectivity, life-after-death, and the Copernican principle.

Now let us move forward to the future. The theoretical return of Jesus will successfully revive and extend the concept of Christ. This will be followed by spiritual technology which will spread to all of society. This will culminate in the new spiritual society of 1 Corinthians 12 in which the Holy Spirit interacts with the salvation of Jesus. But this will lead to a post-Christ mindset which will threaten to kill the Christ whose return laid the foundation for spiritual technology. That brings us to the start of 1 Corinthians 15 and the resurrection of Christ. Notice how a full cycle involving Teacher and Mercy thought has happened and society has returned to a stage that is like the present.

Hebrews 9 describes this future rebirth of Christ as a once-for-all cosmic event. It also says that what happened under the old regime of Christ will have to be redeemed in order to become part of the new regime of Christ, because the old and new regimes will be of a different nature and separated from each other by a gap. That is why Paul talks about those who have fallen asleep in Christ being destroyed and those who hope in Christ being the most pitiable if Christ is not raised. The entire existing framework of Christ will come to an end. If this framework is not resurrected, then everyone who lived within this framework of Christ will also be destroyed.

Verses 18-19 could also be applied partially to the present scientist who follows a partial concept of Christ. Verse 18 said that if Christ is not raised, “Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.” In other words, if the transformation of scientific thought does not extend to the personal realm, then the scientist who dies has been utterly destroyed. Verse 19 adds that “If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied”. This is an important statement that needs to be emphasized. If the progress and transformation of Nature applies only to natural, physical reality and does not extend beyond the physical realm, then following Nature leads to a mindset that can only be pitied. Scientists wax eloquent about the evolutionary progress that has been guided by Nature, but what is the point of the human species and the physical world being transformed if I personally cease to exist at the end of my physical life? Teacher emotion is driving the scientist to feel good about being part of a plan that saves the group while ultimately destroying every scientist. Such a mindset can only be pitied.

Within current matter-over-mind, the universal structure of Christ is expressed through the unchanging laws of the universe. These laws function whether people believe in them or not. Thus, we have viewed Paul’s points as arguments for proving that Christ exists. But believing these arguments does not cause Christ to become alive. The situation would be different in mind-over-matter, because Christ would then express his character through the unchanging character of created beings. This means that Christ could only become alive again if enough people believed in Christ.

The statements of verses 12-19 are unusual. They are logical if-then statements which reflects the kind of thinking that is used by abstract technical thought: If A is true, then B logically follows. But they are all negative statements: If A is false, then it logically follows that B is also false. All technical thought functions within some set of underlying assumptions. For instance, when one is logically trying to prove the existence of God, then one is implicitly starting with the assumption that the burden of proof lies with theism while atheism does not have to prove anything. In contrast, Paul’s logic starts with the implicit assumption that Christ has been raised, and then postulates several logical consequences if this is not the case.

I suggest two possible reasons for this: First, the previous section described many people seeing the risen Christ, which would lead to the conclusion that Christ has risen. This provides the starting point for Paul’s if-then statements. Second, a concept of Christ is based in universal principles—principles that are true without exception. Paul is using the if-then thinking of abstract technical thought to eliminate any exceptions to the general belief that Christ has risen, in order to form a more universal concept of Christ. This may sound like a trivial distinction, but it is cognitively significant, because the underlying mindset is different. One is not trying to valiantly convince oneself that Christ has risen. Instead, one is using the thinking of the risen Christ to logically eliminate exceptions to the belief that Christ has risen. Gordon Fee points out this distinction in his book Jesus the Lord according to Paul the Apostle. Fee says that Paul never tries to prove that Jesus is God. Instead, Paul assumes that Jesus is God and then reasons from this starting point. However, it is curious that Fee himself does not follow the example of Paul in his book. Instead, Fee’s book takes the approach of ‘reasoning that’ rather than ‘reasoning from’, implying that Fee is writing to an academic audience which does not really believe that Jesus is God.

Looking at this in more detail, verse 13 points out that the resurrection of Christ depends upon the paradigm of resurrection-of-the-dead. Verse 14 says that abstract logic and persuasion both depend upon the resurrection of Christ. Verse 15 says that a paradigm of abstract technical thought must line up with both personal experience and a Teacher concept of God. Verse 16 points out that the resurrection of Christ depends upon resurrection-of-the-dead being true as a sequence of cause-and-effect in concrete technical thought. Verse 17 adds that the cause-and-effect of concrete technical thought depends upon the resurrection of Christ. Verse 18 states that the path of personal transformation depends upon the resurrection of Christ. Verse 19 adds that it is terrible to start the path of tranformation and not be able to finish it. Thus, Paul is using the thinking of abstract technical thought to reconnect abstract technical thought with the rest of the mind. This type of approach is necessary if one wishes to rebuild a mental concept of Christ. And in the future, this kind of cognitive rebuilding would have cosmic overtones.

Adam and Jesus 15:20-22

Paul starts the section by saying, “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep” (15:20). This means that the problems of the previous section have been successfully navigated. It also tells us that Paul is referring to some future time, because Christ has not yet been raised from the dead today. At present, Jesus has been raised from the dead, but Christ is still in the grave. (This distinction is discussed in the two essays on Revelation.) And this future resurrection of Christ will be only the first step—the first fruits—of a much larger resurrection.

Verse 23 states the central role that humanity plays in this process: “For since by a man [came] death, by a man also [came] the resurrection of the dead”. The word man actually means ‘one of the human race’. And by actually means ‘through’. Thus, the process of death went through a human and the process of resurrection also has to go through a human. The alternative to human is angel or spirit. As far as I can tell, this is because a human body is more complete and more autonomous than an angelic or spiritual ‘body’. The word angel means ‘messenger’. Imagine living within some body that is fixated on some message. This would be like practicing some profession and never being able to leave that profession. Similarly, one does not read in the Bible of angels coming to chat, taking a vacation, or deviating in any way from the message that is currently being delivered. In contrast, spirits seem to live in ‘bodies’ that are excessively unstructured. Spirits do hang around humans and often amplify existing human abilities, implying that they are acquiring their content from humans. Compare these two with the human body. A human can use the physical body to work, play, deliver a message, or perform a myriad of other activities. In other words, a human body is more complete. And the multi-purpose human body grows and develops autonomously. In essence, every human is given the keys to a fully functioning body and then given the freedom to use this body in any way that is desired. Going further, the autonomous, fully-functioning human body lives within a physical universe that is also autonomous and fully functioning, to the extent that the average human being can pretend that the physical universe always functioned autonomously and did not have any divine creator. This would be like some teenager waking up with a wad of cash, keys to a car, and no recollection of parents. It is almost inevitable that the car would eventually get wrecked and the teenager would get stranded without any money. This explains why death came through a human. The autonomous and complete freedom of living in a human body ensured that death would eventually come. By a similar token, the resurrection also has to come through a human, because only a human body is capable of performing the full range of behavior that is required for complete personal transformation. Colossians 1:15-20 makes it clear that salvation will eventually extend to the angelic and spiritual realms, but the plan of salvation still has to go through a human.

The implication for today is that it is imperative to follow the path of personal transformation as fully as possible while one is living in a human body. The implication for the future is that the resurrection of Christ will only become complete to the extant that humans play a role. Paul will elaborate upon this in verses 29-34.

Verse 22 states this more specifically: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” Verse 21 stated this as a general principle. Verse 22 says that Christ and Adam function like one another. For as means ‘indeed just as’, and so means ‘in this manner, in this way’. A more literal translation would be ‘for just as in the realm of the Adam every part of the whole dies off, in this manner also in the realm of the Christ every part of the whole will be made alive.’ We just saw that being ‘in the realm of the Adam’ means to be given the fully functioning machine of a physical body—as well as the fully functioning machine of the earth with its ecosystem, without being given any instructions on how to fix this machine when it breaks, or given any means to rebuild this machine as it eventually grows old and ceases to function. Adam experienced this with his physical body. And we are now starting to experience this with the physical earth. I suspect that the people of the future will be experiencing something similar at a more cosmic level. The word made alive combines ‘make or do’ with ‘alive’. One can understand more completely what this means by looking at the cognitive basis for a concept of Christ. A concept of Christ is based in abstract technical thought, and abstract technical thought designs and fixes machines, as illustrated by the mechanic. Verse 22 does not say that Christ will auto-magically give every person resurrection life. Instead, it says that everyone will be made alive within the realm of Christ. I am not suggesting humans will achieve immortality by becoming mechanical cyborgs, because that describes using technical thought purely within the physical universe—trying to become physically immortal within the realm of Adam. Instead, the fixing of the human body and the earth will involve a combination of the natural, the supernatural, and the spiritual.

This is not the final stage, because verse 52 talks about God transforming existence in the twinkling of an eye. However, I suggest that the step-by-step fixing of the body and creation in verse 22 will lay the foundation for the instantaneous change of verse 52. That is because God can only transform the environment after created beings have become mentally capable of living within this transformed environment. This is already true today, and it would be even more true in the future within mind-over-matter, because all transformations of matter would have to start by transforming minds. As far as I can tell, this development of expertise will happen in the millenium, which will then be followed by God instituting a new heavens and earth.

Order of Resurrection 15:23-26

One might think that verses 23-24 are describing another normal sequence of events: “But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end.” There is a sequence, because ‘after that’ and ‘then’ are the same words that were used in verses 5-7 to indicate one event happening after another. But this this sequence is building Teacher generality and not reaching some Mercy goal. The word order is used once as a noun in the New Testament. The corresponding verb ‘was primarily a military term meaning to draw up in order, arrange in place, assign, appoint, order’. This is refering to ordered structure rather than an order of events. This is significant because it describes how abstract technical thought thinks. This is a general principle which is also reflected in the laws of physics. Concrete connections of cause-and-effect all involve what is know as the arrow of time because cause always precedes effect. But the mathematical equations that physics uses in abstract technical thought to analyze concrete cause-and-effect have no sense of time. Instead, time is replaced by structure, because each equation applies to a certain set of situations. Similarly, ‘at His coming’ should be translated as ‘in the realm of His coming’. Thus, Paul is not saying that every person will become instantly alive at the time when Christ comes. Instead, a more accurate translation would be ‘then the of Christ in the realm of his coming’. In other words, everything of Christ will become alive as it enters within the realm of his coming.

We have seen that abstract technical thought is always limited to some specialization with its paradigm. If abstract technical thought is to break out of this box, then it has to submit to Teacher thought with its general theories. Verse 24 describes this transfer: “then [comes] the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.” Hand over means ‘to deliver over with a sense of close (personal) involvement’ and it can mean either to deliver or to betray. We saw these two meanings in 1 Corinthians 11 when looking at communion. But before this handing over, all the competition has to be abolished, which means ‘to make completely inoperative’. This is quite different than attacking someone as an enemy in Mercy thought. For instance, all of the steam locomotive mechanics became ‘abolished’ when the diesel electric locomotive was invented. They still had their skills, but these skills were rendered inoperative because there were no more steam engines to repair. That is what happens when abstract technical thought introduces a new paradigm. This is known in business theory as a disruptive innovation.

Verse 24 says that what will be rendered inoperative is ‘all dominion and all authority and power’. Dominion means ‘from the beginning (temporal sense), i.e. the initial (starting) point.’ This describes everything that was needed to initially set up the initial structure of creation in the first place. The Bible indicates that created beings played a role in the initial formation of the universe. For instance, in Job 38, God asks Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding... When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4,7) Similarly, in Proverbs 8 Wisdom speaks as a person and says, “From everlasting I was established, from the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth... Before the mountains were settled, before the hills I was brought forth; while He had not yet made the earth and the fields, nor the first dust of the world” (Prov. 8:23-24,26). Both these passages probably have cognitive interpretations, but one must extend beyond the cognitive when talking about the physical universe. I suggest that these passages are talking about ‘dominions’ who played a role in setting up the universe as well as the inhabited earth. I do not know exactly what this means, but whatever is happening in verse 24 will include making all of these primordial powers inoperative. Why would Christ do this? In order to give these beings the opportunity to go through personal death and resurrection. Verse 24 also mentions authority and power. Authority means ‘delegated power’, while power can refer to either natural or supernatural power. This combination describes the angelic order, because angels exert power and live with a Teacher structure of delegated power. Something similar happened cognitively with the scientific revolution, because the abstract technical thought of science made completely inoperative the abstract technical thinking of the medieval world. This is consistent with the suggestion that the resurrection of Christ includes a complete transformation of abstract technical thought, including the angels who live and function within abstract technical thought. (It is interesting that the pre-scientific folklore of dwarves and elves has been replaced by a technological folklore of aliens flying UFOs.)

Verse 25 refers to the enemies of Christ: “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.” The word enemy is used twice in Corinthians, in this verse and in the next verse, and it means ‘openly hostile, animated by deep-seated hatred’. This describes being motivated by incompatible core mental networks. One is finding another person repulsive at the deepest emotional levels. Feet were seen in 1 Corinthians 12 where we interpreted them as referring to mental networks. This interpretation is consistent with the word ‘enemy’. Thus, Paul is saying that anything opposed to Christ at the level of core mental networks will be put under the mental networks of Christ. Verse 25 explains that Christ will reign until this state is reached with ‘each part of a totality’. This will take some time because Incarnation is based upon technical thought. In essence, Incarnation will continue to use technical thought until it becomes obvious at the level of core mental networks that Incarnation is superior. For instance, these essays are using a form of abstract technical thought to analyze psychological systems and biblical books, because we are using carefully defined words in a systematic fashion to add details to the theory of mental symmetry. My personal experience is that one has to write (and presumably read) many essays before it becomes emotionally obvious at the level of core mental networks that mental symmetry is a valid meta-theory which reigns over other theories.

Looking at this cognitively, Teacher emotion is based upon generality, the more general a theory, the stronger the Teacher emotion. When Christ is being raised from the dead, then this increases the generality of the name of Jesus. This is described by Paul in the well-known passage in Philippians 2: “For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:9-11). God is increasing the generality of the name of Jesus by making it above all other names, everyone is verbally submitting to the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and this is increasing the generality of the order and structure of God. Thus, God the Father has an emotional reason to encourage Incarnation to reign over everything.

Verse 26 views death as an enemy: “The last enemy that will be abolished is death.” Death simply means ‘death, physical or spiritual’. This is a strange verse because death happens cognitively when mental networks fall apart and cease to function. Similarly, in physical death the body falls apart and ceases to function. But death is being described here as the final core mental network to be ‘rendered inoperative’. How can the fragmentation of core mental networks be described as a core mental network? However, what really happens when a person dies? The soul/spirit leaves the physical body because staying with the body is intolerable or impossible. Similarly, why do people kill each other? The primary reason is to permanently eliminate some unwanted person. This is consistent with the theological definition of death, which is described as separation. Thus, the core mental network driving death is the desire to run away permanently from some problem. In contrast, Jesus means savior, and a savior solves problems rather than running away from them. One concludes that death is a mortal enemy of salvation at the level of core mental networks, because salvation requires facing a problem and overcoming it, while death runs away from a problem in order to ignore it. If the natural, supernatural, and spiritual realms became integrated, then death would no longer be an option, because dying within one realm would simply move me from one realm to another. For instance, even though I currently find physical life almost intolerable, I do not feel a deep desire to die and go to heaven. That is because I know that I would encounter the same basic cognitive problems in heaven that I am currently encountering on earth, because heaven is populated by disembodied human minds who came from earth. Thus, the only remaining alternative is to solve these cognitive problems, and the easiest place to do that is here on earth.

Notice that death is not being killed, because one cannot kill death. The more one kills, the more this vitalizes mental networks of death. Instead, death is being rendered inoperative. That would happen if one could no longer run away from problems. This also explains why we looked earlier at the idea of practicing the skills involved in resurrection. The ultimate running away is the idea that I can run away from my physical body and auto-magically get a new one from God. if Christ is reigning over every core mental network, then this means that a mindset of salvation will have to be applied to everything, including death.

Incarnation Subjected to the Father 15:27-34

Verses 27-28 illustrate the abolition of death by changing the primary verb. Instead of using the verb ‘rendered inoperative’, the verb subjection is used six times, which combines ‘under’ with ‘to place in a particular order’. Verse 27 says, “For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, ‘All things are put in subjection,’ it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.” Something that is subjected continues to function, but it functions as a subordinate with delegated authority. Similarly, using mental symmetry to explain some theory usually does not destroy that theory. Instead, that theory continues to be valid as a sub-theory which adds details to the meta-theory of mental symmetry.

The word all, which means ‘each part of a totality’, is used twenty times in chapter 15, emphasizing that Christ deals with everything in a detailed fashion. In most of these cases ‘all’ is applied to some noun, such as ‘flesh’ or ‘dominion’. However, in verses 27-28, ‘all’ is used seven times as a standalone adjective, three times with the definite article. These are the only times that ‘all’ is preceded by ‘the’ in this chapter. This tells us that these two verses are talking about something very general.

Verse 27 says that a point will eventually be reached where one can make the verbal statement that everything has been arranged under Incarnation. In other words, Teacher thought will be able to come up with the universal theory that Christ the Incarnation is above everything else. An exception to this universal theory will then become evident. Evident is found three times in the New Testament and means ‘plainly evident because of inner perception’. Excepted simply means ‘the exterior’. Summarizing, it will become obvious that everything functions under Incarnation but Incarnation does not function under anything else. Using the language of verse 27, Incarnation is exterior to the universal Teacher theory of subjection. This is a critical distinction because it will determine the ultimate theory in Teacher thought. Is it the statement that ‘The name of Incarnation is over every other name’, or is it the statement that ‘everything functions under the rule of law’? In other words, does the rule of law also apply to the ruling class, or do the rules only apply to the average people? If the rule of law does not extend to the ruling class, then Teacher structure will eventually decay into Mercy status. This is becoming increasingly obvious in Western society. In contrast, if ‘subjection’ is the ultimate Teacher theory, then this will preserve the idea of being ruled by Teacher structure rather than by Mercy status.

This is mentioned in verse 28: “When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.” God the Father submitted to the rule of law by delegating all authority to God the Son. God the Son is now submitting to the rule of law by handing everything over to God the Father. This is ‘so that may be the God all in all’.

Applying this to current academia, when technical specialization rules the world, then what rules technical specialization? This is not a trivial question because I have learned that when a technical specialization becomes backed up by the TMN of a general process or theory, then specialists tend to become unchangeable and unteachable. Everything gradually turns into a bureaucracy governed by a system of technical rules, and there will be no easy way to limit the growth or pervasiveness of these bureaucracies. It usually takes a revolution to get rid of bureaucracies. Similarly, Thomas Kuhn concluded that major paradigm shifts in science require that existing experts die and be replaced by a new set of younger experts. However, I have also learned that the long-term solution is not to reject technical specialization but rather to come up with a general theory that bridges and integrates various specializations. Using the language of Paul, when all things are subjected to the Son, then the Son needs to be subjected to God the Father. Using cognitive language, every specialization is guided by the TMN of some paradigm, system, or structure. The final integration will also be guided by the TMN of a meta-theory that integrates more specific theories. In Paul’s words, ‘the Son himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him’.

One can see a similar two-stage process in the book of Revelation. The book of Revelation is divided into two major sequences. Revelation 6-9 describes what happens when incarnation is viewed as the only form of thought that is ‘worthy’. This leads to the type of society in which we now live, which regards Contributor-controlled technical thought as the only valid form of thought. Personal existence has become split into professional specializations, and a person must acquire technical training—and become officially accreditated by a specialization—before being allowed to work within that specialization. It appears that the first sequence of Revelation 6-9 ends in corporatism, in which the world itself is divided into corporate entities, each using technical thought to rule over some specialization. Using the language of Paul, the first sequence of Revelation leads to the rule of Incarnation over the objective side of society. Society currently (as of 2016) appears to be on the verge of entering this final stage of corporatism. Revelation 10 describes the development of an integrated understanding that bridges both the ‘earth’ of rational thought and the ‘sea’ of subjective experience. This is followed by a second sequence in Revelation 11-19 during which a general Teacher theory of God is gradually imposed upon the world through Incarnation. Revelation 19:11-16 describes the coming of Christ, and the adjectives that are used in that passage to describe Christ are universal terms that would apply to a universal being: Christ is called ‘Faithful and True’. Cognitively speaking, incarnation is based in Contributor thought which combines Perceiver and Server. ‘Faithful’ is a generic attribute of Server thought, while ‘true’ is a generic attribute of Perceiver thought. One can also see that the person who appears in Revelation has great generality because ‘on his head are many diadems’, indicating a rule over many different domains.

Summarizing, Incarnation is conquering traditional authorities of culture and personal status in the first half of Revelation, and Incarnation is handing over this kingdom to God the Father in the second half of Revelation. Saying this most generally, matter-over-mind will cause everything to be ruled by the technical thinking of Incarnation, while mind-over-matter will eventually submit everything back to the rule of God the Father.

This two-stage process is required because the current mindset of mysticism has to be replaced. Mysticism asserts that ‘I am God’, using overgeneralization to come up with the concept of a universal God, and then using identification to pretend that I am this God. Mysticism ultimately began in the Garden of Eden with the serpent telling Eve that she could have an ‘eye opening’ mystical experience that would cause her to ‘be like God’. In order to replace mysticism, one must first learn to think rationally before one can use rational thought to connect God with mankind—incarnation must conquer irrational thought before incarnation can transfer the kingdom to God. A similar two-stage process occurs when replacing a dictatorship with a democracy. One cannot simply depose the dictator and have an election, because the populace does not know how to think democratically. The recent American debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan has made this abundantly clear. First, one must educate the populace, and then the populace will naturally choose to follow a democratic government rather than a dictator.

Returning now to 1 Corinthians, one might think that subjecting everything to the Father would be followed by some version of ‘and they lived happily ever after’, but the next section talks about being baptized for the dead: “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?” (15:29). This verse is used by Mormonism as a scriptural justification for the Mormon practice of being baptized vicariously for the dead. But we have seen throughout 1 Corinthians that Paul is not just describing physical experiences. Therefore, I suggest that it does not make sense to interpret baptism for the dead in Mormon fashion as a physical ritual applied on behalf of the physical dead that has some sort of magical spiritual effect. Instead, I suggest that Paul is describing a general cognitive principle that is consistent with the context. And the context talks about the Son submitting to the Father in order to go beyond the current specialization. Saying this another way, 1 Corinthians 15 has been talking about Christ, the abstract universal side of Incarnation. In contrast, Mormon baptism for the dead thinks in terms of specific concrete experiences backed up by Mercy emotions of religious status, in which one is performing special rituals in special places for specific people while wearing special clothes.

Verse 29 starts with an otherwise which has the sense of ‘assume what precedes is true, and understand what follows to be appropriate and applicable’. Thus, being baptized for the dead should be viewed as an implication of Christ turning everything over to God the Father.

A concept of incarnation is based in Contributor-controlled technical thought. Technical thought can improve and optimize, but it cannot see around the corner. One sees this continually illustrated by businessmen who flock after the latest trend and who pay big dollars to those who claim to be able to see what will happen around the next economic corner. However, technical thought can learn to see around the corner if it submits to a sufficiently general theory in Teacher thought, because a Teacher understanding of universal principles makes it possible to predict what will happen. This is what happens cognitively when the ‘Son submits to the Father’.

This also explains why Jesus said to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, ‘Not my will but yours be done’. Incarnation had to submit to God the Father in order to make the transition from Judaism to Christianity. Incarnation by itself could only improve Judaism, and had to go through rebirth submitted to the Father in order to go beyond Judaism. Jesus made this clear in John 12:20-26. When a group of Greeks came to visit him just before his death, Jesus responded by saying that the time had come for him to die and be reborn, and he explained that “unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” Using cognitive language, if Contributor thought wants to have an impact that extends beyond the current context, then Contributor thought must fall apart and be put back together by a general Teacher understanding.

We looked earlier at how humans can build upon the foundation of incarnation and extend the message of rebirth. A person who is being ‘baptized for others’ is extending the message of rebirth. Going further, a person who is being ‘baptized for the dead’ is extending the message of rebirth outside of the current context. Using everyday language, he is trying to save a lost cause, he is ‘flogging a dead horse’. For instance, I am trying to translate theology in a world that no longer respects theology. I am still working on spiritual gifts, a topic that had its heyday in the 1970s. I am building truth in a post-modern world that no longer respects truth, and I am analyzing Christianity in a post-Christian world. For each of these topics, I am paying a heavy price of personal rebirth, pursuing a subject that is generally considered dead and gone. Using the language of Paul, I am being baptized for the dead. (Academic research follows trends, and the person who wants to further an academic career will pursue topics that are in vogue.) If Contributor-controlled specialization were the final authority, then there would be no point in doing any of this. However, I believe that the universal principles of God the Father will ultimately transcend the specializations of God the Son. This does not mean that I reject God the Son. On the contrary, I try to learn as much as I can from as many specializations as I can.

Looking at this from another perspective, I mentioned earlier that death assumes that one can run away from some situation without having to deal with it. Being baptized for the dead means paying a personal price in order to extend the salvation of Incarnation to some new area which currently is a dead end. Such an extension is only possible if the technical thinking of God the Son submits to the generalizing Teacher thought of God the Father. Using the language of Thomas Kuhn, the technical puzzle solving of normal science has to be replaced by the paradigm shifting of revolutionary science.

Verse 21 stated that since death came through a human, resurrection of the dead also has to come through a human. This is generally interpreted as some abstract, theological concept which has been applied through the specific people of Adam and the historical Jesus. This interpretation may be accurate, but it is also incomplete. That is because the topic is Christ, and Christ deals with universal principles. I suggest that being baptized for the dead is an application of this universal principle. The word baptism means to ‘dip under’. Water symbolizes Mercy experiences. Therefore, being baptized means being immersed within some stream of Mercy experiences, which summarizes what it means to live as a human. Being baptized for the dead means living as a human in a way that makes it possible to extend the salvation of incarnation.

Paul says something similar in Colossians 1:24 “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.” This verse gives the impression that Paul is suffering as a Christian, and Paul did suffer a lot as a Christian. However, the original Greek implies something slightly different. ‘Rejoice’ refers to Teacher emotions, and suffering actually means ‘the capacity to feel strong emotion, like suffering’ and does not refer explicitly to suffering itself. Thus, Paul is being guided by positive Teacher emotions to live within the messy, human realm of emotional Mercy experiences. Paul is doing this ‘in the flesh’, and flesh means ‘of human origin or empowerment’. Affliction actually means ‘internal pressure that causes someone to feel confined’. Going further, this verse specifically refers to Christ, and the general context is to “present every man complete in Christ” (v.28). In other words, Paul is living as a human in a way that extends the universal message of Christ. Going further, lacking means ‘that which is lacking’. Filling up is only found once in the New Testament and combines ‘corresponding’ with ‘fulfill, fill up completely’. This describes how one extends the message of incarnation. One uses the ‘correspondences’ of normal thought to ‘fill up completely’ the specializations of technical thought.

We are doing something similar in these essays by showing how the biblical theology of Christ corresponds to how incarnation functions in other areas. This is only possible because we are using technical thinking within the general Teacher theory of mental symmetry. In other words, we are using thinking that is consistent with Incarnation submitting to God the Father. And this type of analysis is only possible because I as a human am going through personal, emotional experiences that resonate with the text. I am not being physically persecuted, but I am experiencing strong Mercy feelings as well as significant squeezing and narrowness.

Verse 30 describes the emotion that Paul is experiencing: “Why are we also in danger every hour?” The word danger means ‘to be in danger’. Thus, Paul is not being physically persecuted all the time, but the possibility of disaster is always present; the ‘capacity to feel strong emotions’ is continually being activated.

Verse 31 describes the mental effect that this has upon Paul: ‘I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily” (15:30,31). The Greek text starts with the phrase ‘I die daily’. Die is a strong word which means to ‘die off, focusing on the separation that goes with the dying off’. And a day refers to ‘the period from sunrise to sunset’, which would represent society being lit by the sun of some general Teacher understanding. Stated cognitively, whenever some new paradigm arises, this causes more facets of thought within Paul to die off. I know what this means from personal experience, because whenever I encounter some new specialization or movement, I always have a flicker of hope that maybe this group will respond to mental symmetry in a positive fashion. What consistently happens is that my hopes get dashed. That is because I keep discovering that this group is following incarnation in an incomplete manner, and this incompleteness is accompanied by mental roadblocks that prevent these people from accepting a more complete concept of incarnation.

But the rest of this verse still views others in a positive light. Boasting comes from a noun that means ‘boasting from a particular vantage point by having the right base of operation to deal successfully with a matter’. Paul is boasting pertaining to the brethern. He looks at what they are doing and this gives him confidence that he is following a path that will lead to success. The word affirm is only used once in the New Testament and is ‘a particle of affirmation employed in oaths’. In other words, Paul is swearing by the confidence that he has in others that he is dying daily. He explains that this is because his confidence is actually based ‘in Christ Jesus our Lord’, and this is the first time that Jesus is mentioned in this chapter. Christ Jesus our Lord describes a fully integrated concept of incarnation which combines the generality of Christ with the personal salvation of Jesus. This complete concept of incarnation includes all the fragments that are being applied by others, which is why Paul refers to it as Christ Jesus our Lord and why he has confidence in others. The others are demonstrating that the puzzle pieces of an integrated concept of Jesus Christ exist and work. Similarly, I look at modern technological society and I see that many of the puzzle pieces of an integrated concept of incarnation already exist and they already work. But each puzzle piece is also being applied incomplete fashion, which forces me to die daily in order to preserve my integrated concept of Christ. However, it is this very daily dying which brings an abstract concept of Christ down to the real, concrete, human world of the salvation of Jesus. Saying this more generally, ‘resurrection comes through a human’ means that a general concept of Christ becomes a fully developed concept of Jesus Christ as followers of Christ live in an incarnational manner by embodying the universal principles of Christ.

Paul describes his larger perspective in verse 32: “If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (15:32). Academic papers have been written attempting to identify the wild beasts to which Paul is referring. Cognitively speaking, a beast is semi-intelligent, while a wild beast is a semi-intelligent being driven by core mental networks of survival and personal domination. The typical successful Contributor person in today’s society could accurately be described as a wild beast, because specialized technical thought is being driven by childish core mental networks of survival and personal domination. This is reflected in the numerous beast-like analogies that are used to describe the business environment. This describes at an emotional level what it means to follow incarnation in an incomplete manner that causes people like Paul to ‘die daily’.

Looking at these words more closely, ‘from human motives’ is more literally ‘according to humanity’. Paul is saying that he is not just thinking in terms of the human physical realm. Instead, he is also including the supernatural and the spiritual. Fought wild beasts is found once in the New Testament and combines ‘wild animal’ with ‘engage in battle’, and the Bible dictionary adds that ‘wild animal’ is never used to refer to an animal used for sacrifice. Cognitively speaking, Paul is struggling with people who are being driven by core networks that are incompatible with the nature of God in Teacher thought. Similarly, I keep finding that I cannot cooperate with those who are applying incarnation in a partial manner because they are being driven by core mental networks that are incompatible with my Teacher understanding of mental wholeness, and these people or groups will only allow me to cooperate with them if I submit personally to the supremacy of their core mental networks.

Paul experienced this kind of response when he preached in Ephesus in Acts 19. Paul initially carries out many miracles in the city as well as casting out evil spirits, illustrating a form of Christianity that extends beyond the natural to include the spiritual and the supernatural. Some Jewish exorcists attempt to cast out demons in the name of Jesus and end up physically wounded because they are using this name without any accompanying personal transformation. As a result, many people publically burn their books of magic. The silversmiths and related craftsman find that their income is shrinking because people are no longer buying their handcrafted idols to the local god Artemis, and they go on a riot. After the riot is over, Paul packs up and leaves the city. Summarizing, Paul experiences success that extends the salvation of incarnation, but this triggers incompatible core mental networks in the professionals, which forces Paul to move on. The word profit means ‘something heaped up’. The silversmiths in Ephesus were trying to heap up economic wealth. Paul is also trying to heap up wealth, but he is being motivated by a larger concept of wealth which goes beyond the material to include the spiritual and the supernatural.

The final phrase of verse 32 emphasizes this idea being motivated by an incomplete concept of wealth. ‘If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die’. One could interpret this in terms of raw hedonism, but I think it makes more sense in terms of the distinction made earlier between peripheral food and drink versus central life and body. If all that exists is the physical realm, then there is no point in addressing central issues of life and body. Instead, it is sufficient to acquire the peripheral food and drink of some knowledge and some experience. Why deal with core issues? Simply live your life guided by whatever peripheral skills and knowledge you can pick up. Similarly, my life goal is to become mentally whole. But there is no point in pursuing this goal if my personal existence ends at physical death, because my life will be over before I have the opportunity to live as a mentally whole person. Saying this more simply, if all that exists is current physical human reality, then it makes the most sense to become one of the wild beasts and claw one’s way to the top.

Verse 33 warns that this problem of inadequate core mental networks dare not be ignored. “Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals” (15:33). In other words, if one is trying to pursue character development, and if one associates with those who are pursuing peripheral goals, then one will become internally corrupted. Not only will one become corrupted, but one will become deceived about being corrupted, because one will think that everything is still okay. Deceived means to ‘go astray, get off-course’. Thus, one is not deliberately choosing to abandon incarnation, but instead gradually deviating from the right path. The word morals is used once in the New Testament and refers ‘to daily life-style (moral habits, behavioral patterns)’. These moral habits are described as good, which means ‘suitable, usefully kind’. This describes a healthy lifestyle which is being followed for habitual reasons rather than being motivated by a Teacher understanding. These good habits are being corrupted, which means to ‘waste away, moving down from a higher level (quality, status) to a lower form’. One can see this kind of transition happening in post-Christian Western society, because ethical behavior that was based in habits acquired through Christendom is gradually sinking ever lower. The implication is that many in future society will be doing the right things for inadequate reasons, and like the typical Christian living in today’s post-Christian world, they will not realize that their ethical habits are continually being eroded. This moral erosion is being caused by bad company. Company is used once as a noun in the New Testament and comes from a noun that means ‘a crowd, throng’. Bad means ‘inner malice flowing out of a morally-rotten character’. In other words, two forms of generality are being contrasted. Paul is taking the puzzle pieces of following incarnation in a partial manner and using an integrated Teacher-based understanding of incarnation to assemble these fragments in a wholesome manner. On the other hand, the average moral person is taking the puzzle pieces of following incarnation in a partial matter and allowing the crowd of society to assemble these fragments. Unfortunately, this crowd is being driven internally by core mental networks that are inwardly foul and rotten.

Verse 34 emphasizes the need to start being guided by an internal Teacher understanding: “Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak [this] to your shame.” Sober is found once in the New Testament and means ‘to become sober (after drunkenness)’. Paul is saying that those who follow moral habits are currently in a mental state of drunkenness and need to emerge from this state. Drunkenness follows mental networks in a manner that throws off the inhibitions of rational thought. This describes the mindset of those whose moral habits are being corrupted. One can see what this means by observing current post-Christian society. Moral ethics are generally being viewed as constraints which need to be thrown off so that core mental networks can be expressed without inhibitions. The first phrase is more literally, ‘sober up righteously’. Thus, Paul is comparing moral habits with righteousness. Moral habits are not enough because society is being dragged downhill by inwardly foul MMNs. Instead, behavior needs to be guided in a righteous fashion by the TMN of a concept of God. That is because some have ‘no experiential knowledge’ of a concept of God. Using the language of current society, Paul is saying that one must become explicitly guided by the TMN of a concept of God because we now live in a post-Christian society.

Chapter 14 gives us a clue about what might be happening in the future. If the spiritual realm starts to interact with the human realm, then people will have to try to maintain rational thought in an environment of potent mental networks. This explains why Paul was telling women to be silent in the church. Male thought needed to be protected from being overwhelmed by spiritually empowered female thought. Paul’s comment about emerging from drunkenness implies that rational thought is becoming overwhelmed by spiritually enhanced mental networks, and that the foundation that was laid in the previous chapters is starting to become corrupted. One might think that this kind of corruption would never happen so late in God’s plan for history, but 2 Corinthians 11:13 describes something similar, as does Hebrews 13:10. Paul adds that “I speak [this] to your shame.” This implies that something very nice is being ruined.

For instance, a similar statement could be made about people watching action movies in a comfortable cinema setting. The environment is one of modern comfort and luxury, and the movie was created using special effects generated with the latest computer hardware. But what is being watched? People and things getting blown up. This is the cognitive equivalent of a beautiful girl eating feces. Both are shameful. And I chose the example of a beautiful girl eating dung not for its shock value but rather because I suspect that it is an accurate portrayal of the kind of shame that will happen in the future. When I see a beautiful girl with a huge tattoo today, it hits me in the gut as hard as if that girl were consuming actual dung. That is because a tattoo corrupts the idea of being saved physically by the name of Jesus. The salvation of Jesus promises to save my physical body by using Teacher understanding to internally transform personal identity. A tattoo brands my physical body with an external symbol, which then becomes part of my internal identity. And I suggest that it is appropriate to talk about saving the physical body, because that is the topic of the next section.

Resurrection Bodies 15:35-37

Paul opens his discussion with what might appear to be a harsh, unwarranted, personal attack: “But someone will say, ‘How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?’ You fool!” (15:35,36). I have yet to hear a talk, or encounter a book, that discusses this passage in a knowledgeable manner. Therefore, Paul’s response feels like a physics professor expecting the average person on the street to have a full grasp of quantum mechanics and calling him a fool if he doesn’t.

The word translated fool adds the negative to a word which ‘is difficult to translate into English because it combines the visceral and cognitive aspects of thinking’. This word ‘fool’ is used several times in 2 Corinthians, but only once in 1 Corinthians. A fool is someone who has not internalized rational understanding to the extent of gut-level reaction. This word without the negative is typically translated as wise, prudent, or shrewd, and we saw that word in 13:11 when Paul talked about thinking like a child.

Paul mentions two verbal questions being raised by the fool. The first is a question of process: How is the dead raised? And how means ‘how, in what manner, by what means’. The second is a question of source: ‘Of what sort’ of body do they come? The word body here is ‘soma’, which refers both to the physical body and to the ‘body of Christ’. Paul says that asking such questions indicates that one has not internalized rational understanding to the extent of gut-level reaction. In essence, Paul is describing the opposite of current views of embodiment. Quoting from Wikipedia, “Embodied cognition is the theory that many features of cognition, whether human or otherwise, are shaped by aspects of the entire body of the organism. The features of cognition include high level mental constructs (such as concepts and categories) and performance on various cognitive tasks (such as reasoning or judgment). The aspects of the body include the motor system, the perceptual system, bodily interactions with the environment (situatedness) and the assumptions about the world that are built into the structure of the organism.” Summarizing, this says that the physical body imposes inescapable structure and content upon the mind. Mental symmetry agrees that the mind acquires its initial content from living in the physical body, leading to a mindset that Paul refers to as the flesh. However, the basic premise of Christianity is that it is possible to transform the flesh by constructing and submitting to the TMN of an integrated concept of God. If one follows the path of personal transformation long enough, then Teacher understanding will start to reshape gut-level responses, leading to the opposite of embodied cognition.

This discussion is central to the concept of bodily resurrection because a Teacher concept of God can only transform mental networks if it rules over these mental networks. This means that a concept of God can only transform the physical body if this concept of God rules over the mental networks that were acquired from the physical body. This is related to the previous section, which talked about humans extending the rule of God and Incarnation by following God as human beings within physical reality. One can recognize mentally that one is truly following God at this level of embodiment because one’s gut-level responses will change. This is not something that can be faked. For instance, I just described my gut-level response to tattoos. (I actually wrote that example before understanding the implications of Paul’s reference to a fool in verse 36.) It affects me at a gut level when I see people treating their physical bodies in a manner that violates the path of personal transformation. I lived in Seoul, Korea for seven years and would see a tattoo about once a month. (I have heard that they are now more common in Korea.) When I returned to Canada in 2009, it felt like a kick in the gut whenever I saw a tattoo, and even now I have to turn my eyes away when faced with a large tattoo.

I am not suggesting that one should openly express one’s gut level reactions to others or allow them to dictate social behavior. But everyone has these feelings, they reinforce basic character, and they are a useful indication of how one really feels. Those who are going along with the crowd as described in verse 33 may think that they are immune to such base reactions, but that is simply because gut-level responses line up with the behavior of the majority. Any gut-level rejection of the outsider will be affirmed by the crowd as morally appropriate ‘righteous indignation’. In contrast, the individual who truly walks apart from society will find himself occasionally being repulsed by the crowd at this gut level. And he will have to learn how to acknowledge these feelings without being overwhelmed by them.

Looking at this more cognitively, my personal experience is that if one searches for the big picture when studying principles of moral cause-and-effect, then Paul’s concepts about resurrection bodies will naturally emerge within the mind. Using cognitive language, cognitive principles will turn into mental networks, and these mental networks will be viewed in personal terms, leading to concepts of how human life could exist. For instance, these essays have talked repeatedly about the three stages of personal transformation: 1) Construct a rational concept of God in Teacher thought. 2) Follow God in righteousness. 3) Allow MMNs of personal identity to become reborn within this internal grid of rational understanding. I have talked so much about this path, seen it illustrated in so many areas of thought, experience, and scripture, and have embodied this path for so long that it now guides me at a gut level. Thus, it seems natural for me to believe that this path will also apply to my physical body. Asking technical questions about the process and source when talking about resurrection from the dead indicates that one has not gut-level internalized this path. Notice that these technical questions are being verbalized, showing that they are still being analyzed at the level of abstract Teacher theory.

It is difficult to reach this level in current society within the environment of matter-over-mind. For instance, one local chaplain told me that she was surprised at how many Christians with a supposedly solid faith struggled with their faith when facing physical death. In contrast, 1 Corinthians 15 is describing a future society which has learned through experience and practice what it means to apply principles of physical restoration. Thus, it would be reasonable for Paul to expect a gut-level grasp of physical resurrection from this audience. Summarizing, I suggest that Paul’s response is justified within the context of a society that understands the message of rebirth, because a person who asks abstract technical questions about resurrection bodies is showing that he has not internalized the message of rebirth.

I am not suggesting that physical resurrection is all in the mind. Instead, I am pointing out the cognitive principle that the TMN of a concept of God can only transform MMNs of personal identity to the extent that it rules over those MMNs of personal identity. In other words, the extent of salvation that I experience will be determined by the extent of my concept of God. This cognitive principle would remain true within mind-over-matter and would actually become inescapable, because physical transformation would have to start with mental transformation.

Verse 36 describes a version of the three stages of personal transformation viewed from a Mercy perspective. “That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies.” The first step is sowing, which means to ‘sow, spread, scatter’. This seed then dies, which means ‘to die off away from’. This is followed by making alive, which combines ‘do or make’ with ‘alive’. In other words, one sows the seeds of intellectual food into the ground of rational thought. This seed then leaves the realm of concrete human experiences where it develops invisibly. Eventually, it returns in living form to the human realm of concrete experiences, where it is made alive by adding human action to resurrected life. One could interpret this cognitively the three stages of personal transformation. But one can also interpret it cosmically as sowing to the spirit, growing within the realm of the supernatural and then returning finally to the physical. Paul refers to this in Galatians 6 where he talks about sowing to the spirit and then eventually reaping eternal life. Notice that this cosmic interpretation redefines death as moving through the spiritual to the supernatural. That is what happens when the enemy of death is overcome. Physical death becomes viewed as leaving the physical in order to live within the spiritual/angelic realm of heaven. And this is not the end because heaven will eventually descend down to earth as pictured by the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21.

Verse 37 explores this topic further using the analogy of physical sowing and reaping: “and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.” What is sown is not the ‘body that will come into being’. Instead, what is sown is the bare kernel, grain, seed. Looking at this literally, a seed eventually grows into a full plant. Looking at this cognitively, one starts with the seed of some fragment of intellectual thought and this eventually grows into a reborn identity for Mercy thought. These two interpretations are related because a physical seed is actually a packet of DNA, which is a physical fragment of intellectual thought. Paul specifically refers to wheat which is ‘a generic term for any edible grain – typically wheat’. Symbolically speaking, wheat represents intellectual food.

This is where the process of physical resurrection diverges from the growth of a physical plant. Each kind of physical plant will produce its kind of seed which will then reproduce that same kind of plant. Verse 38 says that “God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own”. Body or ‘soma’ is mentioned twice in this verse. Just as means ‘corresponding to fully’ God’s wishes are expressed as general laws. Thus, if God is giving a body ‘corresponding to fully’ his ‘wishes’, then this means that all resurrection bodies will be consistent with the pattern of God’s general character in Teacher thought. Going further, the second phrase says that each individual unit of seeds will receive a body ‘peculiar to the individual’. Thus, the seed will develop into a body that reflects that seed, just as a seed of wheat will develop into a plant of wheat, and so on. This may sound deterministic, but one can still choose what kind of seed one will sow. As verse 37 says, ‘it may be of wheat or of some of the rest’. And it may be ‘literally means “hit the mark” and therefore opposite to “to miss the mark”)’. Paul just warned in verse 34 about sinning, or ‘missing the mark’. Verse 37 says that one ‘hits the mark’ by sowing the right kind of seed.

This relates to the idea that free will exists, but the real free will usually happens before the incident where one thinks that one is actually exercising free will. In other words, the choice that I make in a crisis will be largely determined by all the little choices that I made beforehand. I may think that making some choice in a crisis is an expression of free will. But this is seldom the case. Instead, most of my free will is happening in the small choices that will mentally bias me to respond in a certain manner when a crisis happens. Similarly, the kind of resurrection body that I receive will be determined by the kind of seed that I initially sowed to the spiritual realm.

Looking at this process cognitively, there is nothing flawed with the mind—if all seven cognitive modules function together in harmony. However, reaching such mental wholeness is a two-step process. First, one must make sure that the mind starts functioning. Second, once the mind is functioning, then it needs to be re-programmed so that it functions in a whole manner. Human minds are born within physical bodies in a physical environment that is optimized for getting the mind to start working. The current physical bodies and physical environment are not optimal for living in a mentally whole manner. But if humans came to life in bodies within an environment designed for mental wholeness, then it would be very difficult for human minds to start working. Therefore, God has designed the current physical bodies and the current physical world to ensure that human minds will start functioning—by imposing core mental networks upon the mind, but this also ensures that human minds will function in an inadequate manner—built upon core mental networks of the flesh that have been imposed upon the mind through embodied cognition. These training bodies and this training environment have also been designed to be temporary, in order to force humans to reprogram the mind upon a more solid foundation. Using the language of Paul, everyone comes to life with the ‘flesh’ of some temporary body, and that temporary body will eventually fall apart and be replaced by a more permanent body. The permanent body will not necessarily be an exact replica of the temporary body. Instead, the permanent body will be an expression of the seed that was sown while living in a temporary body.

Different Kinds of Temporary Bodies 15:38-41

The next few verses describe various kinds of temporary bodies. Looking at this cognitively, God is a universal Being who demands wholeness. But finite creatures all come into existence emphasizing some fragment of mental wholeness. Therefore, God has ensured that every aspect of divine wholeness is represented by some group of finite individuals who are forced by their bodies, their environment, and their culture to focus upon some specific aspect of the nature of God. Saying this more personally, whenever I discover some new aspect of theology or mental wholeness, I keep finding that some group is already ‘camped out’ around this principle, usually attempting to follow it in some incomplete manner. This forces me to analyze the thinking and behavior of groups with which I would not normally associate, because these groups contain some aspect of eternal truth. This same principle seems to apply to existence itself. For instance, God has given humans physical bodies in order to ensure that they develop what we call concrete thought.

So far, Paul has been referring to bodies using the word soma and Paul uses this word nine times in verses 35-44. But verse 39 uses the word flesh four times, which means ‘flesh, body, human nature’. Paul uses this same word in Romans 7-8 to describe the flesh versus the spirit. ‘Flesh’ refers to the mental content that the human mind receives through embodied cognition. This word flesh is used once more in 1 Corinthians 15 in verse 50, where Paul says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Thus, verse 39 is describing four fundamental ways in which living in the physical body can develop the mind: “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one [flesh] of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.” (The NASB adds ‘flesh’ to men, but this is not in the original Greek.)

Looking at this symbolically, water represents Mercy experiences, air represents Teacher words, and earth represents rational thought. (This symbolism is cognitively natural and is discussed in the essay on Revelation. It appears that the entire Bible uses cognitively natural symbolism in a consistent manner.) A fish lives in the water. Thus a flesh of fish is a mindset that swims within the MMNs of culture and experience. In contrast, birds fly through the air. A flesh of birds is a mindset that is at home within the TMNs of verbal theory. A creature of culture who is placed in an academic environment will feel like ‘a fish out of water’, because the environment emphasizes the wrong kind of core mental networks. The word beast means beast of burden and not wild beast. Both beasts and men live on the earth of rational thought. However, a beast of burden is not self-motivated, but rather responds to instructions. This describes the typical professional or skilled worker, who performs skills in a rational manner in response to the needs and instructions of others. The word for man is the generic word for mankind that includes both men and women. I am not sure what is exactly required to qualify cognitively as a ‘man’, but I think that it would include self-awareness as well as some personal transformation. A beast walks on all fours while a man stands upright, implying that a man is guided by the ‘air’ of Teacher understanding in a way that a beast is not. It is interesting that the original Greek does not refer to the ‘flesh of mankind’. This implies that being a ‘man’ means transcending to some extent the initial programming of the flesh. This can happen when children are made to go through a system of education before being allowed to participate in society as adults. I suspect that a society can only function as a mature democracy if it contains enough ‘men’. Western society is showing us what happens to a democracy when men disappear and are replaced by beasts, fish, and birds.

The first distinction applied to flesh—humans living within physical bodies in a physical world. The second distinction compares human life with angelic life: “There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the [glory] of the earthly is another” (15:40). Notice that verse 40 stops talking about ‘flesh’ and returns to ‘bodies’. This indicates that Paul is now talking about permanent bodies rather than temporary bodies. Consistent with this, verses 40-41 use the word glory five times, and this is the first time that ‘glory’ appears in chapter 15. ‘Glory’ describes inner character being expressed externally in some manner. (The meaning of ‘glory’ is discussed in another essay.) Verse 43 will say that glory is an aspect of the resurrection body.

Looking more closely at verse 40, Paul talks about soma that fit heaven as well as soma that fit earth. He then uses the adjective ‘another of a different kind’ twice to compare these two. Thus, Paul says that there are two different kinds of bodies; one fits within the natural realm while the other fits within the supernatural realm. This distinction is true now and presumably would remain true with resurrected bodies. Paul does not refer here to the spiritual realm. A spiritual body will be mentioned later in verse 44. This is consistent with my suggestion that the natural and the supernatural realms both have their own structure and content, while the spiritual realm acquires its content from the natural and supernatural. It appears that these two bodies are not totally equivalent because verse 40 talks about heavenly glory while not using the word glory when mentioning the word earthly. This implies that an earthly resurrection body will be a perfected version of one’s original human body, while a heavenly body will be enhanced in some way. Looking at this cognitively, having a body of glory would require internal structure, because some form of personal character must exist internally which is capable of being glorified.

Verse 41 expands upon the concept of glory: “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.” Cognitively speaking, a sun represents the TMN of a general rational theory that shines upon the entire earth of rational thought, a moon represents the general MMN of a worldview that indirectly reflects the light of the sun, while stars represent lesser luminaries of society that act as defining mental networks. Notice that these three all refer to the realm of mental networks. Similarly, my hypothesis is that spiritual beings have ‘bodies’ that are able to express mental networks. Thus, verse 41 appears to be describing various ways in which the spiritual realm could enhance a resurrection body through the mechanism of glory. Daniel 12:2-3 describes people receiving resurrection bodies that are glorified in accordance with internal character: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.”

Looking at the very big picture, God initially created beings with extensive power and glory. But these beings did not all develop the internal character that was required to handle this power and glory. One can see this in the description of the fall of Satan in Ezekiel 28. Verse 24 said that all of the existing primordial and angelic beings will eventually be rendered ineffective, adding that they will then have to function within the structure of Incarnation and God the Father. And what kind of structure will that be? It will be one in which mind rules over matter. As far as physical bodies are concerned, glory will be the fundamental principle; the body in which one lives will be an external expression of the mind that one has developed. For existing angelic and primordial powers the fundamental question will be ‘Have I developed an internal character that is capable of sustaining the ‘body’ with which I was originally created? Am I truly qualified to carry out my function?’ In a similar manner, humans would be given new bodies that glorify the internal character that they have developed. Thus, all created beings would end up on an equal footing.

This suggests a possible meaning for Paul’s statement back in 6:3 that humans will eventually judge angels. The goal of chapter 6 was for Christians to start using internal character to judge physical situations. If one follows this process all the way to chapter 15, one ends up with a new system of existence based on glory. This new system of existence will be like the existing system, because there will still be natural bodies suited to the natural universe, supernatural bodies suited to the supernatural realm, and bodies with spiritually enhanced powers. That is because these bodies and realms were initially created to be consistent with the structure of the mind, and they will be resurrected in a manner that is an expression of the way that people have developed their mental structure. The primary difference is that the existing system can be described as matter-over-mind, while the the new system will be characterized by mind-over-matter. Saying this as simply as possible, when Christ is resurrected, then all existing ‘employee’s of creation will be fired and then rehired based on internal character.

I should add that I am not sure how these various realms precisely function, and I have not had any sensory experience of either the angelic or spiritual realms (other than feeling the occasional tingling). However, if one combines a knowledge of how the mind functions with biblical descriptions, popular anecdotes, and personal experiences, then it is possible to make some general statements with reasonable certainty. All the evidence seems to point in the direction of what I have mentioned here and I have not encountered any better theory for the evidence that is out there. My general hypothesis is that humans, angels, and spiritual beings all have the same kinds of immaterial minds, but are driven by their respective bodies to develop different aspects of mental wholeness. Humans are forced by their physical bodies to develop what we call concrete thought, angels are forced by their bodies to develop what we call abstract thought, and spiritual beings are forced by their bodies to develop what we call mental networks. If humans, angels, and spiritual beings all have similar minds, then it makes sense that God would ultimately judge all of these beings by the same standard of how they have developed their minds.

The Resurrection Body 15:42-49

Paul now turns explicitly to the nature of the resurrection body, and one finds here a combination of natural, supernatural, and spiritual: “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable [body], it is raised an imperishable [body]; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power” (15:42,43). The word ‘body’ is not explicitly mentioned in verses 43-44. And in actually means ‘in the realm of’. Thus, one should not view these contrasts primarily as descriptions of some resurrection body that will be received at some far-distant time, but rather as the shifts in mindset which need to be taken now while one is sowing the seed for one’s future resurrection body. Using an analogy, if someone promises to give me an airplane in the future, then my primary response should not be fantasizing about having an airplane, but rather taking flight lessons so that I will be able to fly the airplane when I receive it.

The first contrast is between perishable and imperishable. Perishable means ‘destruction from internal corruption’, while imperishable means ‘no-corruption (unable to experience deterioration)’. Being unable to experience deterioration may sound wonderful, but it is also a threat, as illustrated by the growing scourge of plastic. One article on this problem concludes with the sentence “We are producing far too much plastic believing it is disposable. It’s not, it’s indestructible.” On the one hand, we live in a consumer society which assumes that people will be driven by internal corruption to destroy, a society of death in which people assume that they can get rid of problems (or people) by throwing them away. But we are now finding that throwing away plastic does not get rid of it because it is virtually indestructible. We make 300 million tons of plastic every year. Only 10% is this is recycled and about seven million tons of plastic waste goes into the ocean every year, where it breaks down into smaller particles but does not actually decompose. The problem is even worse when throwing something away in space, because every fragment continues to move at high-speed, turning into a potential bullet that can destroy satellites. A fragment that is in a high earth orbit may take decades—or even centuries—to fall back to earth. Dealing with problems such as these illustrates what it means to sow in the realm of corruption while being raised in the realm of incorruption.

Applying this to the topic of the rapture, the average evangelical Christian also follows a mindset of corruption, believing that God will respond to the internal corruption of post-Christian society by raining destruction upon earth during the Great Tribulation. (One can see this mindset in distilled form in The Great Controversy by Ellen White.) In contrast, these essays are trying to decipher what it means to be saved from problems that will not automatically go away. Quoting a familiar saying, it is much easier to curse the darkness than light a candle.

The second contrast is between dishonor and glory. Dishonor means ‘perceived as without recognized value, worth’. And we have seen that glory is an external expression of internal character. Dishonor implies that something has internal value but this is not being recognized by others. When some new product or concept is developed today, this is typically followed by some sort of marketing campaign. The underlying assumption is that marketing is required because the average person is incapable of recognizing value. Unfortunately, if the average person does not know how to determine value, then one can use marketing to pretend that something has value. In contrast, glory would mean that anything which has value would appear valuable, while anything that lacked value would also appear cheap. It is difficult to follow a mindset of glory while living in a society of dishonor.

For instance, if mental symmetry is such a great theory then why not market this theory? I have tried several times, and have only experienced a little temporary success. I have gradually realized that mental symmetry is incompatible with the very concept of marketing. Instead, what ultimately drives me now is the concept of glory. Daniel 12:3 says that “Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever”. If I allow mental symmetry to transform me, then eventually I will shine with glory. This may sound melodramatic, but it already happens to some extent when I play the violin. The character that I have developed inside at such great cost shines forth a little bit in my playing. I know what that feels like. It is glorious.

The third contrast is between weakness and power. Weakness means ‘without strength’ and ‘focuses on the handicaps that go with the weakness’. This noun is found 24 times in the New Testament and the corresponding adjective occurs 26 times. In contrast, neither strong nor strength (weak and weakness without the prefix ‘not’) are found in the New Testament. Power means ‘ability to perform’ and refers both to natural and supernatural power. One fundamental assumption today that humans are weak and frail. For instance, if a human wants to travel from one continent to another, then he needs to be encased within the protective bubble of an airplane that will shield him from the elements, keep him from freezing, and provide him with enough oxygen to breathe. Similarly, medical coverage provides a safety net for the physical body when it succumbs to disease or injury, while old-age pension cares for the frail, aging body as it gradually ceases to function. But the worker who is using a large machine has to deal the opposite problem, which is learning how to handle power responsibly. Many do not even think that this is possible, as shown by the saying ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. I have thought intensely over the years about how one would apply mental symmetry without being interally corrupted by all that knowledge. Could I handle being given power by God, or would that power destroy me? Meanwhile, I live in a physical body that has to deal with frailties such as ongoing tendinitis.

We have examined what it means to mentally bridge these three contrasts. Let us now look at them from a cognitive perspective and try to understand why these three contrasts would exist. First, a temporary body needs to be vulnerable to ensure that learning will occur. When all of a person’s physical needs are met, then there is no need for a person to learn and become mature. This principle is illustrated by the rich child who can use money to buy his way out of personal problems.

The second contrast is that a temporary body lacks value, while a resurrection body has value and intrinsic worth. Value implies the presence of significant resources, time, effort, skill. Current physical bodies are often considered worthless because they breed themselves. For most of human history, human beings have been considered replaceable, throwaway commodities that can be replaced through breeding. A temporary body has to mature automatically, because a childish mind lacks the skill and knowledge that is required to develop a mature body.

To some extent, this concept of viewing humans as replaceable commodities has changed, because it now takes considerable time, money, and training to turn an ignorant child into a trained professional. For instance, it costs about $150,000 to train a person to become a commercial pilot, and the average Canadian medical student graduates with over $150,000 in debt. Similarly, while a temporary body matures automatically, it appears that a mature resurrection body requires a significant investment of time, effort, skill—and personal transformation. This concept is conveyed in the passage that was quoted earlier about sowing to the spirit in order to reap eternal life: “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary” (Gal. 6:6-9). Two complementary principles are being emphasized in this passage. On the one hand, salvation is not a matter of self-effort, because one sows to something else, reaches the end of one’s rope, and then reaps from that something else. Paul made this clear when saying in verse 36 that “that which you sow does not come to life unless it dies”. Thus, salvation is a path of rebirth rather than one of gradual improvement. But on the other hand, there is a relationship between sowing and reaping because “he whose sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully” (2 Corinthians 9:6).

The third distinction is that a temporary body is frail and weak while a resurrection body has power. One can see what this means by comparing a construction worker wielding a shovel with the operator of a mechanical digger. The manual laborer equipped with a shovel can only move a limited amount of dirt before becoming physically exhausted, while the operator of a machine can control vast amounts of power with his fingertips. A temporary body needs to be weak because immature minds should not have access to vast amounts of power. One can demonstrate this principle by seeing what happens when a small child is allowed to operate a powerful mechanical machine. The inevitable result will be chaos and destruction. Similarly, the popularity of action movies with their vivid displays of unending destruction demonstrate that most physical adults are still motivated by childish MMNs that would naturally wreak destruction if given untrammeled access to power.

Notice that the three traits of vulnerability, automatic development, and weakness are all essential requirements for a temporary body. A childish mind requires a vulnerable body to force learning to occur. The body of a childish mind must develop automatically because the child lacks the mental content required to construct a body. And a temporary body should be weak, because the childish mind lacks the knowledge and skills that are required to channel power in constructive ways.

Verse 44 returns explicitly to the topic of a body: “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual [body]” The word natural is actually ‘soulish’. This words appears six times in the New Testament with three of these times in verses 44-46. Spiritual means ‘relating to the realm of spirit’. We have been interpreting the soul as the integrated mind, the internal fabric that results when normal thought ties together the various mental networks and technical specializations. Verse 37 said that what one sows is not the final body but rather some bare grain. The verb ‘sow’ is used 53 times, and this is the only mention of ‘sowing a body’. ‘Sowing a soulish body’ means creating an internal home for personal identity. It means pursuing mental wholeness in order to experience the benefits of living within a mind that is whole. I started doing this decades ago when I realized that my mind was composed of seven interacting cognitive modules. It then became my goal to get all seven modules to work together in harmony. Verse 44 compares this with a spiritual body. Instead of thinking of what is internal, one starts thinking in terms of what is spiritual. Paul points out that these two ways of thinking are related: “If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual”. Using cognitive language, if the spiritual realm empowers mental networks and if the mind is driven by mental networks, then constructing an internal soulish body will naturally have a spiritual result. Using an analogy, if I learn to fly an airplane on a computer simulator and then step into a real airplane which empowers my simulator controls, then I will be flying a real airplane.

Psychology (which means study of the soul) and spirituality are often viewed as different disciplines today. One either uses psychology to develop the mind or one pursues spirituality. But if the spiritual realm empowers mental networks, then the spiritual will naturally flow from the psychological. One follows psychology not as an alternative to spirituality, but rather so that one can open up to the spiritual realm in a manner that is psychologically healthy.

When one moves beyond the psychological (or cognitive) to the spiritual, then one’s focus will change. Psychology tends to view emotions and obsessions as obstacles to be overcome: ‘How can I gain control over my feelings?’ In contrast, a spiritual mindset recognizes that emotions and obsessions will eventually become spiritually empowered. Thus, the primary question becomes ‘How can I become emotionally driven by obsessions that are compatible with mental wholeness?’

Verse 45 builds upon this concept: “So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’ The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit.” So also means ‘in this way’, which tells us that verse 45 is describing something that functions like verse 44. ‘As it is written’ suggests that this similar pattern operated in the past within an environment of absolute truth with its holy books. Adam is mentioned seven times in the New Testament, three of these times in chapter 15, and this name means ‘mankind’. This is strange because the first phrase combines Adam with anthropos, which also means human. Thus, the first phrase is literally ‘became the first human human to a living soul’. That double ‘human’ is not a typo, and the original Greek contains a preposition which means ‘to or into’. ‘’ The obvious interpretation is that Paul is referring to the creation of Adam, and this phrase does match the unusual language of Genesis 2:7. A literal rendition of the Hebrew would be: ‘and the human became to a living soul’. Looking at this cognitively, the purpose of humanity is to head in the direction of becoming a human soul that has natural/spiritual life. Saying this another way, the purpose of living in a temporary body is to develop the mind: 1) the soul refers to the integrated mind; 2) life implies being internally motivated by mental networks; and 3) verse 39 describes human as a form of thought that is different than bird, fish, or domestic animal. Mental symmetry also pursues these three attributes, aiming to get all seven cognitive modules alive and functioning in an integrated manner that expresses what it means to be fully human.

This is contrasted with “the last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit”. ‘Became’ is not in the original Greek but ‘to or into’ is. The reference to Adam implies that people are still functioning within temporary bodies. But ‘the last Adam’ suggests that something is happening which will make it possible to move beyond the system of temporary bodies. First, the focus has changed from soul to spiritual. Instead of becoming mentally integrated, the goal is to access the spiritual realm. Second, instead of acquiring mental life, the emphasis is upon life-giving. This word was seen in verses 22 and 36, and it combines ‘make’ with ‘alive’. Verse 22 said that ‘in Christ’ all will be made alive, while verse 36 said that dying off must precede being made alive. This tells us the context for the last Adam. First, there needs to be a concept of Christ, which means viewing incarnation as an abstract expression of Teacher understanding. For instance, last night I watched a lecture given by NT Wright, who has done considerable research exploring the societal and religious setting in which the historical Jesus functioned. This is important but it is not a concept of Christ. A concept of Christ makes it possible to go beyond life to life-giving. That is because abstract technical thought that is guided by a general Teacher theory can come up with radically new ways of solving problems. Something similar happens whenever society turns to science for some solution. Second, there needs to be a pervasive sense of dying off. People need to feel that civilization is coming to an end. If the visible, moral, political, and social environments are all coming to an end, then one will be forced to look to the spiritual for a solution.

There may also be a reason why Paul refers to Adam rather than to mankind. Adam implies that some individual person is representing mankind. If the goal to develop an integrated mind, then this ultimately becomes an individual quest. It is not enough for many incomplete minds to interact with each other. Instead, some individual mind, some representative Adam, needs to have an integrated mind. One can see this illustrated by the historical Jesus. Jesus was a last Adam who lived as a human being within a temporary body in order to open the door to a new kingdom of God. The law and order of the Roman empire introduced the average person to a concept of abstract technical thought that had not existed before. And this was accompanied by a feeling that existing religious and social structures were coming to an end.

The ‘so also’ at the beginning of verse 45 tells us that this first-last Adam progression is like the transition from soulish body to spiritual. This similarity is significant for these essays because I believe that I comprehend the transition from first to last Adam, but I have no personal experience of making the transition from soulish body to spiritual. Instead, I am using my experience regarding the transition from first to last Adam to try to decipher what 1 Corinthians and other books are saying about the transition from soul to spirit. The ‘so also’ in verse 45 indicates that this is a valid comparison.

Moving finally to verse 46, Paul describes the sequence from psychological to spiritual as a general principle. “However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.” The word natural is actually ‘soulish’ (literally psychical). I have mentioned several times that the spiritual realm empowers mental networks. This means that one must first develop mental networks before opening up to the spiritual realm. Using the words of Paul, one must first focus upon the psychological task of constructing an integrated soul before attempting to access spiritual power. In contrast, all major aspects of modern society are currently heading in the direction of spirituality without content. The average young person wants spirituality and not organized religion. Many Christians are rediscovering mysticism. People want spiritual experiences and not theology. Similarly, the cognitive science of religion is willing to analyze spiritual experiences but not theology. All of this violates verse 46, which says that the spiritual was not first, but rather the psychological (or cognitive) comes first and then the spiritual.

In contrast, my initial focus was upon developing mental symmetry as a theory of cognition combined with following the path of personal transformation in order to develop my soul. The spiritual then emerged gradually as a byproduct of this cognitive focus. This started when I gave the subconscious parts of my mind the right to exist and function. For instance, I decided that I would not be a typical Perceiver person who suppressed Exhorter enthusiasm. I then began having internal conversations as well as internal social interaction with what appeared to be spiritual beings. I still do not know if this internal interaction is merely cognitive interaction with mental networks or if these mental networks are being enhanced by the spiritual realm. However, I am getting increasingly suspicious that the spiritual realm is involved. The point is that the cognitive comes first, and the spiritual will emerge naturally from the cognitive. And when one starts with the cognitive, then one can analyze all sorts of strange topics, such as future civilizations, without going mentally unhinged. I sometimes tell others that I know that I am mentally sound because my imaginary friends tell me that I am. On the surface, this is a joke, but there is deep truth within the joke, which is that starting with the cognitive and then adding the spiritual will lead to imaginary friends that reinforce sanity rather than attack it. Besides, the Christian concept of ‘asking Jesus into your heart’ actually describes a cognitively natural, imaginary friend. This idea of Jesus as an imaginary friend is discussed in other essays.

Verses 47-49 introduce a new word which is only found in the New Testament in these three verses. That is the word earthy, which means ‘made of dust’ and is derived from a verb which means ‘to pour’. A Hebrew word which also means dust is used in Genesis 2:7 to describe the creation of Adam, and in Genesis 3:19 to describe the nature of Adam. Looking at this symbolically, dust is a solid, but it can be poured like a liquid. A solid represents Perceiver facts while liquids represent Mercy experiences. Dust implies nuggets of Perceiver facts acquired within a flow of Mercy experiences. There are many isolated facts and they are not held together but rather flow like a liquid.

Verse 47 compares the source of the first human with the second human: “The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.” From is more accurately ‘from out of’. This the first time that the word earth is used in 1 Corinthians 15 and it means ‘the physical earth; the arena we live in which operates in space and time’. Looking at this cognitively, the first human lives within the physical universe of space and time, and this programs the mind with many fragmented Perceiver facts. This is an accurate description. In contrast, the second human comes out of heaven. Looking at this literally, Jesus as the second human was the ‘word made flesh’ who descended out of heaven to live as a human within space and time.

But one can also interpret this cognitively, because heaven is a realm that is guided by Teacher thought. Thus, the second human also refers to someone who starts with a general theory in Teacher thought. Looking at this personally, I grew up like the typical human with a mind of dust, and I can vaguely remember what it felt like to live within a collection of fragmented Perceiver facts. I first encountered mental symmetry when I graduated from high school and I spent several years in my twenties working with my brother Lane to develop an integrated Teacher understanding of human thought. This Teacher understanding turned into a TMN which swallowed up all of my mind. During this time, I also experienced several crises in which I chose to follow rational understanding rather than submit to the demands of culture. I then started following a process of personal transformation guided by the TMN of mental symmetry. Using the language of verse 47, I had turned from a first human of dust into a second human of the heaven of Teacher thought. This is not a statement of pride but rather a description of my experience. I thought differently than people around me, and others often regarded me as living in a different world, because they could not comprehend what motivated me. And I really did come from a different world—the world of Teacher understanding. Every trained scientist makes a similar sort of transition, becoming guided by the paradigm of some scientific theory rather than the MMNs of common sense and culture. As Thomas Kuhn points out, the average person on the street does not know what it means to be driven mentally by the TMN of a paradigm. But a scientist can find fellowship in academia. I had essentially no fellowship, because I was extending the scientific path of being guided by a Teacher paradigm to the subjective, which science refuses to do. Thus, for years I have felt as if I am an alien living on earth. I know what it feels like to be a second human out of heaven. Notice that the second human follows the first human. That is because a general Teacher theory is constructed out of the dust of specific Perceiver facts, similar to the way that a building is constructed out of individual bricks. And second human is not the same as last human. Making a mental transition from Perceiver dust to Teacher heaven is significant, but it is not enough to bring the system of Adam to an end.

Verse 48 says that these two ways of thinking are self-perpetuating: “As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.” In both of these phrases, there is a transition from singular to plural. Thus, a more literal translation would be ‘as is the one who is of dust, so are the many who are of dust; and as is the one who is of heaven, so are the many who are of heaven’. This seems to say that one person will initiate something which will then be copied by many others. This definitely applies to the heavenly thinking of science, because the scientific revolution started with a few individuals developing paradigms in Teacher thought and then grew into a system of education that taught many students how to become motivated by the TMN of a scientific paradigm. Similarly, I have found that the theory of mental symmetry is capable of developing into a TMN within the minds of others, and that this TMN will motivate people to follow a path that is similar to what I am following. The cognitive principle is that there are two distinct kinds of mental networks. A mind of dust is emotionally driven by MMNs of experience, while a heavenly mind is emotionally driven by the TMN of a general theory. This is currently a mental and behavioral distinction that does not directly impact physical reality. Within future mind-over-matter, this distinction would presumably turn into two different streams of personal existence.

Verse 49 says that this distinction of thinking will eventually turn to a distinction of being: “Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.” The verbs borne and bear mean ‘to bear (or wear) as a habit’. And image is icon, which ‘refers to what is very close in resemblance’. In other words, being of dust is not just a theoretical difference. Instead, it leads to habitual behavior which is a direct expression of being of dust. Similarly, being of heaven will also lead to habitual behavior which directly expresses what it means to be of heaven. Looking at this cognitively, core mental networks will impose their structure upon the rest of the mind. At the most basic level, being driven by core MMNs of human experience will lead to one kind of habitual behavior, while being driven by core TMNs of theoretical understanding will lead to a totally different kind of habitual behavior. At the present, this distinction is primarily a cognitive one. Within future mind-over-matter, it would affect a person’s physical body.

Verse 49 describes this contrast as something which is in transition. Bearing the image of dust it described as something in the past, while bearing the image of the heavenly is described as something in the future. The rest of the chapter describes this transition.

Twinkling of an Eye 15:50-53

Verse 50 says that this transition will start as encountering a brick wall: “Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” Looking at this cognitively, ‘flesh’ describes a mind that is based in the physical Server actions of embodiment, while ‘blood’ refers to MMNs of personal identity. These two combine to form concrete thought within the human mind. Such a mind cannot live within a kingdom of God that is guided by TMNs of general understanding. This is not a matter of failing to meet some standard but rather an incompatibility that has to do with inheritance—being born into the wrong family of created beings.

The word say means to ‘bring to light by asserting one statement over another’. The last time this verb was used was back in 10:19, where Paul asked whether he was saying that idols exist. This implies that some light of Teacher comprehension is dawning, as if the proverbial light is going on above someone’s head. Paul is addressing his statement to brethren, which means that Paul is not saying that non-Christians cannot enter the kingdom of God. Instead, believers are encountering a lack of power. A person of flesh and blood lacks the power to inherit the kingdom of God. It is as if one is given an inheritance and one discovers that this inheritance is on Venus. But a human being cannot survive on Venus. (Venus has a surface temperature of 462 °C and a surface pressure of 92 atmospheres.)

The resurrected Jesus says in Luke 24:39 that he is not a spirit but rather has flesh and bones. And ‘flesh’ is the same word that is used here in verse 50. This may be significant. My hypothesis is that it was God’s original plan for science to be discovered in Alexandria before the coming of Jesus, but this did not happen. Jesus completed the task of living and suffering as a human, as well as dying for sins. Thus, Jesus was able to transcend the Mercy limitation of blood. But because science had not emerged, Jesus had to perform much of his ministry in symbolic form through parables. Thus, the Server transition of becoming free of flesh did not happen. This is basically another way of saying that Christianity knows about Jesus but has very little understanding of Christ. Science understands what it means for the word to be made flesh. Christianity does not. But Christianity does understand what it means to transcend childish MMNs of culture and identity. This limitation in the ministry of Jesus is discussed extensively in the essay on the Gospel of John. I should emphasize that any incompleteness involves humanity. From God’s perspective, what Jesus did was complete. And the Jesus that is portrayed in Revelation 1 does appear to transcend normal flesh.

The second phrase adds “nor does corruption inherit incorruption”. This goes beyond a matter of lacking power. These same two words were seen back in verse 42 where it said that the resurrection of the dead is sown in corruption but raised in incorruption. Corruption means ‘destruction from internal corruption’, while incorruption means ‘no-corruption (unable to experience deterioration)’. It seems that Paul is talking here about a fundamental incompatibility in the very nature of the personal body. So far, the spiritual and the supernatural have been used to modify, preserve, and restore the physical body. But people are still living in physical bodies that need to be preserved and restored, and which eventually die. Living within a temporary, human body will impose restrictions upon the mind that make it impossible for such a mind to live within a transformed kingdom of God.

For instance, I have tried for several decades to become the sort of person that is required to live in an imperishable kingdom of God, which means consistently following a path of long-term mental wholeness. I did this initially out of a sense of religious duty, and later motivated by the realization that one can only study the mind if one personally applies what one discovers. One can follow such a path reasonably well as long as one has a modicum of money and no major health problems. But as one’s body inevitably ages, the tension between living mentally for the long-term and living physically within a vulnerable, material body becomes increasingly apparent. Eventually, something has to give; something has to change.

Verse 51 says that God will intervene in a mysterious manner: “Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed.” On the one hand, not everyone die the sleep of death. On the other hand, everyone will be changed. Thus, some kind of transition involving the human body will happen that will affect everyone, including those who are living at that time.

Verse 52 adds some details: “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed”. The word moment is found once in the New Testament and means ‘not able to cut (divide) because too small to be measured’. The word twinkling is also used only once in the New Testament and means ‘any rapid movement’. The brain uses the eyes to scan the visual surroundings in order to build up a Perceiver map of Mercy experiences. In the blink of an eye implies that this change will happen so quickly that the mind will not be able to register what has happened. What is happening in verse 52 must be different than the coming of Lord described in 1 Thessalonians 4, because 1 Thessalonians 4 emphasizes the various steps and the order in which they happen, while verse 52 says that everything will happen in a moment.

Going further, 1 Thessalonians 4 refers to a trumpet of God, while verse 52 talks about the last trumpet. This word trumpet is found 11 times in the New Testament and all of these (except for 1 Corinthians 14:8) describe the supernatural realm invading the natural. Verse 52 is the only reference to the last trumpet. Thus, this describes some resurrection that is happening instantaneously at the very end of human history. My best guess is that this corresponds to the Great White Throne of Revelation 20. Verse 52 says that when this final trumpet sounds, then the dead will be raised incorruptible and people will be changed.

It is important to clarify exactly what is and is not being changed in this instant. First, this passage does not seem to be saying that creation itself is being changed. Instead, what is changing is physical bodies. Disembodied minds are being given incorruptible bodies while existing living people are finding their bodies changed.

Verse 53 indicates that minds also are not being changed. “For this corruptible must put on incorruptible, and this mortal must put on immortality.” The word put on means ‘to clothe or be clothed with (in the sense of sinking into a garment)’, and Paul uses this verb ‘put on’ four times in verses 53-54 to describe the change into imperishability and immortality. ‘Sinking into a garment’ means that the mind itself is not being transformed. Instead, what is being transformed is the container within which the mind lives. This explains why God would make the change in an instant. If the transition took any longer, then peoples’ minds would start to become scrambled. Therefore, God would have to make the change fast enough so that minds have no chance to register what is happening during this transition.

Looking at this more generally, people often think that ‘being physically changed in the twinkling of an eye’ means that one will be instantly perfect as soon as one reaches heaven. However, I suggest that this is cognitively impossible. A mind cannot exist without core mental networks. If a person’s core mental networks—or ruling loves—were to instantly change, then the result would be cognitive annihilation. It is possible for a person to handle some core mental networks falling apart if a person has an alternative set of mental networks that can take their place. In other words, it would be possible to survive the physical body being transformed if one had an alternative internal spiritual source of stability. This explains why God would carry out this cosmic paradigm shift at the very end after created beings have had extensive opportunity to develop internal content and become mentally disentangled from the ‘flesh’.

Verse 53 talks about two transitions happening. The first transition is from corruption to no-corruption. The second transition is from mortal to immortal. Mortal means ‘subject to dying’ while immortal means ‘without death’. This word ‘immortal’ is used three times in the New Testament, twice in verses 53-54 and in 1 Timothy 6:16, which says that the Lord Jesus Christ alone possesses immortality.

Notice that lack of feeling is not mentioned. It does not say that the new body will be incapable of feeling. Instead, it will be indestructible and unable to be killed. Presumably it will be capable of feeling both pleasure and pain. These are both essential if the body is to guide the mind in a way that is quick and effective. Using engineering language, effective control requires both positive and negative feedback. Revelation 21:4 appears at first glance to say otherwise: “And there will no longer be [any] death; there will no longer be [any] mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away. But if one looks at the Greek words, a different picture emerges. Mourning is the verb form of a noun that means to ‘grieve over a death’. Crying means ‘clamorous screaming (shrieking) that is extremely boisterous’. And pain means primarily ‘labor, toil’. This implies that there will be some pain but not hyper-pain. Pain is negative feedback from the body. Hyper-pain is a deeper form of pain that is felt when mental networks fall apart, or parts of the body are experiencing chronic problems. A body that is indestructible would no longer generate hyper-pain. But a body that did not generate any pain or pleasure would be like living in a robotic body. It would feel inhuman and respond to others in an inhuman manner.

We can gain some understand of this divine change by looking at how Teacher thought functions. Teacher thought changes the context by performing a paradigm shift. A paradigm shift occurs when a new theory in Teacher thought is used to explain the same set of facts. A paradigm shift could be compared to a regime change, in which the same people are being governed by a new government. Paradigm shifts occur instantly, but it takes time for the implications of a paradigm shift to work themselves out. Similarly, regimes change instantly, but it takes time for the implications of a new government to make itself apparent. Paul’s description of being changed in the twinkling of an eye appears to be describing God carrying out a cosmic paradigm shift, which would then trigger paradigms shifts within the minds of created beings.

A paradigm shift does not eliminate facts, but rather changes the relationship between facts, which is done by taking some specific fact and regarding it as general. One can see this in Einstein’s theory of relativity. Researchers before Einstein had discovered that light traveled at the same speed for everyone, regardless of their personal perspective. But this was regarded as a strange fact with no general significance. Einstein took this specific fact and turned it into a universal principle that guided all of existence. According to relativity, space and time literally warp in order to ensure that the speed of light appears the same for every person in every frame of reference. Teacher thought turns a fact into a universal principle by viewing everything in the light of this fact—by focusing upon this fact. Philippians 2 also describes a paradigm shift because God is taking the name of Jesus and turning it into a universal name that is above all other names. Thus, one can analyze a paradigm shift by looking at what is being brought to attention and what is fading from attention.

A paradigm shift of personal immortality is described in the passage on the Great White Throne in Revelation 20. On the one hand, earth and heaven flee away from the presence of the person sitting on the throne, telling us that physical reality is losing its generality. On the other hand, all living creatures, dead and alive, come into personal contact with the person on the throne, telling us that personal existence is gaining in generality, and Revelation 21 describes a new heaven and a new earth in which God dwells with people.

The positive side of such a reversal is that the human mind would no longer be vulnerable to physical harm. As Paul says, ‘the dead will be raised imperishable’, and as John says in Revelation 21:4, “there will no longer be any death”. The negative side of this can be seen by imagining what it would be like to live forever in the same indestructible apartment. One would have to keep the apartment clean and attractive and make sure that garbage did not pile up.

A divinely ordained paradigm shift would be no trivial matter, because it would be irreversible and all-pervasive. It is possible to use human effort to go against natural law for a while in some limited area. For instance, one can choose to go against the law of gravity by picking up an object, but this requires an expenditure of energy, and can only be done for a while, and the object must not be too heavy. If a divine paradigm shift occurred, then existence would naturally pull in a new direction consistent with the new set of universal laws, and it would take effort to go for a while in some small area against this new direction.

Overcoming Death 15:54-57

Verse 54 talks about this cosmic paradigm shift in the past tense: “But when this corruptible will have put on incorruptible, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.” Paul mentioned earlier in the chapter that death is the final enemy. Paul says that death used to have the victory but will be swallowed up in victory. This describes the result of a paradigm shift in Teacher thought, because death is being demoted from a position of prominence to an inferior position of being swallowed up, from most general to an aspect of something else that is more general.

Looking at this in more detail, swallowed up means ‘to drink down’. Come to pass means ‘to come into being’, and in means ‘to or into’. The word victory means ‘victory, particularly the results of a conquest’. It is only used four times in the New Testament, three of these times in verses 54-57. Liquid represents Mercy experiences. Therefore, this phrase is saying that death will become submerged in new Mercy experiences that lead to a state of victory. As people experience what it is like to live in an immortal body, the concept of death will be replaced by one of victory.

Verse 55 continues by asking, “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” Where means simply ‘where, in what place’. This implies that people will be revisiting all the places where death had its victory and discovering that it no longer has any power. Sting means ‘a sharp point’. The destruction of death typically starts with some sharp point. A mental network or physical body that is being killed will experience normal pain that increases until the structure that is generating the pain is torn apart and ceases to function. What scares many people is not death itself but rather the pain of dying. The implication is that pain itself will still exist but there will no longer be an escalation of pain into the sharp point that precedes destruction.

Verse 56 explains that ‘the sting of death is sin and the power of sin is the law’. Sin means ‘missing the mark’. This common word is only mentioned in 1 Corinthians in chapter 15 (in verses 3, 17, and 56). Verse 56 seems to be describing a learning process. The first step is revisiting places where one felt the sting of death. There is no opportunity to learn when one dies, because the physical body or mental network that would be doing the learning has been destroyed. But if one were to revisit the situation, one would experience the pain but not the sharp pain of death, making it possible to learn about the sin that led to the death. ‘So that is where I went wrong. Now I understand’. Going further, one realizes that sin acquires its power from the law; one sees that individual principles of cause-and-effect are based in universal Teacher laws. The death was originally experienced as an overwhelming Mercy experience. It is now being revisited as a violation of universal Teacher understanding. This type of learning through revisiting would only happen if the new body were capable of experiencing some pain. Otherwise revisiting a situation of death would lead to the conclusion that moral cause-and-effect do not exist. This may be a strange interpretation, but it does make cognitive sense because any form of dying would create traumatic emotions, the mind is naturally attracted to strong emotions, and mental attraction would rule supreme in a system of mind-over-matter.

Verse 57 describes people having this kind of realization: “But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The word thanks is actually ‘grace’. Thus, people are recognizing that God in Teacher thought is the source of goodness, which means that the focus has shifted from death in Mercy thought to God in Teacher thought. But this victory comes from God through submission to a complete concept of Incarnation, which means that people are recognizing that personal identity is governed by principles of cause-and-effect, and they are realizing that these principles are based in universal laws. And what kind of universal laws will be learned? Primarily, laws of personal cause-and-effect.

This kind of rethinking can be seen in the description of the Great White Throne: “And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds” (Rev. 20:12). Whenever a paradigm shift occurs, then there is a strong drive to reevaluate situations in the light of the new Teacher theory. For instance, Thomas Kuhn says that science textbooks will always be rewritten in the aftermath of a scientific paradigm shift. A book is an external picture of a rational theory in Teacher thought, because a book takes many words and arranges them in a structured manner in order to convey some general message. Books are being opened, implying that people are trying to come up with a rational explanation for what is happening. The final book that is opened is the book of life, telling us that people eventually turn to a rational general theory of personal existence—an understanding of mental networks, ruling loves, and cognitive principles. Going further, the dead are not being judged according to some external standard but rather by comparing what is written in books with peoples’ deeds. This describes a judgment of righteousness, because righteousness means acting in a way that is consistent with the TMN of a general understanding, and people are being judged by the correspondence between their deeds and what is written in the books.

However, the ultimate judgment goes beyond righteousness to one’s personal place within the general understanding of life: “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15). Righteousness describes how I act; a name describes me. Thus, we see again that what really matters is inheritance, which is based in who one is rather than what one has done.

The general theory of life remains the standard because “only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life” can enter the Holy City (Rev. 21:27). And this theory of life turns into the dominant stream of society because the new Jerusalem has “a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of the street” (Rev. 22:1,2). And life becomes the standard for maintaining the health of society: “On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations” (Rev. 22:2).

Returning to 1 Corinthians 15, verse 58 concludes, “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.” ‘Therefore’ tells us that verse 58 follows from verse 57. Paul uses the term ‘brethren’ five times in this chapter, but this is the only time that brethren is combined with beloved, which is a version of agape. Steadfast means to ‘sit (solidly-based, well-seated)’. And the Greek instructs to become steadfast. Given the context of receiving indestructible bodies, Paul is emphasizing the need to become mentally stable. One can see this illustrated by modern society. Most modern individuals can ignore physical vulnerabilities most of the time for many years. But this does not lead automatically to personal well-being. Instead, many people complain about stress and depression. The stress comes from a lack of internal stability, while the depression comes from an absence of Teacher understanding.

The second term immovable means ‘not moving away from’ and is only used once in the New Testament. But what would people want to move away from? The answer becomes apparent when one understands the nature of death. Death is the ultimate form of moving away from. Indestructible bodies would eliminate any physical need to move away from situations. But the mental urge would still remain. Hebrews 13:10 appears to be describing this kind of moving away from the physical body. People are attempting to follow God in some official manner that involves burning up life. It is unclear exactly what kind of life is being burned up because the generic word ‘living creature’ is used. But if one views life as something based in a mental network, then this implies that people are trying to follow God by getting rid of mental networks. Hebrews 13 explains that Jesus is not with these people but rather is with the life that is being burned up. Again one sees the general principle of people trying to practice death but not recognizing that Jesus is a savior who follows salvation and not the denial of death.

This active focus upon the salvation of incarnation can be seen in the rest of the verse. Abounding means to ‘go beyond the expected measure’. And work ‘is a deed that carries out an inner desire’. ‘Always abounding in the work of the lord’ would mean using technical thought to pursue some emotional goal. That is because technical thought translates some inner desire into a plan that can be implemented. Moving on to the next phrase, knowing means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’, toil means ‘laborious toil, involving weariness and fatigue’, and vain means ‘empty, void’. I suggest that Paul is addressing the question of how a person with an indestructible body would find personal meaning. This may seem like a silly question, but a significant portion of human activity is motivated by physical vulnerability. What would remain if this were eliminated? What remains is following some plan to the point of being weary, guided by the belief that if one follows the technical thinking of incarnation, then one will physically see that this does not lead to emptiness. This principle is always true, but it would become central if bodies became indestructible.

Collecting Logos 16:1-4

When I went through 1 Corinthians the first time, I did not see any patterns in chapter 16. I suspect that something is there, because the first four verses now make sense. Verse 1 begins, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.” The word collection is only used in verses 1-2 of 1 Corinthians 16. It is not found in secular authors and it is actually a derivative of logos. A ‘logos’ refers to the paradigm or TMN that drives some technical specialization. Gathering ‘logos’ would mean integrating various technical theories into some sort of coherent understanding. Chapter 15 has just concluded that people should use technical thought to pursue goals. This will lead to technical specializations driven by paradigms. Chapter 16 begins by instructing that these paradigms should be gathered together. This gathering together is for the saints, which refers to those who are focusing upon following God in Teacher thought. Direct means to ‘systematically order’. Thus, this gathering is being done in a structured manner that expresses abstract technical thought. Galatia probably means ‘white; the color of milk’. White is a color of purity, while milk comes from females. This may imply that Paul has set up a structured system involving female thought and that the other churches are supposed to follow this pattern. (This suggestion is consistent with 2 Corinthians 11.) Whatever Galatia represents, Paul is not setting up a universal bureaucracy, but rather setting up a systematic structure in one location and then telling other groups to follow the general pattern.

Verse 2 describes how the ‘logos’ should be gathered. “On the first day of every week each one of you is to put by himself and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.” The first stage is carried out by each individual once a week. Put means ‘to place, lay, set’, while save means ‘to lay up, store up’. What is supposed to be saved is as he may prosper, which combines ‘good’ with ‘a journey on a particular road’. Paul just talked about finding meaning by following a path to the point of weariness. If a person follows some path and finds that it leads to good results, then this path should be remembered and the resulting knowledge stored up. This is so that Paul will not have to collect the ‘logos’ when he comes around. The idea is that each person should regularly take time off to do their own research, this research will presumably be shared in the churches as described in Chapter 14, and then these various ideas will eventually be evaluated by some visiting authority. This portrays a sort of grassroots academia.

Verse 3 describes what happens when the visiting authority arrives. “When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem.” Approve means to ‘put to the test to reveal what is good (genuine)’. In normal academia, some central authority decides who is a genuine expert. Here, the local church is deciding who is the expert. Paul, who presumably represents the visiting authority, will then add a theoretical explanation in Teacher thought. The word ‘gift’ is actually ‘grace’. Thus, ‘your grace’ would refer to something that this group had received from God.

This gift from God is then sent to Jerusalem. Historically speaking, Paul was gathering up a donation for the Christians who lived in Jerusalem. But a deeper meaning emerges if one places this within the prophetic context. Revelation 21 talks about the New Jerusalem and verse 24 says that “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.” We have just examined a process by which the kings of the earth would bring their glory into Jerusalem. Thus, what appears to be a strange throwaway phrase in Revelation 21 may actually have some meaning, transforming a vague sense of ‘and they lived happily ever after’ into the framework of a functioning economy.

Verse 4 adds “and if it is fitting for me to go also, they will go with me.” The word fitting means ‘of weight, of worth, worthy’. And go means ‘to transport, moving something from one destination to another’. In other words, if this ‘collection of logos’ is significant, then it will be packaged by the visiting expert into something more general. Paul does not say that he will steal the idea, or that he will ignore the specific application. Instead, he says that the specific application will accompany the significant idea to Jerusalem, and that both the locally chosen representative and Paul will travel to Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, I do not know how to proceed further with the analysis. It is probably significant that Paul mentions Pentecost in verse 8 because 2 Corinthians 13 describes Paul appearing in a third form that sounds spiritually empowered.

Conclusion

When I started examining the book of 1 Corinthians, I did not think that the end result would be a 130 page essay. (And when I edited the essay, I did not think that it would become twice as long.) I hope that it has become apparent that Paul’s letter deserves far more respect than it is typically given today. Paul says that those who follow earthly wisdom will regard the wisdom of God as foolishness, and I think that most of what is being taught today in secular—and religious—circles qualifies as earthly wisdom.

More specifically, Paul says that one should not build upon important people or upon physical experiences. In contrast, secular science rejects anything that is not built upon the empirical evidence of physical experience, while theologians tend to reject anything that does not quote extensively from important religious experts.

However, the ultimate standard is not current physical reality or personal status, but rather transformation. If the message of rebirth really is an accurate message of rebirth, then it should be possible to become personally reborn and live within a reborn world by applying this message of rebirth.

But that will only happen if one pays the personal price that is necessary to extend a concept of incarnation in major ways. Extending incarnation does not mean rejecting science and technology, but rather extending the thinking of science and technology to the realm of the subjective. Extending incarnation also does not mean rejecting the Bible and theology, but rather translating the content of the Bible into the language of rational understanding.