Epistle of 1 Peter
Lorin Friesen, April 2019
About three years ago, I was reading through the book of Revelation and to my surprise it started to make sense as a single connected sequence of events. I then went through other major New Testament passages on prophecy and found that they also fit into the chronology that emerged from the book of Revelation. And I saw the same prophetic pattern present in other New Testament books which are not normally considered to be prophetic, including 1 John, the Gospel of John, Hebrews, and 2 Corinthians. (I have listed these books in the order that I wrote the essays, because each essay contains more details than the previous essay.) This essay will look at 1 Peter (and will eventually be followed by an essay on 2 Peter).
Matt. 16 The Keys of Peter
1:1 Peter’s Audience
Free Will Divine Sovereignty and Human Free Will
1:2-5 Seeding Intelligent Thought
1:6-9 Rejoicing in Testing
1:10-11 Absolute Truth
1:12 Sequence
1:13-16 Adding Action to Understanding
1:17-19 Partial Revealing of Incarnation
1:20-21 A Larger Perspective
1:22 Eliminating Exceptions
1:23-25 Born Again to Understanding
2:1-3 Transforming Social Interaction
2:4-5 Living Stones
2:6-8 A Corner Stone
2:9-10 A New Group
2:11-12 A Meta-culture
2:13-17 Living within Existing Society
Romans 13 Government (Romans 13:1-5)
2:18-20 Masters and Servants
2:21-25 The Example of Incarnation
3:1-4 Female Thought
3:5-6 Women in the Past
3:7-9 A Better Society
3:10-12 Seeking Wholeness
3:13-18 Motivated by Christ
3:19-22 Proclaiming to Spirits
4:1-2 Transcending Materialism
4:3 Desperate Authenticity
4:4-6 Beyond the Consumer Society
4:7-11 Practicing Righteous Wholeness
4:12-14 A Fiery Ordeal
4:15-19 Responding Correctly
5:1-5 Leading through Example
5:6-7 Submitting to Providence
5:8-11 A Roaring Lion
5:12-14 Partners of Perceiver Thought
Summary
The prophetic sequence that emerges from these books is as follows:
1) A time of great squeezing (the Greek word that is translated tribulation means squeezing or pressure) in which society becomes subdivided into many technical specializations.
2) The development of a rational understanding of the character of God that bridges these specializations.
3) A theoretical return of Jesus which empowers this rational Teacher understanding.
4) This empowerment leads to spiritual technology which adds a spiritual component to existing technology.
5) A period of time during which spiritual technology grows and spreads.
6) A societal rejection of the moral implications of spiritual technology which culminates in the kingdom of the beast and the antichrist.
7) The resulting persecution forces the followers of God to apply spiritual technology to all areas of physical existence in order to survive.
8) The kingdom the beast is eventually defeated and followed by a time of exploring the physical possibilities of expanded spiritual technology.
9) This leads to a cosmic watershed in which God replaces the current regime of matter-over-mind with a new cosmology of mind-over-matter.
10) A time of experimentation in which people explore what it means to be free of natural law.
11) A period of reckoning, known as the seven bowls of wrath, in which people experience the consequences of experimenting in an amoral manner. This leads to the destruction of the throne of the beast.
12) The fall of Babylon with its amorality and the birth of a new civilization.
13) The physical return of Jesus to earth, known as the second coming.
14) A millennium in which those who followed God but died before experiencing any personal benefits are resurrected in order to construct the framework for a new heaven and earth.
15) A new heaven and earth in which the new Jerusalem descends to earth.
I am reasonably certain about the first points of this sequence while less certain about the exact order and nature of the later points. What matters for analyzing the letters of Peter is that Jesus returns at two different times in two different ways. The first return (in 3)) is a theoretical return preceded by the development of a Teacher understanding accompanied by internal transformation. In contrast, the second return (in 13)) is a physical return preceded by spiritual development in Mercy thought that is accompanied by external transformation.
One can see the difference between these two in Paul’s two letters to the Thessalonians. 1 Thessalonians 4 talks about the theoretical return of Jesus and the book of 1 Thessalonians focuses upon gaining an understanding of the nature of God in order to become personally transformed. In contrast, 2 Thessalonians 2 describes the kingdom of the beast and looks forward to the physical return of Jesus. The focus of 2 Thessalonians is upon the kingdom of God and how one should behave. Thus, one can conclude that 1 Thessalonians happens before the theoretical return of Jesus while 2 Thessalonians happens after.
One can see a similar distinction in the two letters of Peter. 1 Peter talks about internal transformation and the development of a general Teacher understanding. One is instructed to submit to existing governments and wait for salvation from God. This tells us that 1 Peter, like 1 Thessalonians, applies to the time before the theoretical return of Jesus. In contrast, 2 Peter talks about living in the power of God and seeing the glory and majesty of God. One is instructed to apply this power in a moral manner and warned against applying this power in a hedonistic, amoral manner. 2 Peter finishes by saying that physical reality will not remain solid. In other words, the current regime of matter-over-mind will come to an end. This will be followed by a new heaven and earth. Concluding, one can see that 2 Peter, like 2 Thessalonians, applies to the time after the theoretical of return of Jesus.
I am not suggesting that these various books of the Bible apply only to these periods of time. That is because God appears to be guiding history by leading people and groups through a process of cognitive development. Thus, all of these passages describe universal cognitive principles that apply at all times, both to individuals as well as social groups. However, in the same way that a school curriculum teaches specific topics in a specific order, focusing upon one subject at a time, so one can view human history—and prophecy—as a divine curriculum, in which God is teaching specific topics in a specific order.
The Keys of Peter (Matt. 16:19-23)
1 Thessalonians describes the theoretical return of Jesus and 2 Thessalonians describes the kingdom of the beast. These are alluded to in 1 and 2 Peter but they are not explicitly mentioned. Instead, the epistles of Peter contain other spiritual references. I found this confusing until I remembered the keys of Peter. In Matthew 16:19, Jesus says to Peter that “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Wikipedia explains that “The keys of heaven or keys of Saint Peter are seen as a symbol of papal authority.” And these keys can be seen on the coat of arms of the Holy See.
However, I suggest that there is a cognitive explanation for Peter’s keys of heaven. A concept of incarnation is based in Contributor thought, and the behavior of Jesus as described in the Gospels is consistent with a Contributor person. Peter, in contrast, was clearly a Perceiver person. One can see in the diagram of mental symmetry that Contributor combines Perceiver and Server. Saying this in more detail, Contributor thought builds upon a foundation of Perceiver facts and Server sequences, building specific connections between Perceiver facts and Server sequences: In concrete technical thought, Perceiver facts become connected with Server actions, leading to a concept of cause-and-effect. In abstract technical thought, Perceiver facts become connected with Server sequences of words, leading to precise definitions. This means that both Perceiver and Server thought play the role of unfolding or expanding Contributor incarnation: Jewish law teaches Server sequences; Jewish law tells Jews what to do. Jesus came to earth as a Jew, living within the divinely ordained Server sequences of Jewish halacha. Jesus entered the realm of Perceiver facts by living as a physical person within the realm of physical objects. Perceiver thought can unfold or expand the realm of incarnation. This Perceiver unfolding becomes evident if one examine the Gospel of John from a cognitive perspective. On the Server side, Jesus-the-man was fully aware of being both God and man, and stated repeatedly that he only did what he saw the Father doing. But on the Perceiver side, one can see Jesus going through stages of cognitive development and becoming consciously aware of his divine nature.
Matthew 16 says that “whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven”, and these verb tenses accurately reflect the original Greek. Thus, Peter is not being given the power to lock or unlock heaven itself. Instead, he is being given keys which can only lock or unlock what has already been locked or unlocked in heaven. Looking at this cognitively, heaven appears to be a realm of Teacher thought, while humanity lives in a realm of Mercy experiences. One moves from Teacher thought to Mercy thought through the progression Teacher → Server → Contributor → Perceiver → Mercy. The Lord’s Prayer begins “Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). Looking at this cognitively, this lays a foundation of Teacher → Server → Contributor, which lays a foundation in heaven. Perceiver thought can only expand God’s kingdom on earth to the extent that this heavenly foundation has been laid.
Looking at this historically, Peter expanded God’s kingdom in two ways: First, in Acts 8:14-16, Peter expanded Christianity to the Samaritans. Second, in Acts 10, Peter expanded Christianity to the Gentiles, and an entire chapter is devoted to this second expansion.
A recent essay looked at 2 Corinthians. The second half of 2 Corinthians is typically interpreted as Paul defending his apostleship. However, if one looks at it from a cognitive perspective, it is a careful description of the steps that an apostle must go through to experience the personal benefits of that apostleship. These are general principles that apply whenever introducing some new theory. It is quite possible that Paul himself did not fully understand what he was writing. But the real historical Paul was an apostle who did pay the personal price required to experience the personal benefits of being an apostle. Therefore, if one interprets 2 Corinthians from a cognitive perspective, one concludes that this cognitive interpretation also applies to the historical Paul. Similarly, Peter probably did not fully understand what it meant to be given the keys of heaven. But if one interprets 1 and 2 Peter from a cognitive perspective, one concludes that this interpretation also applies to the historical Peter.
Saying this more simply, we will interpret 1 and 2 Peter as a description of various ways in which Perceiver thought expands the kingdom of incarnation. In other words, we will take the perspective that Jesus really did give the keys of heaven to Peter, and that Peter is using these keys of heaven when writing his two letters, instead of claiming that Jesus really meant to give the keys of heaven to the Catholic Church. If one examines the history of the Catholic Church, one concludes that they did use the keys of heaven to some extent by developing Perceiver thought. But for much of its existence, the Catholic Church has used its emotional status to overwhelm Perceiver thought in order to prevent others from using the keys of heaven.
As usual, I will be quoting from the NASB. Even though it has its problems, it is still a reasonably accurate translation of the original Greek which is usually more accurate than other English versions. When some word is not in the original Greek, then the NASB places these words in italics. I will be putting these words in [square brackets], and we will always be excluding these English words from our interpretation. Similarly, the NASB often provides a more literal translation in a footnote. We will always be using these literal translations, and we will usually be using any alternative translations that are found in footnotes. Therefore, if any biblical quote in this essay does not exactly match the NASB, please check the footnotes in the NASB before concluding that there is a typo in this essay. (There may be typos in this essay. I do proofread an essay twice before posting it and I catch many mistakes, but I do not find them all.)
When I went through the book of Hebrews, I was surprised at the number of times that the writer used unique words that appear only once in the New Testament. However, I think that Peter uses unique words even more than the writer of Hebrews. (If I counted right, there are a total of 34 unique words in 1 Peter. That is about one every three verses.) In some cases, this unique word is a noun that can be found in verb form in other passages. This is an expression of Perceiver thought, because Perceiver thought thinks in terms of facts rather than actions. Unique words provide a good way of testing an interpretation of Scripture. If one has to mistranslate these words slightly in order to make sense of the passage, then this implies that one is using the wrong kind of paradigm. But if these unique words with their unusual meanings fit precisely within the explanation, then this indicates that one is probably using the right set of mental eyeglasses.
I will be taking my definitions from biblehub.com. These essays could not be written if such a website did not exist. For each Greek word, I will quote from the definition and provide a link to the definition to make it easy to check what I am saying. I will be using definitions consistently. If a word means something in the original Greek, then I will always use the normal, standard meaning. This sounds obvious, but biblical translators often resort to alternate meanings in order to explain passages, which must be done if one insists upon a purely literal interpretation. Instead, we will be looking for cognitive explanations guided by the primary meanings of the Greek words.
These essays talk a lot about mental networks. If this is a new concept, please read the explanation page. We will also be referring to incarnation in different ways. In order to minimize confusion, I should explain how these various ways relate. A mental concept of incarnation is based in technical thought. There are two sides to technical thought: Abstract technical thought uses precise definitions to construct a system of logic guided by some paradigm in Teacher thought. Math, science, logic, and analytic philosophy are examples of abstract technical thought. Concrete technical thought uses a knowledge of cause-and-effect to follow some precise plan guided by some goal in Mercy thought. Businesses and games are examples of concrete technical thought. Technical thought is under the control of Contributor thought, because Contributor thought can limit the mind to some context and make choices within this limited context. However, technical thought is more than just Contributor thought. Technical thought is built upon a foundation of Perceiver facts and Server sequences. Technical thought is motivated by Teacher theories and Mercy experiences, and the drive and imagination for technical thought comes from Exhorter thought. Finally, Facilitator thought ensures that technical thought functions in a smooth manner. Thus, technical thought describes how the entire mind functions when Contributor thought takes control of the mind.
Going further, John 1 describes incarnation as ‘the word made flesh’. This summarizes the two sides of technical thought coming together, because ‘the word’ refers to abstract technical thought while ‘the flesh’ refers to concrete technical thought. This is explored in much more detail in the essay on the Gospel of John. Finally, a concept of incarnation extends beyond technical thought in two ways: First, technical thought naturally tends to specialize. Each specialization will become guided by some paradigm within Teacher thought. (I will use the word paradigm to describe a limited Teacher theory that applies to some specialization.) A concept of incarnation goes beyond specialization to be guided by a general concept of God in Teacher thought. Second, technical thought naturally tends to remain objective, either eliminating personal feelings or else pursuing some goal in Mercy thought that is distinct from personal identity. A concept of incarnation goes beyond saving and improving things to saving and improving people. This can be seen in the statement of the angel to Mary the mother of Jesus: “You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). The name Jesus means ‘salvation’.
In this essay, the word ‘incarnation’ can refer either to Jesus Christ the Incarnation, or to a mental concept of incarnation. I tried in a previous essay to capitalize references to the person of Incarnation while describing a concept of incarnation in lower case. However, I found that the distinction between these two becomes uncertain when a real Incarnation starts to work through a concept of incarnation. Therefore, this essay will always put the word incarnation in the lower case. This is not because I wish to show disrespect but rather because I want to emphasize the importance of using rational thought to construct a mental concept of incarnation. One respects the person of Incarnation by constructing an accurate mental concept of incarnation and not by capitalizing references to Incarnation while—typically—viewing Incarnation primarily as a finite human who lived and died two thousand years ago.
Peter’s Audience 1:1
Verse 1 opens: “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ”. Jesus refers to the human side of incarnation while Christ refers to the divine side. Peter is describing himself as an apostle of incarnation. An apostle can be defined as someone who extends the relationship between God and humanity in a major way. Obviously, someone who extends the realm of incarnation would qualify as an apostle.
Peter addresses himself “To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (v.1-2). The word aliens means ‘someone passing through but still with personal relationship with the people in that locale’. The word translated scattered is diaspora, which means ‘scattering abroad of seed by the sower, hence: dispersion, used especially of the Jews who had migrated and were scattered over the ancient world’. Looking at this literally, Peter is writing to the Jewish diaspora. The epistle of James opens with a similar greeting.
Looking at this cognitively, a group is being defined based upon Server sequences rather than Perceiver facts. Perceiver thought divides Mercy experiences in different categories. For instance, Perceiver thought divides the world into different countries. I am a Canadian citizen because I was born within the land of Canada. That is a Perceiver definition. A diaspora does not live in any specific country but is scattered among many countries. What unites this diaspora is the Server sequence of ‘passing through’. Similarly, the Jewish diaspora is held together because they all perform the same Server sequences of Jewish halacha.
Going further, this diaspora is described as ‘chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father’. This brings to mind the doctrine of predestination. In its most extreme form, predestination asserts that God decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. This doctrine is usually stated in a less damning matter, but the ultimate conclusion still remains the same, which is that God decides the eternal destiny of every human. The NASB emphasizes the idea that God is doing the choosing, placing ‘chosen’ right before ‘according to the foreknowledge of God’, but in the original Greek ‘chosen’ is near the beginning of verse 1 and not at the very end. Instead, the Greek emphasizes what it means to be chosen, using the phrase ‘to the chosen sojourners of the diaspora’. In other words, a person who is chosen by God will feel like a cultural outsider. Such a person will also notice that there are others scattered here and there who are following similar paths. This is the opposite of equating being chosen by God with belonging to some cultural or religious group.
Saying this more clearly, I suggest that being chosen by God is both a promise and a threat, which can be seen by looking at the Jewish people. If being chosen by God is interpreted as being born into the Jewish tribe, then this will lead naturally to an amoral attitude of cultural and religious entitlement that is personally and societally destructive. Entitled Jews in professions such as banking and entertainment have been at the vanguard of destroying Western civilization. But if being chosen by God is interpreted as following the ways of God, then this leads to a moral mission of being a light to the Gentiles that is personally and societally redemptive. Jews who have adopted this perspective have been at the vanguard of building Western civilization. Looking at this scripturally, the Old Testament consistently states that the blessings of God will only apply to a believing remnant within the tribe of Israel.
That brings us to the phrase ‘according to the foreknowledge of God the Father’. The word foreknowledge literally means to know before. Theologians typically say that God knows beforehand every choice that humans will make. In essence, this turns human history into a movie that God has already watched, which makes human choice ultimately meaningless. Why choose if God already knows how I will choose? And if God already knows how everyone will choose, why does not God step in to eliminate some human suffering? If one knows that evil is happening, and if one can step in to stop this evil, then one becomes morally culpable for this evil if one allows it to continue. Theologians and philosophers have gone to great lengths to try to rephrase these problems in ways that feel less deterministic, but rephrasing a problem does not make it go away.
Divine Sovereignty and Human Free Will
The topic of predestination and free will is discussed in previous essays. Summarizing this discussion, I only know of one possible interpretation that works. Studying human personality has led me to the conclusion that human free will is limited but real. A person cannot choose to behave in a manner that violates their core mental networks. But a core mental network determines a person’s overall direction leaving substantial freedom for specific choices within this overall direction. This concept can be seen in the Greek word translated predestination. The English word predestination gives the idea that a specific choice is being made beforehand. If God is making all specific choices, then by definition humans cannot. However, the word translated predestination actually adds the prefix ‘before’ to the verb that means ‘establish boundaries’. Thus, what is being determined beforehand is the general outline and not all of the details within this general shape.
God is an infinite being who is spirit (John 4:24). It appears that the mind interacts with the spiritual realm through mental networks. This means that God can see everyone’s core mental networks, making it possible for God to predict beforehand the general outline of how everyone will behave. This is seen in the word foreknowledge, which adds the prefix ‘before’ to the verb that means ‘experiential knowledge’. The verb ‘experiential knowledge’ implies that God is knowing at the level of mental networks.
That brings us to the word translated chosen which means ‘chosen out of a personal preference’. This does describe a specific choice being made in Contributor thought. 1 Peter 1:1-2 talks about being chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. If God can predict the general shape of how people will respond based upon their core mental networks, and if the mind of the child acquires its initial set of core mental networks from the environment, then God would be able to predict which individuals would naturally choose to follow God. Based upon this foreknowledge, God could then choose these people to be part of his special school of character transformation. Thus, being chosen by God would be both a promise and a threat, because anyone who became enrolled in God’s special school would have to take and pass special classes.
I suspect that it would be uncommon for a person to be automatically chosen by God at birth. Instead, it would be much more common for God to be able to predict with reasonable certainty that a specific individual will follow him in a certain manner. This would lead to the progression of being called by God and then being chosen by God. For instance, Matthew 22:14 says that “many are called, but few are chosen”. (This same phrase can be seen in some of the Greek manuscripts in Matthew 20:16.) Using the analogy of a school, children with exceptional talents would be invited to enroll in a special school. That would correspond to the calling. Students within the school who passed the courses would then be chosen for some special role in God’s plan.
This general process can be seen in Romans 8:28-30: “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to [His] purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” (The words in square brackets are not in the original Greek.)
Starting with the phrase ‘called according to purpose’, the word purpose adds the prefix ‘before’ to the word ‘purposefully set forth’. This word is used in Matthew 12:4 and Mark 2:26 to describe the showbread of the Jewish tabernacle. This tells us that God is not deciding in some inscrutable manner to choose some people while rejecting others. Instead, people are being called by God for some purpose. And this purpose has to do with the relationship between God and humanity because the ‘purposely set forth’ bread was placed in the holy place of the tabernacle.
The phrase ‘to those who love God’ indicates that this calling has to be accompanied by a human response at the level of mental networks. Cognitively speaking, loving God means being guided emotionally by the TMN (Teacher mental network) of a concept of God.
God does not control the choices of such individuals but rather guides them in a providential manner by ‘causing things to work together’. Working together is a characteristic of Teacher thought, because Teacher thought looks for order-within-complexity. Teacher thought feels good when everything works together. This working together is ‘for good’. The word for means ‘to or into’, while good means ‘intrinsically good, good in nature’. Thus, the circumstances of providence are often not inherently good, but God causes these circumstances to work together in the direction of inherent goodness.
Finally, the word translated know in ‘we know’ means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’, which describes empirical evidence. This means that humans can look at the circumstances and see from the physical evidence that God has directed them providentially. They do not have to look back and declare that God’s ways are a mystery.
Verse 29 begins “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined”. Remember that predestination means ‘to establish boundaries beforehand’. In other words, God looks at people’s mental networks and predicts how they will respond. God then places boundaries around people whom he predicts will respond in a certain manner. The purpose is for these people to be ‘conformed to the image of his Son’. The word conformed is used twice as an adjective in the New Testament and means ‘conformed by sharing the same inner essence’. This tells us that it is proper to use the analogy of a divine school of character development. Stated bluntly, being predestined is not some people being chosen to go to heaven no matter how they think or behave, because that divorces predestination from character transformation. Instead, predestination means that God puts boundaries around certain people so that they will become internally transformed. The word image means ‘what is very close in resemblance’. Therefore, the purpose of the internal transformation is to internally resemble Jesus, the Son of God.
This is not so that everyone becomes a carbon copy of Jesus but rather so that Jesus becomes the ‘firstborn among many brethren’. The word firstborn means ‘the first among others who follow’. Jesus was the first to go through the process of death and resurrection. Others can then follow by becoming internally transformed into individuals who resemble Jesus.
The adjective conformed is also used in Philippians 3:21. In 3:19, Paul says that some people follow physical desires and will end up in destruction. Verses 20-21 say that “our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.” This tells us that those who become images of Jesus internally will eventually be given physical bodies that are images of Christ’s resurrected body.
Romans 8:30 follows with a sequence: “and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” These are all steps that God takes. What is not mentioned here is how people respond to these divine steps. First, how does one respond when being boxed in by God? Second, how does one respond to a calling of God? Third, justification is God declaring someone to be righteous. Is this followed by sanctification? Fourth, glorified means ‘to ascribe weight by recognizing real substance… glorifying God means valuing him for who he really is’. In other words, God will eventually recognize what a person has become inside, but it does not appear that God determines what a person becomes inside.
We have looked at so far at ‘the elect’. Are the non-elect then condemned to eternity in hell? One can state with certainty that this is not the case because of the name of Jesus. Jesus means ‘salvation’, and Philippians 2:9 says that the name of Jesus is above every other name. If God the Father uses Teacher thought, then this means that God views everything through the lens of salvation. Condemning the non-elect to eternal hell is the opposite of salvation.
Instead, I suggest that the average person is guided by free will and probability. Every person can choose whether or not they will follow God. Some people are given more choices than others, but it seems that what really matters is how one responds to the choices that one is given. Luke 12:48-49 says that “slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.”
The behavior of the physical universe indicates how personal free will interacts with divine sovereignty. The behavior of an individual atom cannot be predicted. But the behavior of a group of atoms can be predicted with mathematical certainty. This is discussed in the essay on physics. Therefore, God can predict and guide the course of a group of people with total sovereignty, while giving individuals within this group substantial, real freedom. This is not just a theoretical analogy. The more one understands how the human mind works, the more one realizes that the behavior of a group of people is quite predictable. Most of what passes for human free will is merely one human ‘particle’ bouncing against another as the whole stream heads in a predictable direction.
This does not mean that humans have no free will. Jesus came to earth in order to save sinners. Salvation is possible. Similarly, the basic premise of mental symmetry is that personal transformation is possible. But it is not easy. Free will may be limited, but it also appears to be real. People have the greatest free will when they are driven by conflicting desires. Saying this another way, when life is peaceful and free of conflict, then it will be difficult to escape the status quo. But when one is faced with something totally new and different at a deep emotional level, it then becomes mentally possible to break free of the status quo in a major way.
Going further, a person who decides to become a Christian can also ask to become enrolled in the ‘school of the elect’. If this is a serious request, then it seems that God will test such a person in order to reveal their core mental networks. If such a person passes the test, then that person will become one of the elect. And being one of the elect is both a promise and a threat. The promise is that God will use such a person in his plan. The threat is that God will go to great lengths to ensure that chosen people fulfill their roles. The threat side of being chosen can be seen in Romans 11:28-29, which talks about the Jews: “From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” Gospel means ‘good news’. Paul is saying that most of the Jews have rejected the good news of Christianity. But they are still chosen by God. In other words, God is still using the Jews as a group even though most individual Jews will not experience personal salvation. And this is still true today. This interpretation is consistent with Romans 11:1-8 which talks about a remnant within Israel following God while the rest have been hardened, a word which means ‘hardened, like a formed callus which petrified’. When a group becomes hardened, then the behavior that group becomes more predictable, making it easier for God to use that group within his divine plan. A person who is hardened will become insensitive and rigid in the area of hardening—like a mental callus. In this case, God is using a group of people in the worst sense of the word. Thus, being chosen by God can be viewed as raising the stakes. On the one hand, the benefits of following God are greater, but on the other hand the penalties of rejecting God are also greater.
Seeding Intelligent Thought 1:2-5
This discussion about free will and divine sovereignty is relevant to 1 Peter because Peter is using the ‘keys of heaven’ to extend Jesus’ message of salvation to new areas.
I suggest that being chosen plays a significant role in the start of God’s plan, because people will not yet have enough understanding to follow God in an intelligent manner. Therefore, God will have to choose those who ‘reside as aliens’. That is because an individual who is an outsider is mentally capable of following God in a new way. Thus, following God will be viewed as something negative which involves leaving society.
Verse 2 explains that God will lead these individuals in the direction of personal transformation: “by the sanctifying work of [the] Spirit”. Sanctify means ‘the process of making or becoming holy, set apart’. This replaces the negative emotion of feeling like an alien within society with the positive emotion of feeling set apart to God. The word spirit does not have a definite article in the original Greek, which implies that this is probably not a fully developed concept of the Holy Spirit. Cognitively speaking, a concept of spirit is related to Platonic forms, which are internal images of ideal simplicity within Mercy thought that emerge as a result of Teacher understanding. Saying this more simply, those who are chosen by God will start to see internally in Mercy thought how things could be, which will provide a positive alternative to rejecting in Mercy thought how things are. A normal person who is part of society will be guided by cultural MMNs of how things are and will not be attracted to how things could be. An alien who is excluded from ‘how things are’ can find Mercy attraction in ‘how things could be’.
This sanctification is “unto obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ” (v.2). (This is the literal translation suggested by the NASB. As I mentioned earlier, I will always be using the literal translations provided in the footnotes.) Obedience means ‘submission to what is heard’. Instead of submitting to MMNs of culture, one follows words in Teacher thought. Blood represents MMNs of personal identity. ‘Sprinkling with the blood’ implies that aspects of existing personal identity are falling apart and being transformed. In other words, there is some understanding in Teacher thought which is leading to some transformation in Mercy thought. Notice that this partial transformation is the goal, because the sanctification is ‘to or into’ obedience and sprinkling. Thus, this describes the starting point in a plan of personal salvation in which one bootstraps from nothing by beginning with people who feel like outsiders who are being picked out by God.
Peter’s wish is that “grace and peace be multiplied for you” (v.2). Grace describes help from God, while peace means ‘wholeness, i.e. when all essential parts are joined together’. Multiplication illustrates what happens when Perceiver thought extends a plan of Contributor thought—when Peter uses the keys of heaven. Each unlocking unfolds a new facet of the plan of salvation. Normal growth adds through incremental expansion; multiplication reveals a new dimension, extending everything in a new direction. (That is how multiplication is illustrated when teaching elementary mathematics.)
If Perceiver thought is to unfold a Contributor plan, then Perceiver thought must first learn to think in terms of Contributor plans. Perceiver thought thinks normally in terms of preservation and restoration, while Contributor plans involve transformation. Preservation holds on to something, restoration brings something back, transformation moves on to something new. This is described in verse 3: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead”. Blessed means ‘speak well of’. Peter is recognizing that God in Teacher thought is the father of Jesus Christ, the Contributor Incarnation. Cognitively speaking, emotionally holding on to the TMN of a concept of God makes it possible to let go emotionally of existing MMNs of culture and identity. Speaking well of God means recognizing that a TMN of God plays a positive role, while calling Jesus Christ Lord submits to a transformative plan of Contributor incarnation that is based in the TMN of a concept of God.
This distinction between Perceiver preservation and Contributor transformation can be seen clearly in Matthew 16, in the passage where Jesus gives the keys to Peter. In verses 13-20 Peter recognizes that Jesus is the Messiah and Jesus responds by giving the keys to Peter. Verse 21 says that Jesus then starts to talk in terms of transformation: “From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.” In verse 22, Peter responds with preservation: “Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God be merciful to You. This shall never be to You.” Jesus responds to Peter’s call for preservation by saying that this is satanic, human thinking that does not follow God: “But He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but man’s.”
The Catholic Church appears to view the keys of Peter in terms of preservation, because it teaches that it has preserved an unbroken chain of apostolic succession from Peter through to the present church leadership. Going further, the Catholic and Orthodox Eucharists are regarded as legitimate sources of grace from God because of this unbroken chain of apostolic succession. Thus, the Catholic Church bases its claim to the keys of Peter upon preservation, and it also bases its interpretation of the death and resurrection of Jesus upon preservation. But Jesus said in this passage that preservation has nothing to do with the transformation of his death and resurrection. Putting this more bluntly, Jesus appears to be saying that the Catholic interpretation of the keys of Peter and the Eucharist reflect human thought and not the things of God. And yet the Catholic Church declares that the elements of the Catholic Eucharist actually stop being human items and transmutate into being things of God. I am not suggesting that the Catholic Church is evil, because it emphasizes aspects of Christianity which tend to be overlooked by Protestant Christianity. However, I suggest that the institutional Catholic Church is based upon cognitive and spiritual contradictions at a fundamental level. In brief, I suggest that the primary error of the Catholic Church lies in equating a symbol with what that symbol represents. Modern Catholic theologians use careful language to restate this equating more subtly, but the underlying emotional mindset still remains intact.
Returning to 1 Peter, this transformation is being described as ‘His great mercy’, which is a big emotional step for Perceiver thought. The Perceiver person usually follows preservation in order to protect Mercy feelings. Peter is recognizing that following transformation also leads to personal benefits within Mercy thought.
The word born again is only used twice in the New Testament, both times in 1 Peter 1. It means ‘born again’ and is not found anywhere either in classical Greek or in the Septuagint. Thus, Peter is coining a new word. Peter is recognizing that following the transformation of a Contributor plan will cause something new to come into being. What is being born is ‘a living hope’. Hope means ‘expectation of what is sure’, and cognitively it describes an internal vision within Mercy thought that provides motivation for Exhorter thought. This being born again is not a total rebirth and the hope does not emerge immediately. Instead, people are being born again ‘to or into’ a hope. This hope is described as living, a word that describes both natural and spiritual life. In other words, a new MMN is coming to birth within the mind, which can provide motivation to continue growing. I suggest that this describes what happens when a person ‘accepts Jesus as their Savior’. The result is not immediate total transformation, but a new form of mental network is born within the mind which can lead ultimately to personal transformation—if this new life is nurtured and developed.
A living hope is important for the Perceiver person, because the Perceiver person is often driven by the inferior motivation of duty: ‘I must do this because some important MMN will attack me if I do not’. A living hope provides the positive motivation of being drawn by something good.
This living hope is literally ‘through the resurrection of Jesus Christ out from the dead’. In other words, Perceiver thought has to go through a Contributor plan of death-and-resurrection in order to gain this new hope, which emerges out from the dead. Looking at this cognitively, a new mental network based in Teacher thought can only start to guide personal identity if existing MMNs of culture and identity fall apart. This explains why God is calling those who are aliens within their culture.
Verse 4 describes this hope in more detail: “to [obtain] an inheritance [which is] imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you.” (Any words that are in square brackets are in italics in the NASB because they are not in the original Greek text. We will always be excluding these words in our analysis.) ‘Obtain’ implies that one is receiving an inheritance, but what is being born now is the concept of an inheritance. Receiving the inheritance will happen in 2 Peter. The word inheritance means ‘inheritance, awarded by divine lot, i.e. the portion God assigns’. This conveys two concepts: First, an inheritance is based upon who I am while wages are a result of what I do. Personal transformation changes who I am, making a possible for me to receive an inheritance. Second, God is assigning the portion. Thus, one focuses upon becoming someone, while leaving the reward to God in Teacher thought. (Teacher thought rewards individuals primarily by lifting up their names.)
This inheritance has three qualities which Perceiver thought wants. First, it is imperishable, which means ‘not liable to corruption or decay’. Perceiver thought looks for facts that are based in solid connections that do not change. Second, it is undefiled, which means ‘undefiled because unstained’. Stained implies being contaminated by bad Mercy experiences. A fact that is unstained will not be overwhelmed by hostile Mercy experiences. Third, it will not fade away. This adds the prefix ‘not’ to a word that means ‘dry out or wither’. Liquid represents Mercy experiences. A fact ‘dries out’ by becoming disconnected with the real world of Mercy experiences. For instance, many theoretical texts on some subject will reuse a small collection of contrived examples to illustrate theoretical concepts. That is an example of drying out or withering. Summarizing, Perceiver thought comes up with facts by looking for repeated connections in Mercy experiences. Verse 4 describes Perceiver facts that remains solid, that are not overwhelmed by Mercy thought, and that continue to be relevant to Mercy thought.
Finally, this inheritance is “reserved in heaven for you”. The word reserved means ‘to watch over, to guard’. I mentioned earlier that Perceiver thought focuses upon preservation rather than transformation. Following the transformation of Contributor thought means letting go of Perceiver preservation. But this leads to a new kind of preservation, which is the preservation of an inheritance. This inheritance is literally ‘in heavens’. Heaven is a realm of Teacher thought. Heavens without the definite article implies that one is referring generically to Teacher thought and Teacher theories.
Putting this all together, Perceiver thought naturally looks for solid facts within Mercy experiences by preserving what is solid. If Perceiver thought lets go of this Mercy fixation in order to follow Contributor incarnation, Perceiver thought will find solid facts within the Teacher realm of the heavens. And instead of having to work to preserve facts, Perceiver thought will find that facts are naturally preserved within the realm of Teacher thought. In other words, following incarnation through death and resurrection actually leads to better preservation for Perceiver thought.
For instance, the Greeks tried to find solid facts by viewing the physical world in terms of the four basic elements of air, earth, fire, and water. (Other ancient civilizations came up with similar schemes.) Saying this in more detail, they believed that smoke goes up because it is composed of fire which lives in the sky, and that objects fall to the ground because they are composed of earth which lives down below. In contrast, modern science finds its solid Perceiver facts in the Teacher equations that describe natural processes. Making the transition from the elements to mathematical equations meant going through a major transformation known as the scientific revolution.
Rejoicing in Testing 1:6-9
Verse 5 describes what happens on earth in the present: “who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” Power describes Perceiver thought as an active force. When dealing with Mercy experiences, Server thought can express itself through the strength of actions, while Perceiver thought can only observe facts and try to preserve facts. Within Teacher thought, Perceiver thought takes the active role by using power to connect and transform elements. This power comes from God in Teacher thought. Cognitively speaking, this means that a general theory in Teacher thought will actively preserve Perceiver facts. This is brought out by the word protected, which means ‘to guard or keep watch like a military sentinel’. This is more personal than ‘reserved’. Reserved describes something being guarded, while protected adds that some person is doing the guarding.
This is an important distinction for the Perceiver person. When dealing with the concrete world of Mercy experiences, Perceiver thought has to struggle with Mercy emotions, holding on to Perceiver facts despite the Mercy emotions. In order to determine the facts Perceiver thought has to become unclouded by the effect of Mercy emotions. This leads to an impersonal guarding in which one attempts to hold onto the facts by eliminating the personal elements. In contrast, when Perceiver thought works with Teacher understanding, then facts and emotions go in the same direction, because holding on to the Perceiver facts within some theory protects the integrity of that theory. When a general theory turns into a TMN, then this theory will use emotional pressure to impose its explanation upon situations. (Any theory that is used for a sufficient length of time will automatically turn into a TMN or Teacher mental network. This will be sensed as an emotional drive to use this theory to explain situations whenever the theory comes to mind.) Perceiver thought will sense this as an emotional pressure to support the facts. Instead of having to fight emotions, Perceiver thought will find an ally in emotions. These supporting emotions do not come from the finite human emotions of Mercy thought, but rather from the divine emotions of a concept of God in Teacher thought. That is why the protection comes from the power of God.
This personal protection does not come automatically but rather “through faith”. Faith means to ‘be persuaded’. Being persuaded implies submitting personally to rational thought. When working with Mercy experiences, Perceiver thought finds solid facts by eliminating the personal element. That is because strong Mercy emotions will try to overwhelm Perceiver thought, reflected in phrases such as ‘Don’t question authority’. In contrast, a Teacher theory becomes more general by adding the personal element. That is because Teacher emotion comes from order-within-complexity; the more a theory can explain, the better that theory feels. Adding specific Mercy experiences to the Perceiver facts of some theory increases the generality of that theory. Instead of just being some abstract theory that can explain a collection of dry facts and a limited number of contrived examples, it becomes a full-fledged theory that can explain a whole realm of Perceiver facts and related Mercy experiences.
And adding real Mercy experiences to Perceiver facts will transform the living hope into the internal image of a future salvation: “for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (v.5). Salvation means ‘to save, rescue’. Contributor transformation initially threatens Perceiver preservation, because Perceiver thought has to let go of what it is trying to preserve in order to follow transformation. But transformation does not just leave, it also arrives. Salvation focuses upon the arrival of transformation. The biblehub dictionary describes this leaving and arriving as ‘salvation, i.e. God’s rescue which delivers believers out of destruction and into His safety’.
This salvation is described as ready, which means ‘ready because the necessary preparations are done’. A concept of salvation that is based in the words of some holy book cannot be ‘ready’. That is because the words of a holy book will naturally be regarded as special words that are separate from the normal words of human existence. When the starting point is disconnected from normal life, then any arrival point will also be connected from normal life. If one starts with a holy book that has nothing to do with real life, then one will also end up with concepts of salvation and heaven that have nothing to do with real life. In contrast, ‘being persuaded’ adds personal Mercy experiences to the Perceiver facts, making it possible for any resulting salvation to also include personal Mercy experiences. This will also lead to Contributor plans that include personal Mercy experiences. The end result is a salvation that is ‘ready’—one that is capable of being implemented within real life.
This salvation needs to be revealed, which means ‘to make plain or manifest particularly what is immaterial or invisible’. Doable does not mean visible. The previous paragraph described the plan as being ready, capable of being implemented. But this doable plan is also invisible. This invisibility is a characteristic of Teacher thought and relates to Platonic forms. Teacher thought comes up with a theory by looking for the general, simplified essence of Perceiver facts. This will cause Platonic forms to emerge within Mercy thought, which are invisible images that summarize the general, simplified essence of Perceiver facts. Using the classic (contrived?) example which I mention in most essays, the Platonic form of a circle is an idealized internal image of a circle. On the one hand, it is more perfect than any real circle. On the other hand, it is an idealization of all existing, real circles. This combines the two elements of being invisible but also capable of being implemented.
This revelation will happen ‘in the last time’. In means ‘in the realm of’. Time means ‘time as an opportunity… a favorable moment’. This is not clock time, such as five hours from now, but rather time in the sense of all the necessary requirements coming together in the right way. Last means ‘last, final’, and this Greek word provides the first half of the English word eschatology. In other words, the salvation will not become visible right away. Instead, it will become visible at the end of some process when all the necessary requirements are met.
For instance, Greek philosophers could mentally envisage and describe the Platonic form of a circle, but they could not produce visible circles that were perfect. In contrast, modern technology is capable of producing real circles that look perfect to the human naked eye. Technically speaking, no real circle is perfect, but modern science and technology have resulted in breakthroughs that make it possible to fill the real world with real circles that are far more perfect than anything that could be constructed in the past.
This may sound like philosophical quibbling, but it is very important for the Perceiver person. The Perceiver person is mentally trapped in a form of thought that naturally thinks in terms of solid, perfect facts, while being physically trapped in a physical world that is full of imperfect, non-ideal, real experiences. This is deeply troubling. Modern technology minimizes this discrepancy between internal perfection and external imperfection—in the realm of physical objects. As a Perceiver person, I am looking forward to a future time when the discrepancy between internal perfection and external imperfection will also be minimized in the subjective realm of personal identity.
Verse 6 describes the emotional response in the present. On the one hand, there is positive Teacher emotion: “In this you greatly rejoice”. The word translated greatly rejoice means ‘getting so glad one jumps in celebration’. If the earth represents the factual realm of human existence, and if air represents Teacher thought, jumping for joy implies a positive emotion that comes from temporarily transcending the human realm of Mercy experiences for the Teacher realm of Platonic perfection. This verb is used 11 times in the New Testament, three times by Peter in his epistles.
On the other hand, there is also Mercy emotion: “even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various temptations” (v.6). (‘Temptations’ is the alternate translation in a footnote.) The distinction between temptation and testing was discussed in a previous essay. In brief, temptation comes from some opposing force in Mercy thought, and the goal of temptation is for a person to fail. However, if a person does not fail, then this will lead to greater Perceiver and Server confidence. Testing comes from some supporting force in Teacher thought, and the purpose of testing is to ensure that something will remain intact without falling apart. Verse 6 uses the word temptation, which implies that Perceiver thought is being attacked by emotional pressure from Mercy experiences. The word various means ‘of various kinds, diversified’. Teacher thought builds general theories that apply to many situations. Therefore, Teacher thought naturally becomes integrated. Mercy thought, in contrast, is initially programmed by specific emotional experiences from the real world. Therefore, Mercy thought naturally becomes fragmented. When Perceiver thought follows a general theory in Teacher thought, then this will lead to an emotional struggle between order and chaos. On the one hand, Teacher thought is trying to bring structure to Perceiver facts, while on the other hand, emotional Mercy experiences will randomly attack Perceiver thought in many different ways. Speaking as a Perceiver person, I find that I am consistently being attacked by Mercy experiences in new and different ways. It is the new experience that I have not yet thought about in Teacher thought that threatens my Perceiver confidence.
This diversified temptation is distressing, which means ‘to experience deep, emotional pain’; it ‘is very intense and hence even used of the pain of childbirth’. This deep emotional pain comes from three factors: First, the Mercy experience itself is probably emotionally unpleasant. Second, Perceiver thought is being overwhelmed by the Mercy experience. Third, this random Mercy temptation attacks Teacher understanding because it is an exception to the general rule. One is not just succumbing to temptation; one is also threatening order with chaos.
Verse 6 adds the phrase “if necessary”. Necessary means ‘what must happen, i.e. what is absolutely necessary’. Speaking from personal experience, I have found that it is necessary to be hit by these random Mercy experiences. Each episode is like a small version of death-and-resurrection. In the short term, Teacher order is attacked, Perceiver confidence is overthrown, and Mercy thought feels bad. But in the longer term, Perceiver thought will think back about the situation and work out the facts, leading to a greater Teacher understanding. The end result is that the mind becomes mentally stronger in this specific area, and the response will be different the next time that this temptation occurs. The next episode of miniature death-and-resurrection will then happen in some new and unexpected area. Each episode will end up extending the realm of rational Teacher thought.
The temporary nature of this temptation is brought out by the phrase ‘now for a little while’. The phrase for a little while means ‘small; hence, of time: short, of degree: light, slight, little’. In other words, it will be limited in time and restricted to some context. This describes an attack by isolated emotional Mercy experiences. One does not fall apart completely. Instead, one falls apart within some context for a little while. Finally, the word now means ‘here-and-now; exactly now, in the immediate present’. This tells us that the attack is coming from a specific Mercy experience that one is experiencing in the present. Some situation in the here-and-now is overwhelming Perceiver thought, and causing Teacher order to be replaced by Mercy pain. This may be emotionally unpleasant in the moment, but it is necessary if Perceiver thought is to descend from abstract facts into the real world of Mercy experiences.
Verse 7 points out that the purpose of the temptation is actually testing: “so that the proof of your faith”. The word proof means ‘what is found approved (genuine) after testing’. This is the noun form of the word ‘testing’. Notice that the goal is to survive and be proved genuine. What is being tested is ‘your faith’, and faith means to ‘be persuaded’. In other words, what appears in the moment to be a random attack in Mercy thought is actually a way of testing if one will hold on to understanding in Teacher thought. Saying this more clearly, one does not simply decide at some moment in time that one will follow rational understanding in Teacher thought from then on. Instead, such a decision to be persuaded becomes tested and realized as it is exposed to the random attacks of emotional experiences in Mercy thought. Saying this another way, a Teacher understanding becomes extended to the real world by getting hit in Mercy thought from real experiences, falling apart for a short time within that specific context, and then reassembling Perceiver facts guided by Teacher understanding. This process is messy and it hurts, but it is real and it works.
I have said that Perceiver thought uses the keys of heaven to extend Contributor incarnation. Matthew 16 says that whatever Peter unlocks will have been unlocked in heaven. Similarly, this type of falling apart and coming together with greater Teacher understanding will only happen if an understanding already exists within the heaven of Teacher thought. The end result is to extend Contributor thought into the realm of the subjective, leading to a deeper concept of value. This is brought out in the next phrase: “more precious than gold which perishes” (v.7). The word gold ‘expresses gold as what it potentially acquires’. Society uses gold as a medium of exchange because it is rare, it is beautiful, it is useful, and it does not tarnish or decay. The word more precious means ‘of great value, very costly, very precious’. Peter says that tested faith has a value that is greater than gold. Gold is a valuable, physical object. Tested faith is a valuable mental quality. Internal stability and quality are more valuable than external stability and quality, because a person who is valuable will create physical value, while a person who lacks value will lose physical value. The word perishing means ‘perishing, the resultant death being viewed as certain’. The implication is that one can be certain that focusing upon physical value is inadequate.
Looking at this more generally, the Contributor person is naturally good at making money. But the Contributor person also naturally has inadequate sense of value, seeking physical wealth rather than personal character. The Perceiver testing that we have just examined makes it possible to extend the concept of value to include the personal and the subjective. This is an example of Perceiver thought using the keys of heaven to extend the kingdom of Contributor incarnation. I have mentioned that a concept of incarnation is based in Contributor thought. Jesus was (and is) a Contributor person. But Jesus went beyond the normal Contributor person by saving people rather than things. The extension of value that we have just discussed makes it possible for Contributor thought within the average person to save people rather than things.
Verse 7 continues by describing value as “even though tested by fire”. This phrase probably applies to the gold, because genuineness of gold can be tested by melting it through fire. This testing by fire is known as cupellation. Looking at this in more detail, testing by fire burns off impurities leaving what is solid and incorruptible. Contributor thought normally views testing from this perspective: ‘We will put you in a stressful situation and see what you are made of. Will you survive or will you break?’ Any person or substance that does not survive will be rejected as unfit, because it is not made of the right stuff.
For instance, my father was a Contributor person. I never saw my father lose his temper. This is not an exaggeration. I literally do not recall my father ever losing his cool. As a Perceiver person, I did occasionally lose my temper, and every time that I did my father would conclude that I was not made of the right stuff. No matter how hard I tried to control myself, I would still reach a limit where some random event would trigger an emotional outburst. But as my father became older, I saw that his ability to control himself at all times also resulted in an absence of motivation and a lack of curiosity. Near the end, he turned into a shell of a person who did not want anything and was not interested in anything. In contrast, as I gained an understanding of how the mind works in Teacher thought, the end result of my occasional outbursts started to shift. I started to become stronger after falling apart, and I found that I could then handle emotional situations in that context without falling apart. My region of self-control spread from one area to another, and I only lost my temper occasionally when some random situation hit me in a novel way. Using the language of 1 Peter, I discovered a form of testing that went beyond the standard testing-by-fire that is used by Contributor persons and Contributor thought.
I am not suggesting that one can lose one’s temper, apologize, and then pretend that everything is immediately fine. Everything is not fine. There will be emotional repercussions involving both oneself and others. But I am suggesting that having a general understanding in Teacher thought makes it possible to follow a strategy of dealing with stress that leads to better long-term mental stability than trying to maintain self-control at all times.
Verse 7 adds that this advantage will not be immediately apparent: “may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ”. The word found means to ‘discover, especially after searching’. It took a lot of soul-searching for me to realize that the method of ‘fall apart in some context and be put back together by Teacher understanding’ went further than the method of ‘show that you have the right stuff by never falling apart’.
Praise means ‘accurate acknowledgment’. This is based upon facts and not appearance. For instance, in The Right Stuff, “Wolfe likens the astronauts to ‘single combat warriors’ from an earlier era who received the honor and adoration of their people before going forth to fight on their behalf.” Someone who falls apart will not receive the adoration of the crowds. But if one examines the facts carefully, then a different picture will eventually emerge.
Glory is an external expression of internal substance. (The meaning of glory is discussed in another essay.) Saying this another way, glory makes it possible to see what a person is like inside. In contrast, a person who can live in the physical world without falling apart does not have to face their inner self, and typically avoids dealing with inner, emotional issues. For instance, Tom Wolfe talked extensively with Chuck Yeager when doing his research for The Right Stuff. (Chuck Yeager was the first person to fly faster than the speed of sound.) This interaction is described in a Wikipedia article: “Publishing insiders say these sessions between Wolfe and Yeager led Wolfe to highlight Yeager’s character, presence, thoughts, and anecdotes throughout the book... Yeager himself downplayed the theory of ‘the right stuff’, attributing his survival of potential catastrophes to simply knowing his airplane thoroughly, along with some good luck.” In other words, someone who has the right stuff focuses upon objective, physical details while downplaying cognitive aspects. In a similar manner, my Contributor father avoided talking about cognitive styles, even when sitting in a room with family members where it was the topic of conversation. If one avoids dealing with internal issues, then how can one acquire the internal substance that forms the basis for glory?
Honor means ‘perceived value; worth’. What has more value, a person who never falls apart, or a person who can rebuild successfully after falling apart? One will realize over the long-term that the ability to rebuild successfully is required for lasting worth. (And going through death-and-resurrection in enough areas will construct a concept of incarnation that never falls apart. This will be discussed later in 1 Peter.)
Verse 7 emphasizes this that this praise, glory, and honor will happen “at the revelation of Jesus Christ”. Revelation means ‘an unveiling, uncovering, revealing’. Jesus refers to the human side of incarnation while Christ describes the divine side. A concept of incarnation forms when concrete technical thought in the mind becomes integrated with abstract technical thought. (Both concrete and abstract technical thought emerge when Contributor thought controls the mind.) Similarly, science and technology also involve the interaction between abstract and concrete technical thought. This means that science and technology are actually a partial illustration of ‘the revelation of Jesus Christ’, limited to the objective realm of physical objects.
This partial revelation has led to new concepts of testing, praise, glory, and honor. For many successful people today what matters is not ‘never making a mistake’, but rather ‘learning from one’s mistakes’. For instance, Elon Musk has said that “Failure is an option here. If things are not failing, you are not innovating enough.” In other words, if the goal is never to fail, then one will avoid the unknown and stick with what is certain. But if the goal is to develop and expand, then occasional failure will be an inevitable byproduct. Looking at this more generally, the geeks who used to be rejected as outcasts have now become rich and successful. In the words of Wikipedia, “Previously, such people may have been at a disadvantage, but now their unique cognitive traits enable some of them to resonate with the new technological zeitgeist and become very successful. The Economist magazine observed, on June 2, 2012, ‘Those square pegs (geeks) may not have an easy time in school. They may be mocked by jocks and ignored at parties. But these days no serious organisation can prosper without them.’” I am not suggesting that geeks are deep Christians. Most are not. That is because Christianity deals with core emotional issues which science and technology ignore. Instead, I am pointing out that the partial revelation of Jesus Christ has led to a redefinition of praise, glory, and honor that focuses more upon cognitive qualities and lifts up those who appear weak and do not have ‘the right stuff’. If this has already happened to some extent with present day science and technology that ignore personal character, one would predict that something similar but much greater would happen in the future if science and technology became extended to include the subjective and the spiritual.
Verse 8 describes the kind of attitude that is possible before such a breakthrough happens: “And though you have not seen Him, you love Him”. The word seen means ‘see, often with metaphorical meaning: to see with the mind’. The word for love is agape, which describes ‘love which centers in moral preference’ and ‘typically refers to divine love’. (This definition is given for the noun form of agape.) If Jesus Christ is not being mentally seen, then this describes an inadequate internal concept of incarnation. Using the language of Thomas Kuhn, this describes the type of pre-scientific thought that exists before the development of some scientific paradigm. The point is that Perceiver thought is capable of building a Teacher understanding even in the absence of rigorous logic and technical thought. For instance, even though current Christianity has an inadequate mental concept of incarnation, one can still find real agape love in those who have become ‘born again to a living hope’, whose faith is being test through various trials.
Verse 8 continues, “and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him”. The same word for see is used, which refers to mental sight. Believe means ‘be persuaded’. Peter is saying that there is a form of persuasion which can function even when technical understanding is lacking. What happens is that personal honesty is substituting for technical rigor. For instance, I do not carry out scientific experiments in my cognitive research. Instead, much of my thinking is being implicitly shaped by my desire to follow a path of personal transformation. However, I consistently find that this leads to conclusions which are consistent with the more rigorous research that is being done in psychology, sociology, neurology. (Mental symmetry has now reached the stage where it is capable of being described using more rigorous language, as illustrated by the way that we are analyzing biblical books from a cognitive perspective.) I think that Peter is describing this kind of thinking, where moral transformation substitutes for technical rigor. One may not see incarnation internally, but one can still love incarnation and be persuaded by incarnation.
This non-rigorous path of personal growth can be seen in the next phrase: “you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and glorified” (v.8). The word greatly rejoice was seen in verse 6 and means ‘getting so glad one jumps in celebration’. However, verse 8 explicitly adds the word with joy, one of a family of Greek words that start with the root xar- which all refer in some way to God in Teacher thought. Previously, one was just jumping into the air of Teacher thought. Here, this jumping is actually starting to experience the Teacher pleasure of a general understanding. However, this is an implicit Teacher theory. Teacher thought uses words to build general Teacher theories. The joy of verse 8 is being described as inexpressible, which adds the prefix ‘not’ to a verb that means ‘to fully describe or report’. Thus, the person who is following God through character transformation may not be able to put everything into words, but such a person still has a growing, intuitive grasp of the character of God.
And the word ‘glorified’ indicates that this internal, intuitive grasp of God’s character leads to changes that others can see. Others can look at such a person and conclude that ‘You are different inside. I can’t quite put it into words, but you are not the same person that you used to be. I can see God in you, and I can see that you find pleasure in God.’
Verse 9 describes the final result: “Obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.” The word obtaining means to ‘get what has come to be my own by earning, recover’. Outcome means ‘the end-goal, purpose’. In other words, this kind of semi-intuitive following God in Teacher thought has personal benefits in Mercy thought. It is not directionless, but rather heading toward some goal or reward. The key characteristic is faith, which means to ‘be persuaded’. This means responding personally to the light that one has. One may not be able to mentally see the whole picture, but one has enough light for the next step, and one is choosing to be persuaded by the light that one does have.
Such a path will lead to ‘the salvation of your souls’. As far as I can tell, the soul describes the sum total of what a person is inside. More technically, the soul describes the mental structure that results when normal thought is being used to integrate the various mental networks and technical specializations that exist within the mind. More traditionally, the soul is composed of ‘the mind, the will, and the emotions’, with mind corresponding to normal thought, will to technical thought, and emotions to mental networks. Salvation implies delivering someone from danger into safety. Thus, ‘the salvation of your souls’ specifically refers to personal transformation. One is becoming internally saved. Saying this more generally, following the path described in these verses will not lead to science and technology and it will not result in spiritual breakthroughs. But it will lead to personal transformation. One will become saved inside. Verse 9 does not say that a person will gain mental wholeness, because that appears to require a more developed concept of God in Teacher thought. But one will become internally transformed, and that is a big thing. In fact, as far as one’s eternal destiny is concerned, that is the biggest thing.
Absolute Truth 1:10-11
The next section examines the topic of absolute truth. Verse 10 talks about the prophets: “As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that [would come] to you made careful searches and inquiries.” The word ‘prophet’ is used extensively in the Gospels but this is the only time it is found in 1 Peter. Literally speaking, the prophets refer to the Old Testament prophets, who prophesied the coming of Jesus. But a more general meaning emerges if one looks at the Greek word. The word prophet adds the prefix ‘beforehand’ to a verb that means ‘elevating/asserting one idea over another, especially through the spoken-word’.
Perceiver thought can learn truth in one of two primary ways: First, the emotional Mercy status of some person can overwhelm Perceiver thought causing the words of that person to be accepted as ‘true’. I put the word ‘truth’ in quotes because Perceiver thought is being emotionally overwhelmed into knowing what is ‘true’. I refer to this as emotional ‘truth’. Something is being regarded as ‘true’ because of who said it. This describes how the Old Testament prophets are typically viewed.
Second, Perceiver thought can look for connections that are repeated. If the same connections can be seen in many different areas, then this defines truth. I refer to this as universal truth. Absolute truth is an intermediate form of truth. Some important person in the past is being regarded in the present as the source of ‘truth’. This important person is not physically present, but the words of this important person were written down, and these written words are being regarded as true because of who spoke them in the past. This leads to a textbook or a holy book. A holy book has some of the characteristics of universal truth because the words of the book are fixed and do not change and the same book is being copied and given to many different people in many different times and places. That is why I call this absolute truth without putting ‘truth’ in quotes.
The word prophet combines these two characteristics of absolute truth. Words are being lifted up by the emotional status of some person, but this lifting up happened in the past. Biblical prophets did not regard themselves as important, but rather believed that their words were backed up by the emotional status of God. However, those who come later and read the words of the prophets will regard the prophets as special people with emotional status because they had an inside connection to God.
Looking further at verse 10, the word inquiries means ‘seek out, emphasizing the personal intent of the seeker, i.e. the outcome intensely and personally desired by the seeker’. This tells us that personal motivation is present in Mercy thought. The word careful searches is used once in the New Testament and combines the prefix ‘wholly out from’ with the verb ‘search carefully in an investigative manner’. This implies that technical thought is being used to analyze the words of absolute truth. Putting this all together, technical thought is being used upon a foundation of emotional ‘truth’. Some words are being accepted as absolute truth, and then these words are being carefully analyzed.
The rest of verse 10 describes the focus of this analysis. More literally it is ‘the toward you grace having prophesied’. Grace is one of the xar- words that all relate to God, and grace indicates favor from God. Looking at this cognitively, the prophets are predicting that God will help people in the future. A mindset of absolute truth is then looking back at these words that have been revealed and trying to understand them. Saying this another way, technical thought is being used to analyze absolute truth. This describes most Bible-believing theology. (As opposed to liberal theology, which questions the concept of absolute truth.)
Technical thought is an aspect of incarnation. Technical thought uses careful logic. But every system of technical thought is based upon a set of axioms and assumptions. In this case, technical thought is getting its axioms from the words of a holy book and it is getting its assumptions from the attitude of absolute truth. One can find a fairly pure example of this juxtaposition in the mindset of fundamentalist Baptist churches.
Verse 11 describes what type of thinking will emerge: “Seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating”. The word seeking means ‘search diligently, examine’. This tells us that a lot of careful effort is being exerted. Technical thought is being used extensively. What is being studied? The word time means ‘the suitable time, the right moment’. The who? which? what? and the of what sort of this ‘right moment’ are being carefully examined. In other words, the focus of study is upon some future event at which God will reveal his grace. This focus upon revelation is seen in the word indicating, which means ‘make evident (clear), especially the inner sense (character) of something’.
One can see this focus in all the research that has been done over the years on the second coming of Jesus. For instance, the previous essay talked about the Millerites, who believed that Jesus would return physically to earth in 1843, guided by the biblical studies of William Miller. Using the language of Peter, Miller was trying to work out the who, which, what, and of-what-sort of the suitable time. A mindset of absolute truth believes that truth was revealed in complete form at some point in the past. This mindset will naturally conclude that a future salvation will also be revealed in complete form at some point in the future.
Verse 11 continues by pointing out the underlying motivation: “the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating”. Christ refers to the abstract side of incarnation. Spirit refers to Platonic forms within Mercy thought—invisible images of ‘what could be’. Thus, ‘spirit of Christ within them’ indicates abstract technical thought being used to explore internal images of ‘what could be’. This phrase implies that what really matters is not determining when Jesus will return, but rather the fact that one is using abstract technical thought guided by Platonic forms to explore this question.
For instance, when I taught high school geometry the students would often ask why they were learning this material, because they would probably never use it in real life. I told them that the goal was to wake up a part of their minds. Even if they did not use geometry again, they would use the part of the mind that was developed through studying geometry.
This personal perspective can be seen in the word translated predicted. It is used once in the New Testament and adds the prefix ‘before’ to the verb testify, which means ‘to summon as witness, to affirm’. A mindset of absolute truth may cause a person to study the Bible in the wrong way, focusing upon questions such as ‘when will Jesus return?’ This can be seen in the verb indicating, which means ‘make evident, clear’. But the very fact that one is struggling personally with such questions over a period of time will develop the right kind of mindset. One is using abstract technical thought to explore internal visions of possibility, and one is paying a personal price to do this. This extended struggle will mentally transform ‘make evident, clear’ into ‘being a witness beforehand’.
Over time, one will experience personally the idea that emotional discomfort in the present precedes reward from God in the future. For instance, the Jews have discussed for millennia the coming of the Messiah while continuing to go through one national crisis after another. Similarly, Christians over the centuries have tried to analyze when Jesus will return again while continuing to experience personal hardship in the present.
This sequence of present struggle followed by future reward is described in the rest of verse 11: “as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories after these”. The word sufferings actually means ‘the capacity and privilege of experiencing strong feeling, like suffering’.
The word suffering appears frequently in 1 Peter, so it needs to be discussed in more detail. If I continually experience physical or mental suffering, then I will become mentally desensitized to suffering and lose the capacity to experience strong feelings. That is because I will shut down emotionally in order to protect myself. Emotional sensitivity becomes greatest if I am emotionally open and I know that something could go wrong. This can be seen in movies. Everything will look normal, causing a person to open up emotionally, and then something horrible will suddenly happen. Or the horror will not be explicitly shown but rather implied within an atmosphere of uncertainty. One article on Stephen King describes it this way: “The reason that terror stands at the top of the scare-charts is that, when expertly applied, it offers something more than just a momentary jolt, or gag-reflex revulsion. That’s because terror turns your mind against yourself: It implants a terrible and troubling idea, and then nudges you toward dwelling on all of its horrific implications, turning them over and over in your mind. Terror is first and foremost psychological, a way of exploiting the way the human mind works.”
Christianity has historically focused upon physical suffering, exalting physical pain and physical hardship almost to the level of sainthood. One of the requirements for absolute truth is that the source of truth must be regarded as far more important in Mercy thought than personal identity. Thus, absolute truth will naturally be accompanied by the belief that following God means denying self. Hence, suffering will be regarded as godly. One can and should learn when experiencing physical pain or hardship. However, it is not the physical suffering that teaches the lessons but rather how one responds in a situation of strong emotions. And in order to respond in a situation of strong emotions one must have a capacity to feel strong emotion. That is why I think it is important to emphasize that the Greek word translated ‘suffering’ actually means the capacity to experience strong emotions. If one can only learn when suffering, then people and society are condemned to going through the cycle described in the book of Judges: Call upon God in the midst of misery. Get rescued by God. Forget about God. Fall into misery. Repeat cycle.
However, one can be emotionally sensitive in the middle of being blessed by God. This sensitivity will cause seemingly minor issues to generate strong emotions. This is often viewed as a negative trait: ‘Why are you so sensitive? Why are you making emotional mountains out of molehills?’ But sensitivity is good. It means that I can learn major lessons from seemingly minor incidents. That is because learning from a situation does not depend upon the magnitude of the incident or how much physical pain is involved. Instead, what matters is the intensity of my emotions and how I respond within this emotional intensity. And part of this learning involves learning how to be emotionally sensitive without broadcasting my emotions to everyone around me.
Returning to 1 Peter, notice that it is Christ, the abstract side of incarnation, who is experiencing the strong emotions. Looking at this cognitively, abstract technical thought is being used to study absolute truth, but it is struggling to decipher the words and being only partially successful. Glory describes inner character being expressed externally. This internal struggle is producing something internally that will later be expressed externally. In contrast, ‘the right stuff’ mentioned earlier on is not capable of being glorified, because it avoids dealing with internal issues and thus does not lead to an internal character that can be glorified. And when one avoids dealing with internal issues, one actually lacks the capacity to experience strong emotions. Thus, what others interpret as extreme bravery may actually be an inability to feel deep personal emotions.
Sequence 1:12
I have mentioned that absolute truth naturally thinks in terms of facts and events: Truth was revealed in some event in the past and salvation will also come at some event in the future. Such a mindset will also study the Bible from the viewpoint of static doctrines—facts that one holds to be true within Perceiver thought. This describes most evangelical Christian thought.
Verse 12 begins by talking about a new mindset emerging that thinks about actions and Server sequence: “It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you”. The word revealed means ‘revealing what is hidden’ and this same word is used to describe the apocalypse or revelation of Jesus. It is used three times in 1 Peter. 1:5 talked about ‘a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time’, referring to the second coming of Jesus. (I am interpreting this as a theoretical return. This will have real, major consequences, but Jesus will not return bodily.) Similarly, 5:1 talks about ‘the glory that is to be revealed’, also referring to the second coming of Jesus.
In 1:12 what is being revealed is a new mindset of righteousness, exemplified by the word serving, the source of the English word ‘deacon’, which means ‘to serve, minister’. Righteousness is Server action that is guided TMN of a Teacher understanding. At this point in 1 Peter, a Teacher understanding does not yet exist. But what does exist is abstract technical thought motivated by internal emotions, which is like abstract technical thought motivated by the TMN of some paradigm. Struggling with some message over time will gradually lead to a concept of time and sequence. Those who struggle with absolute truth over time will eventually have the revelation that abstract technical thought involves time, sequence, and Server actions.
Going further, following God in righteousness is not the final stage. Instead, it is the second stage in a three-stage process of personal transformation. The first stage builds a concept of God in Teacher thought, the second stage follows this concept of God in righteousness, and the third stage then becomes reborn by living within righteousness. (This three-stage process has been discussed numerous times in previous essays.) Those who struggle with absolute truth over time will learn that they are supposed to add Server actions to the revealed word of God in order to make it possible for a future generation to become reborn.
Verse 12 continues by adding more details: “in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you”. The word announced is used once in Peter’s epistles and means ‘declaring a thought (communication) that shows it has cleared (gone through) its necessary stages’. This announcing is happening in the present. People are looking back at the absolute truth that was revealed in the past and they are realizing that this truth had to ‘go through its necessary stages’.
This present announcing is happening ‘through those who preached the gospel to you’. Preached the gospel means ‘to announce good news’. Presumably, the good news is what was just revealed, which is the idea that the words of absolute truth need to be accompanied by Server actions in the present in order to lead to personal blessings in the future.
The final phrase of verse 12 adds several new factors, which are the Holy Spirit, heaven, and angels: “by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look”. Heaven is a realm of Teacher thought. Heaven was used in the plural in verse 4, where it talked about an inheritance being reserved ‘in heavens’. This conveyed the idea that Teacher thought was being used in a fragmented manner. In verse 12, ‘heaven’ is in the singular, indicating a more integrated understanding in Teacher thought. Absolute truth will naturally lead to an integrated understanding in Teacher thought, because it is based in the words of a book, and a book organizes words in an integrated, structured manner.
Similarly, this is the first time that the Holy Spirit is mentioned, the third person of the Trinity. A concept of the Holy Spirit will emerge when many Platonic forms come together within Mercy thought as the indirect result of an integrated understanding in Teacher thought. This direction from Teacher thought to Mercy thought can be seen in the verb sent, which means ‘sent on a defined mission by a superior’.
However, neither ‘Holy Spirit’ nor ‘heaven’ in this verse are preceded by the definite article. It is not ‘the Holy Spirit’ but rather ‘Holy Spirit’. This implies the presence of a general understanding in Teacher thought but not a universal theory that ties everything together. What has happened though is that the idea of sequence backed up by Server actions makes it possible to come up with a more integrated understanding of Teacher thought.
Going further, the word angel means ‘a messenger, angel’ and can refer to either a human messenger or else an angelic being. My hypothesis is that angels live within a realm of Teacher words and Server sequences, as implied by the word angel which means ‘messenger’. Cognitively speaking, this is the mirror image of humans who live within a realm of Mercy experiences and Perceiver objects. In order to imagine what this would be like, think of some professional, such as a medical doctor or a car mechanic and then eliminate the physical body and the human personal element. In other words, take John the human, turn him into John the car mechanic, and then eliminate John. What is left is ‘car mechanic’, and such a collection of skills and knowledge held together by a name such as car mechanic is my best guess as to what it is like to be an angel.
What matters cognitively is that abstract technical thought has now developed into various technical specializations, as illustrated by a medical doctor or a car mechanic. When people think about Teacher thought, they are thinking about a realm peopled by various specializations.
That brings us to the final phrase “things into which angels long to look”. The word long means ‘what a person truly yearns for’. Look means ‘to stoop sideways, to stoop to look’. It is used five times in the New Testament, three times to refer to people stooping down to look into the tomb of Jesus. Absolute truth does not naturally stoop down to look. Instead, what one usually finds is intellectual arrogance: ‘The truth was revealed in the past. We believe in the truth. We do not need to stoop down to learn truth from anyone else. Instead, others need to look up to us because we have an inside connection with absolute truth.’ Even if this is not verbalized, the underlying attitude will still be emotionally broadcast. In contrast, what one sees here is a deep emotional desire to stoop sideways in order to look. Using the language of heaven and angels, angels living in the glorious realm of heaven are realizing at a deep emotional level that what happens on sinful, messy earth is actually significant.
Adding Action to Understanding 1:13-16
The next section emphasizes the relationship between understanding in Teacher thought and actions in Server thought. Verse 13 begins, “Therefore gird the loins of your mind”. (This is the literal meaning in a footnote. As I mentioned earlier, whenever the NASB provides a literal meaning in a footnote I will be using that literal meaning instead of the primary text.)
The verb gird is only used once in the New Testament, and it is ‘a metaphor from the girding of the flowing tunic, to prevent its hampering one in active work’. Loins refer to ‘the hip (reproductive area)’ and is used several times in the New Testament, both literally and figuratively. Peter must be using it in a figurative sense because he talks about girding the loins of your mind. And mind refers to ‘critical thinking, literally thorough reasoning’. Looking at this symbolism more closely, clothes represent the fabric of human interaction. Therefore, ‘girding your mind’ would mean adjusting the fabric of human interaction to encourage physical action. For instance, this was not the case in Greek times, because it was thought that a philosopher had to be a man of leisure while physical action was relegated to slaves. Symbolically speaking, that is precisely the opposite of girding. The loins refer to reproduction. Therefore, girding the loins would mean adjusting social interaction to encourage Server actions and then ensuring that this mindset gets transmitted to the next generation. Finally, ‘mind’ also tells us this attitude should be made an integral part of abstract technical thought.
Looking at the bigger picture, when Server action gets added to abstract technical thought, then it is possible to do scientific research. That is because science studies natural processes; it examines how the world behaves. And it studies how the world behaves by carrying out experiments, which are careful sequences of Server actions. Effective scientific research requires a scientific mindset that will be transmitted to the next generation. This is a partial example of ‘girding the loins of your mind’.
Moving on, the next phrase is literally ‘be sober’. It means ‘be sober, unintoxicated, and refers to having presence of mind, clear judgment’. Looking at this literally, being sober means thinking clearly. Looking at this symbolically, wine represents MMNs of culture. Therefore, sober thinking means thinking in a way that is not predetermined by cultural MMNs.
Notice that the literal meaning is related to the symbolic meaning. Looking at this more generally, I suggest that a symbolic meaning should always be a generalization of the literal meaning, while the literal meaning should be a legitimate illustration of the symbolic meaning. Saying this another way, symbolism should be cognitively natural. This is quite different than the Jewish idea of sod, which describes a hidden, mystical meaning that usually has nothing to do with the literal meaning.
Verse 13 continues: “fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ”. A new form of technical thought is just starting to emerge. What will provide the motivation for technical thought? Posing this another way, why will a scientist do research? Verse 13 says what the motivation should be, as indicated by the word hope, which means ‘to expect, to hope for’. Hope is an expression of Exhorter thought, which provides the motivation for the mind. The word completely means ‘to-the-end, completely’, and is the adverb form of the word telos, from which one gets the English word teleology.
Science tries to avoid any form of teleology, because this implies some sort of purpose or design. Looking at this further, concrete technical thought is driven by some goal or telos, and the motivation for concrete thought comes from hope. Objective science removes both the hope and the goal in order to focus purely upon the sequence in Server thought. Science then uses abstract technical thought to compare one natural sequence with another. For instance, suppose that I throw a stone at a rat. My goal is to get rid of the rat motivated by a hatred of rats. Science ignores my goal and my motivation in order to focus upon the path that is taken by the stone as it travels through the air. This path will then be compared with other paths that are taken by projectiles. Summarizing, when objective science moves from concrete technical thought to abstract technical thought, it usually eliminates the elements of concrete technical thought. Using the language of incarnation, when objective science goes from Jesus to Christ, then it forgets about Jesus. Jesus means salvation, and one follows Jesus in the hope of salvation.
In contrast, verse 13 says that one should include hope in Jesus to the end as one is forming a concept of Jesus Christ because of ‘the grace to be brought to you in revelation of Jesus Christ”. (This is the literal translation.) In other words, the goal of science should not be just to gain an abstract understanding of natural processes. Instead, one studies natural processes in order to use this understanding to improve the natural world. Research should be followed by development. Saying this more simply, one does research in order to gain personal benefits from the research. This sounds obvious, but most scientific research is not guided by this principle. Instead, the purpose is usually to gain approval from others, to publish papers, to solve a problem better than others, or to do a job.
The NASB says ‘at the revelation of Jesus Christ’, giving the impression that this is talking about some specific time in the future when Jesus will return to earth. That reflects the thinking of verse 10, with its focus upon the second coming of Jesus. But the original Greek says ‘in revelation of Jesus Christ’ and the word in actually means ‘in the realm of’. Thus, one is supposed to be guided by the mindset of looking forward to unveiling an integrated concept of incarnation; one includes personal concrete goals with abstract research because one hopes that abstract research will eventually unveil itself in the concrete world.
Verse 14 describes this attitude in more detail: “As children of obedience, do not conform yourselves to the former lusts [which were yours] in your ignorance.” The word children means ‘a child living in willing dependence’. Obedience combines the word ‘to hear’ with the word ‘beneath’, and therefore means ‘submission to what is heard’. Objective science tends to suppress childish identity, which leads ultimately to a form of thinking that is implicitly motivated by childish identity. This childish motivation may come from the childish identity of the scientist himself, from a group of scientists, or from some external force that hijacks scientific research. In contrast, verse 14 says that childish identity should be submitted to the words of Teacher thought. Saying this another way, it should be possible to take the system or theory of some researcher and apply that to the researcher himself. In contrast, I have found that most systems of thought fall apart when they are applied to those who teach them.
The word conform is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘assuming a similar outward form by following the same pattern’. The other occurrence is in Romans 12:2, where one is instructed ‘do not be conformed to this world’. Former simply means ‘former, before’. Ignorance means ‘ignorance, inadvertence, sometimes with the idea of willful blindness’. And the word lust means ‘passion built on strong feelings’ and ‘these can be positive or negative’. Putting this together, a more literal rendition would be ‘do not take the outer form of the previous, in the realm of being willfully blind to strong feelings’. This describes precisely what objective science does. Being objective means being willfully blind to strong feelings. But these subjective desires do not automatically go away. Instead they will end up shaping the external packaging of the rational thinking.
Verse 15 provides the positive alternative: “But according to the Holy One who called you, become holy yourselves also in all [your] behavior.” (As usual, we are using the literal translations given in the NASB footnotes, and the words in square brackets are in italics in the NASB because they are not in the original Greek.) The verb called means ‘call, summon, invite’. This describes using words in Teacher thought to invite personal identity in Mercy thought. Holy means ‘set apart to God’. Cognitively speaking, this means being guided by the TMN of a concept of God. Science uses the technical thinking of incarnation guided by TMNs of some paradigm in Teacher thought. Thus, a person who devotes himself to science is being called by a form of thinking that is holy. Verse 15 says that the scientist who is being called to Teacher-guided holiness should himself be characterized by Teacher-guided holiness. The scientist should apply the standards of scientific research to himself as a person, which is precisely what objective science does not do.
Continuing with verse 15, the word behavior combines the prefix ‘down to up’ with the verb ‘turn’, leading to the meaning ‘change of outward behavior from an up-turn of inner beliefs’. All ‘focuses on the parts making up the whole’. And become means ‘to come into being’. Putting this together, the same detailed, careful thinking that is leading to an ‘up-turn of inner beliefs’ should express itself in a ‘change of outward behavior’. And this should become increasingly evident in all aspects of personal existence. For instance, there are two sides to the theory of mental symmetry. On the one hand, it is a general theory of how the mind works. But on the other hand, it is also a path of personal transformation. These two go hand-in-hand and cannot be separated from one another.
Verse 16 emphasizes that this is a universal principle: “because it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy.’” A concept of God is based in the TMN of a general understanding. Teacher thought wants a general theory to apply without exception. God is a universal being who does not divide between objective and subjective. Similarly, a mental concept of a monotheistic God will apply to all of existence, including both objective research and subjective identity. This means forming a concept of God that uses a single general Teacher understanding to explain both the natural world and the mind. Mental symmetry shows that this is possible and is not just an idealistic extrapolation.
Saying this more generally, verses 10-12 examined the religious mindset of absolute truth, while verses 13-16 examined the secular mindset of objective research. The Bible is not just a book of religious myth. Instead, it is applicable to both religious and secular thought. It addresses both the religious mindset of absolute truth and the secular mindset of objective science. That is because one and the same God created the world, formed the mind, and revealed the Bible. Most Christians assert this as a religious doctrine. Very few people think and act as if this is true.
Both absolute truth and objective research emerge naturally when one emphasizes using Contributor-controlled technical thought. Technical thought will naturally view absolute truth as a set of rules to be logically analyzed and manipulated, similar to the way that one manipulates mathematical equations. Contributor thought has to be unlocked by Perceiver thought if it is to extend beyond absolute truth to universal truth. Similarly, technical thought will naturally study the physical universe in a way that ignores subjective identity. That is because the physical world is guided by principles that are independent of subjective identity, which can be understood using technical thought. In addition, technical thought finds it hard to think in the presence of subjective emotions. Therefore, studying science will naturally turn into objective technical thought. This Contributor ‘prison’ needs to be unlocked by Perceiver thought if it is to extend to the subjective.
Unfortunately, I have learned through personal experience that if a Perceiver person actually tries to extend Contributor thought, then most Contributor (and Facilitator) experts will instinctively reject and belittle what the Perceiver is doing. But if one analyzes this response, does one’s homework, and maintains a positive attitude, then one will eventually gain the insights that make it possible to decipher a book such as 1 Peter.
Partial Revealing of Incarnation 1:17-19
The next section examines the partial revealing of incarnation that has occurred in the present as a result of absolute truth and objective science. This can be seen in verse 20, which says that Christ ‘has appeared at the end of the times for the sake of you’, and ‘has appeared’ is in the past tense.
Verse 17 starts, “If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work”. The word address means to ‘call upon’, and is an extended version of the verb ‘call’ that was seen in verse 15. People are literally ‘calling upon father’, implying that people are regarding themselves as being born of Teacher thought and are calling upon Teacher thought. This could describe either a theological community or an academic community. In both cases, people are exploring Teacher thought and viewing themselves as children of rational Teacher thought.
Verse 17 describes in more detail the kind of father that is being followed in Teacher thought. Impartially is only used once in the New Testament and means ‘not accepting the person, I.e. without respect of persons’. This describes a mindset that follows Teacher thought without being influenced by MMNs of culture or personal identity. Judges means ‘to pick out or choose by separating’. Thus, one is using technical thought to distinguish and clarify and then choosing on the basis of this mental clarity. Work ‘is a deed (action) that carries out (completes) an inner desire’. Saying this cognitively, this is Server action that is being internally guided. And each one’s means ‘each (individual) unit viewed distinctly’.
Putting this all together, this combination describes scientific research being guided by some paradigm in Teacher thought. We looked earlier at pre-scientific thought. Verse 17 describes core attributes of scientific thought: 1) It is guided by the TMN of some paradigm in Teacher thought. 2) It follows this Teacher paradigm in order to make intellectual progress. 3) It recognizes that universal laws in Teacher thought are independent of personal and cultural MMNs. 4) It uses technical thought to come up with careful categories. 5) It makes decisions based upon these careful categories. 6) It performs Server actions guided by internal understanding. It teaches scientific thought through the Server actions of individuals solving scientific problems, and it extends scientific thought through the Server actions of individuals performing experiments.
Notice that verse 17 does not tell people to do this. Instead it starts by saying ‘If you are doing this’, which implies that people are doing this. And that is an accurate assumption because verse 17 describes how the scientific community behaves. I should point out that behavior is different than personal identity. Scientific research includes Server actions but it does not include Mercy feelings of culture and identity. It is a study of natural processes guided by a scientific methodology.
Verse 17 continues by saying what should accompany scientific methodology: “conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay [on earth]”. Fear means ‘fleeing because feeling inadequate, without sufficient resources’. Conduct is the verb form of the noun that was seen in verse 15, which means ‘change of outward behavior from an up-turn of inner beliefs’. Stay is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘a sojourning, a dwelling in a strange land’. And time here means ‘time in duration in the physical-space world’.
Putting this together, scientific research uses technical thought to perform Server actions guided by Teacher understanding. When technical thought is combined with Server actions, then clocks and other measuring devices will be used to measure ‘time in duration in the physical-space world’. Saying this another way, scientific research performs Server actions that can be measured and quantified. This measuring of natural processes is a fundamental aspect of scientific research. But the goal of this rigorous action is to build a general understanding in Teacher thought. Science insists that what is really solid is not the Server actions but rather universal Teacher laws that can be discovered by performing careful Server actions. Peter is saying that the scientist needs to apply this attitude to himself as a person. Science lives within Teacher thought and then sojourns within the physical world of Server actions in order to perform experiments. Similarly, the scientist needs to view himself as a person who lives within Teacher thought who is currently sojourning within the physical world of Server actions and time.
Modern science blatantly violates this principle by holding to materialism. According to the philosophy of materialism, nothing exists except physical reality and physical space-time. The scientist knows that his body will ultimately die and cease functioning within space and time. He knows that he is only a sojourner. The scientist also knows that there is a universal structure in Teacher thought that lies behind the Server actions of physical reality, and the scientist spends much of his time thinking within this abstract realm of Teacher thought. The scientist should respond to his finite physical existence with fear and turn to God in Teacher thought for something more permanent. Instead, science as a whole has belittled the concept of God, shows no fear of death, and exalts a philosophy of materialism.
Instead of seeking for personal immortality by looking beyond physical actions to Teacher thought, scientists try to achieve the illusion of personal immortality by having their names immortalized in the equations and measurements of science. This response is a natural expression of emphasizing Contributor-controlled technical thought. Contributor thought can use concentration to ignore anything that lies outside of the specialization, Contributor thought will be guided by the TMN of the paradigm of some specialization to explain everything in terms of that paradigm, and the Contributor person will naturally belittle anything which emotionally threatens this Teacher paradigm. Thus, using objective technical thought to study natural processes will focus upon natural processes, ignore anything that lies outside of natural processes, interpret everything in terms of natural processes, ignore the role that personal identity plays in studying natural processes, and emotionally belittle anything which questions this limited mindset.
Science tries to predict the future by learning from the past. Verse 18 says that science should predict its future by learning from its past: “Knowing that you were not ransomed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers.” The word knowing means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. This describes empirical evidence, in which one comes up with facts based upon observation. Perishable means ‘perishable… like the break-down of the physical body during our natural lifetime’. Ransom is used three times in the New Testament and means ‘to release (set free) by paying the full ransom’. Futile means ‘without purpose or ground’. Way of life is the familiar word meaning ‘change of outward behavior from an upturn of inner beliefs’. Finally, the word translated inherited from your forefathers is used once in the New Testament and means ‘handed down from one’s fathers’. This implies male thought being guided by MMNs of culture, which is slightly different than ‘inheriting from your forefathers’.
Putting this all together, those who practice science will look back at pre-scientific thought and conclude that: 1) It had no ‘purpose or ground’ because it was not based in the TMN of some scientific paradigm. 2) Male technical thought was being blinded by traditional thinking handed down from one generation to another. 3) Science leads to intellectual freedom. But this intellectual freedom did not come automatically. Instead, society had to pay a price in order to discover scientific thought, and individuals also have to pay a price in order to learn how to think scientifically. 4) Science may study empirical evidence, but gathering physical evidence does not make a person a scientist. Instead, a person has to learn how to think like a scientist. 5) Throwing money at science will not help science to continue. Instead, one has to teach students how to think like scientists. 6) These principles can be established empirically by looking at the scientific revolution and by observing the process of learning how to become a scientist.
Verse 19 describes this transformation more clearly: “but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, [the blood] of Christ”. This is traditionally applied to the physical death of Jesus, and that is a valid application. But if one looks at this cognitively and symbolically, it also applies to the birth of scientific thought.
Blood represents MMNs of personal identity. ‘Precious blood’ implies that valuable MMNs of personal identity are falling apart. The NASB finishes with the phrase ‘the blood of Christ’, but in the original Greek there is only one ‘blood’ which is at the beginning of the phrase while ‘of Christ’ is at the end. And the word as in between as a comparison word which means that one thing is like another. The point is that many cultural MMNs had to die for science to come to birth, and a student of hard science has to let go of many childish MMNs in order to think like a scientist. (I am looking here at the hard sciences which are governed by a rational general theory in Teacher thought, and not at the soft sciences which tend to describe and classify cultural MMNs rather than transform them.) For instance, the scientific revolution was preceded by the Black Death, the Hundred Years War, the downfall of Constantinople, the splitting and corruption of the Catholic Church, and the discovery of the New World. All of these factors—and others which I have missed—involved a lot of human blood getting spilled, and they worked together to create a fertile ground for breaking through to a new form of thought.
This precious blood is ‘as a lamb without blemish’. The Bible dictionary for lamb describes it as ‘a lamb (as a type of innocence, and with sacrificial connotation)’. Without blemish means ‘blameless, without blemish’. Similarly, without spot means ‘without spot or stain’. Cognitively speaking, these describe thinking that is free of imperfections introduced by childish Mercy thought. This applies to Jesus, because he lived a perfect life and like a sacrificial lamb did not defend himself but allowed himself to be unjustly killed. But this phrase begins with an ‘as’ which implies that one can see this same kind of thinking in other people. Many Christian heroes of faith also suffered unjustly and responded like lambs because they believed that God would defend them. Similarly, many who pioneers of science also suffered unjustly from society and responded by appealing to Teacher thought for support.
The phrase ends with the single word ‘of Christ’. Christ refers to the divine side of incarnation. It was Jesus, the human side of incarnation, who died as a sacrificial lamb 2000 years ago. Christ generalizes this specific death of Jesus and turns it into a universal principle. Thus, one can take the sacrificial death of Jesus and apply this as a general principle to other areas such as the spread of Christianity, the development of science, or the spread of political freedom. The point I am trying to make is that if one defines verses 17-19 in general cognitive terms, then the average scientist will agree that these principles apply to the birth of science and the teaching of science.
Thus, a distinction needs to be made between what science studies and how science thinks. Science studies empirical evidence, but scientific thought requires a mindset that goes beyond merely empirical evidence. This means that materialism as a philosophy contradicts itself. Science is not high-priced equipment and expensive buildings. Instead science is a way of thinking that can only be achieved by dying to childish Mercy mental networks. In a similar vein, if Jesus responded as an unblemished and spotless lamb, then why have so many so-called followers of Jesus tried to defend Christianity in a manner that is so blemished, so full of spot, and so un-lamb-like?
Returning to the religious perspective, I know that the Christian reader automatically applies this section to the atoning death of Jesus. And that is a valid application. However, these same principles can also be applied to the birth and teaching of science. Going further, who is actually applying these principles of atonement more? Is it the Christian who quotes these words and applies them to personal identity without really understanding what is happening, or is it the secular scientist who ignores Christian words but applies these principles with understanding to peripheral aspects of society and thought? Both of these are incomplete in different ways, and a more complete application of these principles would require a combination of religious and scientific thought. Notice how we are using Perceiver thought to build connections between ways of thinking which are typically regarded today as quite different. That is an example of Peter using the keys of heaven.
A Larger Perspective 1:20-21
Verse 20 describes a larger perspective emerging: “For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world”. Verse 17 talked about realizing the impermanence of physical existence. Verse 20 describes the positive alternative of recognizing the eternal significance of incarnation and abstract technical thought. The NASB adds the pronoun ‘He’, but this is not in the original Greek either explicitly or implicitly. Instead both verbs are participles: ‘having been foreknown’ and ‘having being revealed’. This implies the use of abstract technical thought in an impersonal manner.
Looking at this further, concrete technical thought thinks in terms of cause-and-effect. Every effect implies some cause. This leads naturally to the question, ‘What was the first cause?’ In the language of verse 20, what came ‘before the foundation of the world’? Foundation means ‘the foundation-plan, upon which the entire super-structure is built’. World is cosmos, which means ‘an ordered system like the universe, creation’. I suggest that cosmos refers to the mental networks that one acquires from living in a physical body in the physical universe. ‘Foundation of the world’ recognizes that the physical universe is governed by fundamental principles in abstract technical thought.
Science starts with concrete technical thought and then adds abstract technical thought. One observes natural cause-and-effect and then one uses abstract technical thought to come up with general laws that explain this cause-and-effect. A scientist is not supposed to start with general laws in abstract technical thought and then apply these to concrete technical thought. For instance, the theory of mental symmetry is now sufficiently rigorous to handle interaction with academia. But it is still largely undiscussable because it is not based directly upon empirical evidence. That is because I am starting with a theory and applying this theory rather than starting with empirical evidence and postulating some theory. (The initial empirical evidence was gathered in the 1980s by my brother Lane who analyzed 200 biographies. But even there, Lane started by treating Romans 12 spiritual gifts as a general theory of personality.)
When one starts with cause-and-effect, one will ask ‘What came before the foundation of the world?’ Peter is saying that this is the wrong question. Instead, Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world. Using cognitive language, abstract technical thought with its knowledge came before the world with its empirical evidence. In practical terms, this means that one searches for ultimate answers by looking beyond the physical world to abstract understanding. Saying this theologically, the ultimate basis is theology and not ritual. The average Christian does not know what this means, because Christ is viewed as an extrapolation of the historical Jesus. This is going the other way around and recognizing that the historical Jesus is a finite expression of the universal character of Christ.
Verse 20 then moves from the past to the present: “but has appeared at the end of the times for the sake of you”. The word appeared comes from the Greek word ‘light’ and means ‘illumine, make manifest or visible’. This is different than the word ‘revelation’ used in verse 13. The word times means ‘time in duration in the physical-space world’. ‘End of the times’ implies that this appearance of Christ will happen near the end of chronological time. The end of chronological time is specifically mentioned in Revelation 10:6 where a strong angel swears by everything in heaven, earth, and the sea that there will be no more chronological time. The NASB uses the word ‘delay’ in that verse but the original Greek word is chronos, which is the same word that is used in 1 Peter 1:20. The distinction between time and sequence is discussed in a previous essay.
In brief, life in the physical universe is governed by various clocks, such as the time it takes the earth to travel around the sun (one year), the time it takes the earth to rotate (one day), and also the various biological clocks of the physical body. We just saw that science is ultimately rooted in an understanding that transcends physical cause-and-effect with its clocks and time. And this ultimate basis in abstract understanding is now recognized by theoretical physics. The clock-based theories of Isaac Newton have been replaced with Einstein’s theories of relativity in which both space and time are flexible. And when I was writing the essay on physics, I discovered that theoretical physics does not start with empirical evidence. Instead, theoretical physicists will pull mathematical equations out of the air and then see if these mathematical equations can be used to explain empirical evidence. (When I mentioned this to a theoretical physicist he agreed.) This is similar to the way that I am testing the theory of mental symmetry by seeing how much empirical evidence it can explain. In both cases one does not ignore empirical evidence, but the starting point is a theory and not empirical evidence.
Verse 20 says that Christ ‘has appeared at the end of the times for the sake of you’. (The pronoun ‘you’ is in the original Greek.) Similarly, modern theories of physics that transcend clock-based thinking have resulted in the major personal benefits of modern technology. Thus, the eternal perspective of modern physics has resulted in personal benefits. My hypothesis is that modern science and technology will be followed by the theoretical return of Jesus and spiritual technology, and that spiritual technology will be the first stage of actually experiencing what it means to live in sequence rather than time. Thus, modern technology can be described as ‘an appearing of Christ at the end of the times for the sake of you’. (When one lives in sequence, then step A still precedes step B which is followed by step C. But one does not know how long each step will take. Similarly, everyone can still use a clock, but my clock may run faster or slower than other peoples’ clocks. If this seems confusing, then please read about Einstein’s theory of special relativity.)
Verse 21 adds that this appearing is for those “who through him are believers in God”. Believe means ‘to be persuaded’. And the word God is without a definite article, implying a partially developed concept of God in Teacher thought. The word in actually means ‘to or into’. Thus, the development of a concept of Christ (mainly through the equations of science) is convincing people to use Teacher thought to form a concept of God.
Verse 21 continues by saying that God “raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.” Dead means ‘dead, lifeless’. And from is literally ‘out from’. Literally speaking, this refers to the resurrection of the historical Jesus. But there is also a general cognitive principle here, which is that the mind will only use a higher strategy if a lower strategy no longer works. Saying this cognitively, the immature mind is motivated by the mental networks of ‘the cosmos’. The mind will only become motivated by the TMN of a concept of God if the mental networks of the cosmos reach a dead-end. That is why God raises ‘out from’ the dead. When this resurrection happens then the direction changes from cosmos to glory. Cosmos goes from external to internal; living in the physical world develops mental networks. Glory goes from internal to external; an internal concept of God leads to physical results.
Verse 21 finishes by describing this new mindset that is based in an internal concept of God. Faith means ‘to be persuaded’ while hope describes an internal vision that motivates. The direction of this faith and hope is ‘to or into’ God. For instance, the physical benefits of technology have convinced modern society that scientific research will lead to personal benefits. (I wish I could also say that Christians have become convinced that theology will lead to personal transformation, but the opposite tends to be the case, which means that one usually has to look to science and technology for illustrations of what it means to be persuaded by God.)
Eliminating Exceptions 1:22
When some new paradigm is adopted in Teacher thought, then this will create a motivation to eliminate any exceptions to the general goal. This is described in the beginning of verse 22: “Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls”. The soul describes the mind as an integrated unit, which traditionally is regarded as ‘mind, will, and emotions’, or using the language of mental symmetry, the soul includes normal thought, technical thought, and mental networks. Purify means ‘to purify, cleanse from defilement’. Thus, ‘purify your souls’ would mean applying an understanding consistently to all of the mind.
This purification happens ‘in obedience to the truth’. Truth means ‘true to fact, reality’, and this is the only time that this noun is used in 1 Peter. (The adjective ‘true’ is also found once in 1 Peter 5:12.) The word obedience means ‘submission to what is heard’. In other words, people are extending a general Teacher understanding to all of the mind by submitting to a verbal description of the facts of reality. This was the standard of Western society for most of the 20th century, and it still continues to be practiced to some extent by the hard sciences, but we now live in a post-truth society, in which people are no longer purifying their minds in obedience to the truth. Instead, the average person’s mind is filled with inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance.
This may explain why this is the only time that the word truth is used in 1 Peter. What happens cognitively is that people observe the physical world using a scientific search for truth. But science then leads to technology which transforms the physical world. When technology changes the physical world sufficiently, then one can no longer determine truth by observing physical reality. For instance, a physical picture is no longer evidence of physical reality, because computers can now be used to fake pictures that look real.
This obedience to the truth leads to “an unhypocritical love of the brethren” (v.22). The word unhypocritical adds the prefix ‘not’ to a word which means ‘act the part, pretend’. The word for love here is philadelphia, which refers to ‘the love of brothers, brotherly love’. The idea here is that each individual has only a partial knowledge of truth, and one can gain a better knowledge of truth by learning from colleagues. This is the best side of academia, in which colleagues cooperate with each other in order to discover truth about reality more accurately. The problem with academic exchange, or a lot of Christian fellowship, is that it is limited to surface interaction. People are acting the part but they are not really dealing with core issues.
The next phrase goes further: “fervently love one another from the heart”. The word for love here is agape, a ‘love which centers in moral preference’. Fervently is only used twice in the New Testament (and once as an adjective in 1 Peter 4:8) and means ‘fully-stretched, i.e. describing the verbal idea as extended out, to its necessary (full) potential’. I think I know what this means. Conscience is often viewed from a Mercy perspective as avoiding being connected with MMNs that society regards as bad. For instance, when I was a child, then my mother told me that I should not go into a movie theater. What was actually being shown in the movie theater was of secondary importance. Instead, what mattered was me becoming connected in peoples’ minds with the location of a movie theater.
Teacher thought, in contrast, thinks in terms of sequences. Conscience that is based in Teacher thought will use general Teacher theories to support Contributor connections of cause-and-effect. In other words, you reap what you sow and you look for general principles of sowing and reaping. When one is rethinking conscience in the light of Teacher thought it is important to be ‘fully-stretched’. This means imagining cause-and-effect through to the bitter end. For instance, if I cheat on an exam, then I may get caught and fail the test. This is a connection of cause-and-effect, but it is not fully-stretched. Instead, one needs to extend this sequence out to its full potential. If I do not get caught, then I will spend my time cheating rather than studying the material. I will focus on avoiding being caught rather than learning the material. I will graduate without knowing some of the material. I will know that to some extent I am a fake. People will rely on me having knowledge which I do not really have. I will acquire the habit of pretending to deal with problems rather than really solving them. Notice how fully-stretching the sequence unveils deeper results which are more general and more universal. This turns philadelphia love into agape love, because one is now starting to see things from God’s larger perspective, and the focus will shift from following the specific facts of truth to transforming the deeper desires of the heart.
Born Again to Understanding 1:23-25
Verse 23 describes this deeper personal transformation: “for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, [that is,] through the living and enduring word of God.” The word born again is well-known in evangelical Christianity today, but it is only found twice in the New Testament: here, and a few verses earlier in 1:3. It ‘does not occur in classical or Septuagintal Greek. Any use elsewhere (i.e. outside the NT) is disputed’. The two uses of this term illustrate the interaction between Contributor thought and Perceiver thought. Contributor thought saves by leading from one location to a better location. Jesus means Savior. Perceiver thought cannot do this kind of transformation. But Perceiver thought can extend the transformation of Contributor thought, leading to the concept of being born again. This was seen in verse 3, which said that God “has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” Notice how the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the basis for being born again. But Peter the Perceiver was doing something new by talking about being born again, extending the transformation of Contributor thought in the Mercy direction of subjective personal identity.
In verse 23, being born again is being extended in the Teacher direction of understanding. Peter says that being born again is “through the living and enduring word of God”. Word is logos, which I interpret as the TMN of some rational theory, based upon incarnation being described in John 1 as the living word who is with God and who is God. The Bible dictionary gives a similar interpretation: ‘a word, being the expression of a thought; a saying. Logos (word) is preeminently used of Christ (Jn 1:1), expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit.’ Verse 23 explicitly uses the word living, which refers to both natural and spiritual life and this living word is ‘of God’. Saying this cognitively, Perceiver unfolding of Contributor-controlled technical thought has led to the TMN of a general understanding in Teacher thought, leading to a deeper understanding of the new spiritual life that has been born within Mercy thought.
Seed means ‘seed sown, a sowing’. The word here is spora, which refers to plants, and this noun is only used once in the New Testament. What is used in other passages is sperma, which refers either to plants or to offspring. Grain and the bread represent food for intellectual thought. Thus, the focus is upon Teacher thought as the source of being born again. Looking at this cognitively, the TMN of a rational understanding makes it emotionally possible to let go of childish MMNs. In addition, Teacher understanding will cause Platonic forms of the spirit to emerge within Mercy thought. Being born again means moving from childish MMNs to spiritual MMNs.
The extent of rebirth that a person can experience depends upon the universality of their Teacher understanding. This is an important principle that needs to be restated. A person with a small Teacher understanding can only experience limited rebirth. A person with a general Teacher understanding can experience much greater rebirth. This provides a reason for studying theology. The goal of studying theology is not to discuss abstract doctrine, but rather to lay a proper foundation for rebirth.
Verse 23 also emphasizes the permanence of the source of rebirth. On the one hand, there is ‘perishable seed’. The word perishable means ‘what easily perishes, disintegrates, or corrupts’. This word was used in verse 18 to describe ‘silver or gold’. On the other hand, the living word of God is imperishable, a Greek word which puts the prefix ‘not’ in front of ‘perishable’. This is combined with the word enduring, which means ‘to stay, abide, remain’.
Verse 4 described the inheritance in heaven as imperishable. An inheritance is based upon who I am, but it is not alive. In contrast, seed is alive. But two kinds of seed are being compared in verse 23. One is perishable while the other is imperishable through the living and abiding word of God. Looking at this cognitively, each technical specialization is emotionally supported by the TMN of some paradigm. Thomas Kuhn described the relationship between paradigms and technical specializations. A paradigm is mentally alive, because it has turned into a TMN that will emotionally drive a person to preserve and expand the corresponding specialization. Paradigms are not imperishable. Instead, paradigms become outdated, and when a person goes through a paradigm shift, then the TMN of that paradigm will mentally die and become reborn. A concept of God in Teacher thought, in contrast, is a meta-theory that covers many paradigms.
One of the fundamental principles of mental symmetry is that one cannot construct an adequate concept of God using only technical thought, because technical thought will lead to many paradigms within Teacher thought which come and go. If one wishes to construct an adequate concept of God, then one must build mental connections between technical specializations and mental networks by using the analogies and metaphors of normal thought to find similarities. As far as I can tell, such a meta-theory can survive paradigm shifts. Again one sees Peter using the keys of heaven, because normal thought is based in Perceiver connections and Server sequences. However, notice again that Peter can only unlock what has already been unlocked in heaven; Perceiver thought can only extend and connect existing paradigms. (Server thought also plays a fundamental role. Verses 14-17 talked about changing Server sequences by behaving and acting in different ways.)
When one builds something permanent and universal in Teacher thought, then one can face the fact that physical reality is impermanent. This impermanence is described in verse 24: “For, all flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls off.”
The word flesh means ‘flesh, body, human nature, materiality’ and is used by Paul to describe the flesh as opposed to the spirit. It refers to the physical body and to the mental content that is acquired from living in the physical body. Cosmos, in contrast, refers to physical reality and the mental content that is acquired from living in a physical universe. Flesh is compared with grass, which means ‘a feeding place, food, grass’. This relates to the word spora, which was used in the previous verse. Thus, physical life provides food for intellectual thought; one can construct paradigms upon empirical evidence. Using psychological language, embodiment is a starting point for understanding.
Going further, we have seen that glory is the external expression of internal content. Peter compares the glory of flesh with the flower of grass. Living within a physical body will lead to some understanding and this understanding will express itself through some physical glory.
But this will be temporary. First, “the grass withers”, which means ‘to dry up, waste away’. Liquid represents Mercy experiences. Therefore, withering means that Mercy experiences are ‘drying up’. Looking at this physically, the typical young person experiences life fully, while the older person tends to settle down, often because the physical body is no longer capable of traveling. Second, “the flower falls off”. Fall off means to ‘be cast, fail, fall away’. In other words, what began as an external expression of internal character becomes disconnected from the person over time. First, physical results can always be disconnected or stolen from their creators. Second, the person who grows old is no longer capable of generating the results that they once could.
Verse 24 uses the word ‘all’ twice, and all ‘focuses on the parts making up the whole’. In other word, Peter is not making an overgeneralized statement. Instead, he is making a universal statement that always applies. These limitations are inherent qualities of building mentally upon embodiment.
Verse 25 describes the alternative: “But the word of the Lord endures forever.” Verse 23 talked about the abiding logos of God. Verse 23 uses the word rhema, which means ‘a spoken word, made by the living voice’. And forever is actually ‘to the age’, and age is used ‘especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age’. ‘Lord’ refers to incarnation rather than to God the Father. Logos refers to the TMN of some paradigm or general theory. Rhema is more concrete and immediate.
Mental symmetry provides a possible explanation of what this means. I have mentioned that mental symmetry can be used as a meta-theory that uses normal thought to integrate technical specializations and mental networks, leading to a more adequate concept of God in Teacher thought. That was described in verse 23. But I am now finding that mental symmetry leads to its own kind of technical thought, with rigorous definitions and cause-and-effect. And this more technical formulation of mental symmetry can be used to analyze prophetic passages of the New Testament. Saying this in more detail, the New Testament appears to be saying that the current age of matter-over-mind will be replaced by a new age of mind-over-matter. And it seems that mental symmetry can be used to analyze both current matter-over-mind as well as the future age of mind-over-matter. In other words, it ‘abides to the age’. This is explored further in the book-length essays on Hebrews and 2 Corinthians.
Verse 25 finishes by emphasizing that this technical understanding does not contradict what was preached earlier on: “And this is the word which was preached as good news to you”. The same word rhema is used, and preached as good news means ‘to announce good news’. Cognitively speaking, preaching good news is often done by those who emphasize concrete technical thought, because they will use preaching and proclaiming to say that there will be salvation in concrete thought. A lot of pop psychology falls into this category, because it uses words and slogans to help a person to be more successful. Most Bible sermons also function at this level, using the Bible as a verbal source of slogans and promises to encourage people. Verse 25 seems to be saying that the new path of Teacher understanding refined through technical thought will lead to the same good news. Both are saying the same words. But one is based in slogans accompanied by some comprehension while the other is based in a deep understanding of the abiding logos of God.
Transforming Social Interaction 2:1-3
Chapter 1 focused upon building understanding in Teacher thought. Chapter 2 will talk about applying this understanding in an environment of people who are not applying the understanding.
Chapter 2 opens with “Therefore, putting aside”. Putting aside means ‘to put off, lay aside’. Putting aside presumes a certain amount of distance. One can put aside habits or clothing, but one cannot put aside core mental networks. I mentioned earlier that the TMN of a general understanding makes it emotionally possible to let go of childish MMNs. The Teacher understanding was described at the end of chapter 1. This is followed by a ‘therefore, putting aside’ and a list of childish behavior that can now be put aside. Verse 1 reads: “Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.”
The first item is malice, which means ‘the underlying principle of evil (inherent evil) which is present, even if not outwardly expressed’. This goes beyond evil actions or thoughts to the core mental networks that are motivating evil. And malice is preceded by all, which ‘focuses on the parts making up the whole’. I mentioned that the extent of personal transformation is limited by the generality of one’s Teacher understanding. The end of chapter 1 described a universal concept of God in Teacher thought. A Teacher understanding of this magnitude should make it possible to ‘put aside’ core childish MMNs.
This does not mean that these childish MMNs will instantly disappear. Instead, putting aside gives the impression that it is now possible to practice free will in this area. Saying this more generally, it appears that free will becomes maximized when the mind is able to choose between different core mental networks. This choosing is a significant shift, but it is not the final stage of personal transformation. Instead, choosing a new motivation will cause it to grow at the expense of existing motivations. This new motivation will then work itself out in the next chapters.
The second item is deceit, which means ‘using bait to alure or hook people, especially those already festering in excessive, emotional pain’. This term is also preceded by an ‘all’. Letting go of malice means that I myself will not be motivated by childish MMNs. Letting go of deceit means that I will not motivate others by using their childish MMNs. For instance, a recent article in the New Yorker made the following statement about Fox news: “‘Fox’s great insight wasn’t necessarily that there was a great desire for a conservative point of view.’ More erudite conservatives, he says, such as William F. Buckley, Jr., and Bill Kristol, couldn’t have succeeded as Fox has. Levin observes, ‘The genius was seeing that there’s an attraction to fear-based, anger-based politics that has to do with class and race.’” This is an example of motivating others by appealing to their childish MMNs.
The next word is hypocrisies, which ‘refers to someone acting under a mask’. This word is in the plural, which implies that one puts on various masks which depend upon the social context. When one is guided by a universal concept of God in Teacher thought, then one will behave in a consistent manner across all social contexts, and this consistent behavior will extend from surface to core. A person without a universal understanding in Teacher thought will be governed by hypocrisies: First, thought and behavior will be guided by the TMNs and/or MMNs of the specific context or specialization. Second, core MMNs of childish thought and behavior will remain intact. For instance, developing mental symmetry has caused me to view many different subjects as merely aspects of a single, integrated understanding. This integrated understanding makes it possible for me to use choice to lay aside hypocrisies.
The next word is envies, which ‘refers to the jealous envy that negatively energizes someone with an embittered mind.’ For instance, my previous essay was on The Great Controversy by Ellen White. This book illustrates what happens when one holds on to the absolute truth of the Bible in an environment which is discovering the universal truth of science. The primary focus of this book is upon the evil, power, and intelligence of Satan and his minions. I suggest that this qualifies as ‘an embittered mind being negatively energized’. In fact, White says that God’s plan of history is to show creation the evilness of sin through the downfall and punishment of Satan, telling us that White’s concept of God is being shaped by envy. I am not suggesting that White was trying to follow Satan. It is clear that she was sincerely trying to follow God. But clinging to absolute truth ensured that she did not have a concept of God in Teacher thought that was great enough to let go of a mental fixation upon Satan.
The final word is slanders, which means ‘evil speech, slander’. This is also preceded by the word ‘all’. The danger here is to allow speech to be guided by Mercy categories of good and evil, in which ‘they’ are regarded as evil and ‘we’ are regarded as good. Good and evil do exist, one can learn about God’s ways by distinguishing between good and evil, and one should follow good in Mercy thought while avoiding evil. But Mercy categories of good and evil should always be viewed as implications of Teacher understanding. For instance, the goal of mental symmetry is mental wholeness, in which all parts of the mind work together in harmony. This approaches the mind from the Teacher viewpoint of order-within-complexity. Evil in Mercy thought can then be defined as using the mind in an unwholesome manner in which cognitive modules are suppressed, attacked, or pitted against one another. Viewing Mercy evil as a lack of Teacher order will naturally cause a person to avoid evil speech and slander, because the goal will be to increase Teacher order rather than denounce Mercy evil.
Verse 2 describes this kind of emotional perspective: “like newborn babies, long for the [e]pure [f]milk of the word”. As one can see, the NASB adds two footnotes to try to explain the concept of ‘pure milk’, but these footnotes do not really help. The word milk is used five times in the New Testament. It is used here, once in an analogy, and three times by Paul to represent intellectual and spiritual pablum required by immature individuals who are incapable of chewing on real intellectual food. In contrast, Peter has just talked about building the TMN of a concept of God and the previous verse described how this concept of God can be used to put aside childish MMNs. Thus, it might seem strange for Peter to use the metaphor of milk which Paul associates with spiritual infants who are being guided by childish MMNs.
One can analyze what Peter is trying to say by looking at the Greek words that the NASB translates as ‘[e]pure [f]milk of the word’. The word pure is used once in the New Testament and adds the prefix ‘without’ to a word that means ‘bait, deceit’. The dictionary entry explains that pure ‘in the papyri means unfalsified and is also used of unmixed liquids, free from adulteration or fraudulent claim’. This type of purity emerges when an integrated understanding in Teacher thought rules over the mind. The word translated ‘of the word’ is logikos, which is derived from logos. It is only used twice in the New Testament and is defined as ‘logical because divinely reasonable’. This also suggests a form of thinking that is being guided by a concept of God in Teacher thought. The other use of this word is in Romans 12:1, which instructs “to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, [which is] your spiritual service of worship”. In that verse, logikos is translated as ‘spiritual’. That passage contains the seven spiritual gifts upon which mental symmetry is based. The theory of mental symmetry uses these seven spiritual gifts as a meta-theory to analyze human thought and behavior in an integrated, organic fashion. This is related to the word logos, which we have connected with a Teacher mental network (or TMN).
That brings us to the concept of milk. Peter says that one is supposed to long for milk ‘like newborn babies’. The word long means ‘to long for, especially as it is fitting’. Thus, there is desire, but it is also an appropriate desire. Newborn is only used once in the New Testament, and means ‘newly begotten, newly born’. The focus here is upon new mental networks that have just come into existence. Similarly, the word babies means ‘an unborn or a newborn child’.
Now let us put these pieces together. Milk is a liquid that is produced by females. Thus, milk represents learning from female thought in an experiential manner. Female thought emphasizes emotions. The average person associate emotions with Mercy emotions, which are often interpreted as childish Mercy emotions. One can see this viewpoint in Paul’s use of the word milk, which refers to immature Christians who require emotional, religious Mercy experiences. However, Teacher thought also functions emotionally, and mature female thought will be guided by Teacher emotions. Saying this another way, male thought tends to specialize while female thought is naturally more integrated. Thus, Peter is pointing to the Teacher side of female thought, in which one approaches understanding from a more integrated, organic perspective. This mindset can be seen in feminine intuition, which jumps in organic fashion from personal Mercy experiences to general Teacher theory. Untrained intuition is not reliable. But intuition that is guided by an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought will be both reliable and insightful. Saying this more succinctly, a new form of personal life has just become born within Mercy thought, and this new personal life needs to be emotionally fed on rational thought in the form of integrated Teacher understanding. This means going beyond knowledge and understanding to wisdom.
Verse 2 finishes by describing the goal: “so that by it you may grow up to salvation”. The word by actually means ‘in the realm of’, implying that one is functioning within the domain of some general Teacher theory. The word grow up means ‘grow (increase); become greater in size (maturity, etc.)’. To means ‘to or into’. And salvation means ‘to save, rescue’. Peter is describing a method of using mental networks to grow a mindset that thinks in terms of salvation. Instead of saving a person one detail at a time, the way that Contributor thought normally does, one is using the TMN of an integrated concept of God to bring to birth new MMNs of personal identity which naturally think and feel in terms of salvation. For instance, mental symmetry leads to the TMN of a theory that is based in mental wholeness. Holding on emotionally to this theory will cause new MMNs of personal identity to become born which naturally think and feel in terms of reaching mental wholeness. This leads to a mindset that will ‘grow up to salvation’.
The motivation for developing this mindset is described in verse 3: “if you have tasted that the Lord is kind.” The word translated kind means ‘useful (serviceable, productive)’. The Bible dictionary adds that ‘what God defines is kind – and therefore also eternally useful! We have no adjective in English that conveys this blend of being kind and good at the same time.’ Teacher thought thinks in terms of functionality, which is another expression of order-within-complexity. Tasting that the Lord is functional approaches a rational concept of God from an emotional perspective. As the Bible dictionary mentions, this is not a normal human perspective. This shows again how Perceiver thought is unlocking the doors to a new facet of Contributor salvation.
Living Stones 2:4-5
The next section introduces another new concept, which is that of a ‘living stone’: “And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is chosen and precious in the sight of God” (v.4). The word stone is used 59 times in the New Testament, but only Peter talks about living stones. However, John the Baptist, another Perceiver person, makes an oblique reference to the idea of a living stone. When religious Jews come to him he responds by warning, “and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, We have Abraham for our father; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham” (Matt. 3:9). (And Jesus talks about the stones ‘crying out’ in Luke 19:39.) Stones represent Perceiver facts. Jesus recognizes this symbolism in John 1:42 because he gives Simon the Hebrew name Cephas when he first meets him, and the text specifically translates this name into the Greek word Peter, which means rock or stone. Abraham left his cultural MMNs in order to follow God. John the Baptist is saying that Perceiver truth can provide an alternate starting point for ‘children of Abraham’. Peter has just explained this alternate starting point. And Christianity provides a partial illustration of this alternate starting point, because one becomes a Christian through Perceiver belief.
Looking at this cognitively, a mental network is actually a hybrid structure. On the one hand, it is composed of emotional memories and uses emotional pressure. But on the other hand, this emotional pressure attempts to impose structure and content upon the mind. What typically happens is that the emotion overshadows the content. One notices that one is being emotionally driven, and one overlooks the fact that one is being emotionally driven in a certain direction. If Perceiver thought gains sufficient confidence to be able to function in the midst of emotional pressure, then it becomes possible to become consciously aware of the content of mental networks. Saying this another way, the mind uses MMNs to represent people. Perceiver thought adds self-awareness and self-image, making it possible to reflect upon MMNs of people. This is known in psychology as theory of mind. (Server confidence makes it possible to be aware of personal behavior and skill, but the Server person finds it very difficult to be self-aware.)
Perceiver thought by itself can only think in terms of solid facts, or ‘stones’. But if Perceiver thought expands incarnation into a general concept of God in Teacher thought as described in chapter 1 and then allows this Teacher understanding to give birth to new identity in Mercy thought as described in the beginning of chapter 2, then Perceiver stones will turn into living stones.
For instance, I began research on mental symmetry by helping my brother Lane analyze facts about the seven cognitive styles that he had gathered by analyzing biographies and giving seminars. As I compared these historical facts with neurology, we came to the conclusion that every human mind actually contains all seven cognitive modules, and that each cognitive style is conscious in one of these modules. Saying this more personally, I realized that my mind was composed of seven different cognitive modules which all have a right to live. I as a person who is conscious in Perceiver thought do not have the right to squelch Exhorter excitement, avoid Contributor plans, or run roughshod over Mercy emotions. The Perceiver facts that I had learned about the mind now turned into living stones—facts that were alive. This realization set me upon a journey of personal transformation in the direction of mental wholeness. I have found since then that the average person does not think this way, but rather treats his mind as a dictatorship in which conscious thought rules absolutely over subconcious thought.
Verse 4 talks about regarding incarnation as a living stone: “coming to Him [as] to a living stone which has been rejected by men”. The word living refers to either natural or spiritual life. The word coming means ‘to approach, to drawn near’. The NASB adds the word ‘as’ implying that ‘living stones’ is an analogy, but there is no ‘as’ in the original Greek (which is why I have put the word in square brackets). This is unusual because some version of ‘as’ or ‘like’ is almost always included. A more literal rendition would be ‘to whom coming, a living stone by men indeed rejected’. This gives the impression that one is not just treating a mental network as a representative of a physical person, but actually interacting closely with a mental network of incarnation. In other words, Perceiver thought has extended Contributor technical thought to the point where Contributor thought itself has become a living stone.
This drawing near to incarnation as a living stone can be seen in the evangelical concept of ‘asking Jesus into your heart’. Normally, the mental network that represents a physical person is given substance by the actual person existing in real life in a physical body. In the case of Jesus, the mental network that represents the imaginary person of Jesus is being given substance by the structure of incarnation that exists within the mind. This idea of Jesus as an imaginary person is discussed in previous essays.
The word rejected means ‘to cast away after thorough investigation’. This conveys the idea that ‘asking Jesus into your heart’ has not survived academic examination, and this is an accurate statement because ‘asking Jesus into your heart’ is not regarded as academically rigorous. That is because academic thought emphasizes technical thinking—it uses Contributor-controlled technical thought while placing strict limitations upon Perceiver thought with its analogies and connections.
However, incarnation as a living stone “is chosen and precious in the sight of God” (v.4). The word chosen means ‘chosen, out of a personal preference’ and is the same word that was used in 1:1 to describe the elect or chosen of God. The word precious is an intensified version of honor that means ‘hold in honor, in a state (condition) of personal respect’. In other words, God in Teacher thought values the idea of people as living stones, and places especial value upon the idea of incarnation as of living stone. That is because a living stone will naturally generate order-within-complexity. Teacher thought wants general theories that survive. Teacher thought by itself can always come up with a general theory, but Teacher thought needs help from Perceiver thought to come up with general theories that will survive. The Teacher person usually solves this problem by building theories upon sources of truth that are regarded as reliable. When a Teacher person concludes that some personal source is not reliable, then that person will be rejected and all facts that come from that person will be ignored from then on.
Building upon Perceiver ‘stones’ may create lasting Teacher order, but it will not lead to emotionally interesting order-within-complexity because stones do not change. However, a living stone does change because it is alive. A living stone has a stable personality which will express itself in many different specific ways. Similarly, a fully developed concept of incarnation expands the historical facts about the specific person of Jesus by expressing these same facts in many different ways guided by a more general concept of Christ. Saying this more clearly, studying the Gospels as absolute truth will lead to a mental concept of Jesus, and one can form a personal relationship with this internal concept of Jesus. However, if one views the Jesus of the Gospels as a historical personalization of universal truth, then this will lead to a mental concept of Christ Jesus, and the internal personal relationship that results will acquire new dimensions. Again one sees that Perceiver thought is unfolding Contributor incarnation.
Verse 5 then extends this concept of living stones to real people: “You also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood”. Here the comparative ‘as’ is explicitly included. This is interesting because one normally uses a comparative when dealing with symbols while treating reality as the real thing. In verses 4-5, Peter is treating the concept of incarnation as the real thing while viewing real people as the analogy. The end of chapter 1 talked about viewing God’s word as permanent while treating physical reality as temporary. Peter’s use of the comparative ‘as’ illustrates what it means to apply this in practice. One does not just say that God’s word is eternal while acting as if physical reality is all that matters. Instead, one starts thinking of internal Teacher-based thought as the real thing and starts viewing physical existence as the analogy.
Notice how Peter is describing a different way of viewing Christ Jesus as the Savior of all mankind. Perceiver thought is constructing an interdisciplinary concept of God in Teacher thought, this is leading in Mercy thought to the concept of incarnation as a living stone, and then this concept of living stones is being applied to other people.
For instance, after I started viewing my mind as seven interacting living cognitive modules, I started to view ‘Jesus in my heart’ as a living structure in Contributor thought being backed up by the TMN of a general understanding of mental wholeness in Teacher thought. This then changed the way that I viewed other people, because I then started to think of real people as interacting cognitive modules. For instance, when I interact with Perceiver persons, I will ask myself how they are treating Mercy thought, or how they are building understanding in Teacher thought. This illustrates what it means to treat people ‘as living stones’.
One then starts to think of social structure from a cognitive perspective as a spiritual structure composed of living stones. As verse 5 says, the living stones “are being built up [as] a spiritual house for a holy priesthood”. The word built up explicitly means ‘to build a house’. This describes a combination of Teacher thought and Mercy thought. On the one hand, one is assembling Perceiver stones into a Teacher structure of order-within-complexity. But on the other hand, the Teacher structure that one is building is also a house for personal identity in Mercy thought. Notice that one is constructing a house and not a machine, a factory, an office building, or a barracks. The word house is also explicitly mentioned, emphasizing the focus upon building a home. Thus, the original Greek is more literally ‘building-a-house a house’. This house is described as spiritual. My general hypothesis is that humans interact with the spiritual realm through mental networks, and that spirits can inhabit and empower mental networks. Thus, building a house means constructing mental networks within which personal identity can live.
As with verse 4, the NASB adds the comparative ‘as’ where it is not present. ‘As’ is used when comparing real people with living stones, implying that real people are being treated as an analogy of internal reality. But when talking about building up a spiritual house, there is no comparative ‘as’. Thus, a more literal rendition is ‘as living stones being built up a spiritual house’. This implies that the spiritual realm is being regarded as the ultimate reality.
The NASB translates the next phrase as “for a holy priesthood”, but the word for actually means ‘to or into’. Thus, this internal spiritual building is heading towards the direction of a holy priesthood. Holy means ‘set apart by (or for) God’. The word priesthood is only used twice in the New Testament: here, and four verses later. It is based upon the word sacred, which means ‘sacred because belonging to the Temple’. Notice how this expands upon the concept of living stones. The people are set apart by God because they belong to the structure of a temple. In other words, God is trying to build up a kind of religious academia. Academia is an invisible structure composed of researchers who work together to add to the body of knowledge. Peter is describing an invisible temple composed of people whose lives are interacting in a manner that constructs a temple to God. This is like academia but it extends to include the subjective in Mercy thought and it goes beyond specialization to be based in a concept of God in Teacher thought. Academia is a partial illustration of the technical thinking of incarnation. A holy priesthood is a more complete illustration of incarnation that has been unfolded by Perceiver thought. (Scientific academia also includes Server thought by using exemplars to teach how the natural world behaves. But Perceiver connections are required to teach academia that Server actions should be connected with Teacher words.)
The goal of this holy priesthood is “to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (v.5). ‘Through Jesus Christ’ tells us that incarnation is still the intermediary that leads between God and mankind. Perceiver thought can extend Contributor incarnation, but this does not replace Contributor incarnation.
The extra dimensions that Perceiver thought adds can be seen in the term ‘spiritual sacrifices’. The word sacrifice means ‘an offering the Lord accepts because offered on His terms’. This tells us that the TMN of a concept of God is shaping human activity. People are interacting with God on God’s terms. The word sacrifice is used 29 times in the New Testament but this is the only time that it is combined with the adjective ‘spiritual’. Spiritual refers to Mercy mental networks being guided by internal understanding. Saying this cognitively, Platonic forms of the spirit will emerge within Mercy thought as an indirect result of a general Teacher understanding. Putting this together with the phrase ‘through Jesus Christ’, one can see that the technical thinking of incarnation has been expanded to include the emotional realm of personal mental networks.
For instance, when I apply the theory of mental symmetry to some topic such as the epistle of 1 Peter, I am simultaneously using three strategies: First, I am being guided in Teacher thought by the TMN of the theory of mental symmetry. Second, I am using technical thought to add details to this Teacher theory in a reasonably rigorous manner, using careful defined words and clear concepts. Third, I am also allowing the text to resonate with my personal experiences in Mercy thought. This internal resonance guided by my experiences of following a path of personal transformation adds a spiritual component. Saying this more succinctly, I am being guided by a Trinitarian concept of God.
Continuing with verse 5, the word acceptable adds the prefix ‘well’ to a verb that means ‘to welcome with warm reciprocity’. In other words, personal identity in Mercy thought becomes the partner of Teacher understanding rather than the enemy. Speaking again from personal experience, I find that resonating personally with the biblical text adds an extra dimension to my ability to analyze the text theoretically. In many cases, the only reason that I can understand the text rationally is because it resonates with my personal experience. In some way, I have internally experienced something that is like what the text is saying.
A Corner Stone 2:6-8
Verse 6 begins with a similar mindset: “For [this] is contained in a scripture...” The word for means ‘on the very account that, because’. Contained is only used twice in the New Testament and means ‘have all-around, i.e. encompass (encircle)’. The other occurrence is in Luke 5:9 to describe Peter’s response of amazement when Jesus causes Peter and his companions to catch so many fish that their boats start to sink. In other words, Peter is not just seeing the miracle, but is mentally surrounded by all the implications of Jesus stepping in and casually causing it to fill with fish after Peter the professional fisherman has fished all night and caught nothing. Similarly, ‘contained in a scripture’ implies that the words of a holy book have encompassing implications. This is another aspect of Perceiver thought unfolding Jesus ‘the living word’. In a similar manner, writing these essays on biblical books has shown me that the Bible is not a normal book, but rather one with encompassing implications.
Peter then quotes the phrase “Behold, I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone”. This is the only reference to Zion in the epistles of Peter. Zion is a mountain in Jerusalem and the name means ‘dryness, drought’. Choice is the same ‘chosen’ word that was seen back in verse 4. Behold is an imperative based upon a verb that means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. The word cornerstone is used twice in the New Testament, and both times to refer to Jesus Christ. It means ‘at the extreme angle or corner’. In Ephesians 2:20-22 Paul uses the same imagery of Jesus Christ being the cornerstone with other people being added to assemble a temple for God. The point is that Contributor incarnation is fundamental but it is not the whole building. In other words, Contributor thought needs to be unfolded and expanded by other cognitive styles. The idea of being ‘at the extreme angle or corner’ also implies a shift in direction, consistent with the idea that Contributor thought is essential for performing major transitions and transformations.
The name Zion is interesting because it implies a lack of Mercy experiences. Similarly, the children of Israel were given the Law of Moses in the wilderness. The idea is that gaining a Teacher understanding is easier in an environment that lacks emotional Mercy experiences. That is because both Teacher thought and Mercy thought function emotionally. However, notice that the cornerstone is being laid in the wilderness. Similarly the Law of Moses was given in the wilderness. Receiving the law in the wilderness was followed by applying the law in the Promised Land. Therefore, building a Teacher understanding may involve minimizing Mercy experiences, but this needs to be followed by applying Teacher understanding to Mercy experiences.
It may be significant that the scriptural quote refers to Jesus Christ as a chosen cornerstone but does not describe him as a living stone. This is reflected in the unusual word ‘all around’ that Peter uses to describe being written in Scripture. In other words, if one approaches the Bible from the viewpoint of absolute truth, one will recognize that Jesus Christ is a cornerstone. However, if one approaches the same Bible from the ‘all around’ perspective of universal truth, then one will recognize Jesus Christ as a living stone.
The rest of the quote in verse 6 emphasizes the personal implications of Jesus Christ being a cornerstone: “And he who believes in Him will not be put to shame.” Believe means to ‘be persuaded’. The word in actually means ‘on, upon’. ‘Believing in’ conveys the impression that one is looking to some person in Mercy thought, while ‘being persuaded upon’ suggests using rational thought guided by Teacher understanding. The original Greek has a double negative that is much stronger than a mere ‘not. The first no ‘objectively negates a statement, ruling it out as fact’. This is followed by a not which ‘negates the underlying idea (concept) of a statement’. Put to shame means ‘shame, disgrace, bring to shame’.
This strong confidence can be explained cognitively. The mind uses Contributor-controlled technical thought to connect Teacher understanding with Mercy experiences. Saying this more specifically, abstract technical thought comes up with precise definitions guided by the TMN of some paradigm, while concrete technical thought is based upon cause-and-effect motivated by the MMN of some emotional goal. Every system of technical thought uses this mental circuitry. Therefore, the most general technical system—which will never fail—is the one which describes technical thought itself. Mercy identity will not be ‘brought to shame’ if abstract technical thought ‘is persuaded’ by the structure in the mind that connects Teacher understanding with Mercy identity. Saying this another way, ‘Jesus in your heart’ is a cognitively natural, imaginary person based in the structure of technical thought.
By the same token, building technical thought upon a Teacher theory that is inconsistent with the structure of technical thought will naturally lead to failure because such a theory will deconstruct itself. This can be seen in verse 7: “This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve...” The word disbelieve is simply believe with a negative prefix. The original Greek contrasts ‘the believing’ with ‘unbelieving’. This implies that what matters is not the content of belief but rather the attitude of belief, consistent with the idea that the focus is upon the use of technical thought itself.
For instance, a lot of technical literature has been written about mysticism. This is self-defeating because one is using technical thought to promote the theory that one should not use technical thought. One is using careful definitions to build a Teacher theory which says that one can become united with God by transcending all careful definitions. In fact, if mysticism were true, then the only Teacher theory that one could legitimately use would be something like ‘repeat the sound om’. This contrast between something and nothing can be seen in the comparison. On the positive side there is a complete phrase: ‘to you the preciousness, the believing’. Believing has personal results and leads to value (preciousness means ‘perceived value; worth’). On the negative side there is a single word: ‘unbelieving’. Unbelieving leads nowhere because it is a shutting down of technical thought. Using an analogy, darkness is not the opposite of light. Instead, darkness is the absence of light. The presence of light makes it possible to make further statements, because light illuminates. The absence of light cannot go further because there is no illumination.
Verse 7 expands upon this contrast: “The stone which the builders rejected, this became the very cornerstone” (v.7). The word rejected means ‘to cast away after thorough investigation’. Builders means ‘to build a house’. Looking at this cognitively, what typically happens is that technical thought is used to refine some set of facts, leading to a system of rigorous thought. Eventually those who are using rigorous thought will look back at the founders of their system and notice that these initial thinkers did not use rigorous thought. They will then realize that their rigorous structure is built upon a non-rigorous foundation. Saying this another way, technical thought emerges out of mental networks and/or normal thought. Technical thought is always a way of analyzing more rigorously some small aspect of existence. This explains why the stone is being ‘cast away after thorough investigation’. Rigorous thought is being used to retroactively re-examine the foundations, and then these foundations are being questioned because they do not meet the standards of rigorous thought. This idea of questioning the foundation of a technical structure in which one is living is conveyed by the verb ‘build a house’. Those who perform technical thought within some specialization are attempting to live within that specialization. After committing themselves personally to the specialization they are then retroactively examining the foundations of that specialization.
When one realizes that one’s technical thinking is based upon a non-technical foundation, one can respond in one of two primary ways: First, one can become unbelieving. This describes the mindset of deconstructionism. Notice that the focus is upon a stone, which represents Perceiver truth. The mind can always gain Server confidence by repeating some set of physical actions. Perceiver confidence, in contrast, requires an attitude of believing. One must be willing to be persuaded by Perceiver facts.
The second option is to make foundational the very concept of incarnation with its technical thought. This can be seen in the phrase ‘this became the very cornerstone’. A more literal rendition would be ‘this has become to head of corner’. (No, there is no typo.) Cornerstone is a single word in Greek which combines ‘corner’ with ‘stone’. ‘Head of corner’ means cornerstone but is actually two words in Greek: head and corner. These two words are used five times in the New Testament to describe cornerstone. The same word head is used to describe Christ as the head of the church. The word became means ‘to come into being’. This tells us that the idea of being a cornerstone has turned into the idea of a head of the corner. This transition can be seen from verse 6 to 7 because Peter uses the word cornerstone in verse 6 while using the words ‘head of corner’ in verse 7. (The NASB translates both of these as cornerstone, but they are not the same words in the original Greek. The KJV does distinguish between these two words.)
Interpreting this cognitively, one is recognizing that the technical thought itself is essential for connecting Teacher understanding with Mercy experiences, because that is how the mind connects these two, and that is how these two are connected in the physical universe. Therefore, one takes a theory of how technical thought functions and makes it ‘head of the corner’. This is different than making technical thought the entire building. Modern society recognizes the supremacy of technical thought. Whenever some system or organization goes through a process of accreditation, this transforms that system into a specialization based in technical thought. However, modern society tends to regard technical thought as the only valid form of thought, turning the head of the corner into the whole building. But the mind also uses normal thought and mental networks, and in most situations it is more appropriate to use normal thought or mental networks rather than technical thought.
Verse 8 adds, “and, a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”. The word stumbling means ‘a stumbling, an occasion of stumbling’. One is walking, and then one’s foot hits a stone which causes one to stumble. Similarly, researchers will be making progress using technical thought in some specialization and then start to think about technical thought itself. This will lead to a sense of mental imbalance.
The word rock is different than stone. It is petra, which means ‘a mass of connected rock’. (Petros means a small rock, and was the name given Peter.) Offense means ‘the trigger of a trap (the mechanism closing a trap down on the unsuspecting victim)’. In other words, the idea that technical thought is built upon a non-rigorous foundation will start out as a simple factual stone that acts as a stumbling block, but it will grow into a living rock that traps the mind. That is because recognizing that technical thought builds upon a non-technical foundation will become an all-pervasive truth that deconstructs technical thought, trapping the mind into the endless loop of using technical thought to describe ever more accurately the limitations of technical thought. Those who are familiar with academic thought will recognize that this is an accurate assessment and not an exaggeration.
Verse 8 explains the reason for this stumbling: “for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word”. Word here is logos, which we are interpreting as the TMN of some technical system. (This is consistent with the idea of Christ the incarnation and ultimate expression of technical thought being referred to as the logos of God.) Verse 8 uses ‘the logos’ which suggests the TMN of an understanding of incarnation itself. The word disobedient means ‘refuse to be persuaded’. In other words, they refuse to allow thinking to be guided by TMNs of understanding. ‘Refuse to be persuaded’ is different than ‘unpersuaded’ used in verse 7. ‘Unpersuaded’ implies that rational thought does not exist; deconstructionism is unpersuaded. ‘Refused to be persuaded’ implies that rational thought does exist but one is refusing to use it. Looking at modern academia, everyone seems to be talking about paradigms, paradigm shifts, and viewing reality through the eyeglasses of some paradigm, but actually putting on glasses and using them as potential paradigms is much less common. That is because people are not willing to be persuaded by a Teacher understanding of the nature of technical thought. As before, Perceiver thought is required to create such an understanding. Saying this another way, mental symmetry is a meta-theory into which one can place other more specific technical theories, because mental symmetry describes how people think when they come up with technical theories. This TMN of a meta-theory makes it emotionally possible to handle the idea of stepping outside of one’s paradigm in order to gain a larger perspective.
Using the language of Thomas Kuhn, The typical scientist spends most of his time using what Kuhn calls normal science to solve technical puzzles. When some paradigm breaks down, then normal science turns into revolutionary science. But the average scientist does not know how to function within revolutionary science. Instead, revolutionary science is regarded as something abhorrent and abnormal which intersperses episodes of normal science. Mental symmetry brings Teacher order to revolutionary science. One may not have the TMN of a technical specialization, but one still has the TMN of a meta-theory of what it means to use technical thought. Using a crude illustration, a scientist without a paradigm will feel like he has been caught in public with his pants down. Using the language of verse 6, he has been put to shame. Mental symmetry provides such an individual with an undergarment that can cover shame. But in order to wear this undergarment, one has to be willing to be persuaded by the TMN of Christ as the living word.
For instance, I mentioned that my Contributor father refused to discuss cognitive styles. Saying this another way, he was not willing to be persuaded by a TMN of Christ as the living word. He believed strongly in Jesus, and took every opportunity to encourage people to ask Jesus into their hearts. But he would not be persuaded by a rational understanding of Christ.
Verse 8 finishes: “and to this [doom] they were also appointed”. The word appointed means ‘to place, lay, set’ and the same verb was used in verse 6 describe ‘laying’ a choice stone in Zion. The NASB adds the word ‘doom’, implying that some external destructive event is happening. But the original Greek simply says ‘to which also appointed’, with ‘they’ being implied by the conjugation of ‘appointed’. In other words, it is the existence of Contributor-controlled technical thought which is causing all of this to happen. If one refuses to place technical thought within a larger theoretical understanding, then technical thought will eventually deconstruct itself.
One might think that this emphasis upon Contributor incarnation has nothing to do with Perceiver thought. But in the same way that Perceiver thought adds self-image to MMNs of personal identity, so Perceiver thought allows technical thought to view itself from an outside perspective. For instance, the idea that technical thought is built on a non-technical foundation is well-known in academic literature. But this conclusion is always stated using technical thought. This is like concluding that English is an inadequate language while insisting that this conclusion be stated in English and refusing to allow anyone to speak another language. Mental symmetry solves this problem by placing technical thought and mental networks within the connections and analogies of normal thought. This goes beyond treating technical thought as the only stone to viewing technical thought as the cornerstone which is connected to other stones.
A New Group 2:9-10
The next section talks about a new kind of social structure emerging: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for [God’s] own possession” (v.9). Chosen is the same word that was used back in verses 4 and 6. In those previous verses, the ‘stone’ of incarnation was chosen. Here, a race is chosen. Race means ‘family, offspring’. Priesthood is used twice in the New Testament: here, and four verses earlier. It is based in a word that means ‘sacred because belonging to the Temple’. The priesthood is described as royal, which means ‘kingly, royal’. It is used twice in the New Testament, and the other instance in Luke 7:25 is translated as ‘palace’. Nation means ‘people joined by practicing similar customs or common culture’. Thus, race refers to physical offspring while nation refers to a culture. This nation is holy which means ‘set apart by or for God’. The final description is people, which means ‘a people, characteristically of God’s chosen people’. And this people is ‘to or into’ possession. Possession combines ‘all-around’ with ‘make’ and means ‘make one’s own; completely obtain’.
Looking at the first item in this list, the Jews are the chosen race. A person who is born a Jew is automatically enrolled into a divine school of character development. As I mentioned at the beginning of this essay, this does not mean that every Jew goes to heaven. But it does mean that Jews as a group experience a form of divinely-ordained history that is not experienced by other racial groups. This is both a promise and a threat.
Verse 9 uses the same phrase ‘chosen race’. But there is no ‘the’ in front of any of these descriptions. And it does not say in this passage that the Jews stop being a chosen race. Instead, it says that another chosen race comes into being alongside the Jewish people. Christians read this verse and automatically apply it to themselves. And there is some truth to this because Christendom has experienced a history of progress that is unlike the history of other civilizations. I know that it is politically incorrect to make such a statement, but science came to birth in Christendom and not in other civilizations. The Chinese were far more advanced than the West for millennia, but they never discovered science because they were guided by the wrong mindset. And I suggest that mindset is the key. Peter has described the development of a new form of mindset in which personal identity is intuitively guided by the integrated TMN of a concept of God and incarnation. A child who is born to parents with such a mindset will automatically develop childish MMNs that head in the direction of following God in an integrated manner. This does not mean that every one of these children automatically go to heaven. But it does mean that these children will have a high probability of choosing to follow God in a manner that leads to heaven (and it also means that those who reject God will have to stronglyreject God). Based upon this probability, God will choose these children to be enrolled in God’s school of character development.
Notice the progression from 1:1-2. At the beginning of the epistle, God was choosing isolated individuals guided by the negative qualification of being aliens from existing culture. Here, God is choosing a group of individuals guided by the positive qualification of coming to birth within this new mindset.
The second item in the list is royal priesthood. The idea here is that one can be a priest while living in a palace. (The other occurrence of ‘royal’ in the New Testament is translated as palace.) This does not fit a Christianity that is based in absolute truth, because people will only continue to ‘believe’ absolute truth as long as they feel that they are nothing compared to God. Priests who live in palaces have a strong tendency to stop being legitimate priests. The history of the Catholic Church illustrates this principle.
But there is a larger sense in which this description does apply to some extent to current Christianity. Following Christian principles will lead over time to wealth and prosperity. That is because Christianity teaches principles of mental wholeness. And those who are more mentally whole will become more successful. This material success will naturally cause many people to question or rebel from the worm theology required by absolute truth. But even for those who are still following absolute truth, the material prosperity of society will implicitly redefine what they interpret as denying self. What the current generation of fundamentalist Christians regards as ‘denying self for Jesus’, previous generations of Bible-believing Christians would have regarded as living in the lap of luxury.
A person who follows an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought believes in universal truth rather than absolute truth. Such a person can continue to believe in truth without having to practice self-denial. If rebelling from the absolute truth of the Bible has historically led to an implicit royal priesthood, then following the TMN of a concept of God based in universal truth should lead to a far more royal priesthood.
The third item is holy nation. The emphasis here is on cultural MMNs. Holy nation implies a culture that heads in the direction of an integrated Teacher understanding. This was true to some extent of modern Western society because the average person was culturally expected to get an education and become guided by TMNs of rational thought. This is ceasing to be true in today’s post-modern society. However, even here one can gain a partial glimpse of what Peter is saying.
I mentioned earlier that ‘longing for the pure milk of the word’ implies a focus upon female intuitive thought. The strongest postmodern attacks upon rational Teacher-guided thought appear to be coming from radical feminists who use emotional criteria to evaluate individuals, judge people guided by intuitive thought, and then use emotional methods to socially destroy opponents. If female intuitive thought is capable of deconstructing modern thought with such ferocity, imagine the positive impact which female intuitive thought would have if it started to support and encourage rational Teacher-guided thought. I suggest that ‘holy nation’ is describing this sort of positive impact.
The final item is ‘a people towards all-around possession’. The Jews may be the chosen people but they are not ‘all-around possessed’ by God because Jewish tribalism continually fights the Jewish concept of monotheism: Is God the God of the Jews or is God the God of everyone? Similarly, Bible-believing Christianity also does not lead to ‘all-around possession’ by God, because absolute truth continually fights the Christian concept of God: Is God only revealed in the Bible or can one learn about God through creation? Basing a concept of God in the TMN of a universal, interdisciplinary, rational understanding and then submitting personal MMNs to this understanding would eliminate these inherent contradictions. This would not solve the problem immediately, but it would lead people towards all-around possession. And I suggest that present-day Jews and Christians are also heading in this direction to the extent that tribal thinking and holy books are being replaced by universal understanding. In contrast, the results can be frightening when Jewish tribalism becomes combined with Christian absolute truth.
Again, this passage is not saying that the Jews stop being the chosen people or that the Bible stops being the word of God. Instead, it means that this chosenness is becoming swallowed up by the TMN of an integrated understanding. For instance, these essays are analyzing Biblical books in great depth. But the mindset that is being used is radically different than that of the typical Jewish rabbi or Christian theologian.
Verse 9 continues by describing God’s purpose: “so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light”. The word translated proclaim is an intensified form that is only found twice in the New Testament: here, and in Mark 16:20 in an alternate ending to the gospel of Mark. It adds the prefix ‘completely out from’ to a compound verb which combines ‘up, completing a process and aggellō, declare’. This leads to the meaning ‘fully proclaim, declare out (entirely)’. This tells us that a far more complete proclamation is being made than what is currently being proclaimed by Judaism, Christianity, or secular science. Buddhism does not fully proclaim, because it is based in mysticism, which believes that one encounters God by ceasing to proclaim. Islam also does not fully proclaim, because it is primarily an expression of blind faith, which is opposed to the very concept of using rational thought to construct an integrated understanding of God, the Quran, and the prophet of God. (That raises the following question: Is it actually possible to construct an integrated rational understanding of Islam the way that we are doing with mental symmetry and the Bible?)
What is being fully proclaimed is ‘the excellencies’. Excellency means ‘virtue (moral excellence) which is displayed to enrich life’. It is used five times in the New Testament, four times in the epistles of Peter. This word summarizes what we have been discussing, which is that moral excellence will lead to external glory that enriches personal life. Saying this another way, following God fully in Teacher thought will enrich personal life in Mercy thought both internally and externally.
These excellencies are ‘of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light’ (v.9). Called is a normal verb that means ‘to call’. Cognitively speaking, being called means using words in Teacher thought to attract personal identity in Mercy thought. For instance, ‘Come here Joan, I want to show you something.’ This calling is from out of darkness to or into light. Both darkness and light are simple, common words that mean darkness and light.
Thus, 1 Peter 2 is not talking about the final stage. One is not entering into paradise or waiting here for the second coming of Jesus. Instead, one is making a cognitive transition from darkness to light. One is starting to see things clearly, illuminated by the mental light of a general, rational Teacher understanding. This usually happens to some extent whenever a person becomes educated. But verse 9 is not talking about normal intellectual light. Instead, it is literally ‘the marvelous light of Him’. The definite article ‘the’ tells us that people are finding the one and only true light. But this is not the light of some holy book. Instead it is the light ‘of him’, with him referring to incarnation, and a concept of incarnation is based in technical thought. Thus, what is coming to light is the idea of incarnation as a person. Christianity talks about the person of Jesus, but it has a poorly developed concept of incarnation. Secular science talks about incarnation as illustrated through science and technology, but the closest that it comes to personalizing incarnation is through the un-god of Nature. (It is an un-god because attributes of deity are continually being ascribed to Nature while at the same time Nature is never described explicitly as a deity.) Referring to incarnation as a person means explicitly recognizing technical thought and choosing explicitly to value and protect the role that it plays, as opposed to implicitly using technical thought within some limited paradigm while emotionally belittling anyone who does not use technical thought the way that I do.
This ‘light of him’ is described as marvelous, which means ‘an awe-evoking sight (dramatic sense of wonder), moving the beholder to their deepest emotions’. If current science is marvelous, imagine the marvel that would result if science were extended to include the subjective in Mercy thought and a concept of God in Teacher thought. Speaking from personal experience, developing the theory of mental symmetry has led repeatedly to insights which I find mind-blowing and marvelous, causing the light of other theories of personality to appear like the obscurity of semidarkness.
Verse 10 emphasizes the formation of a new people of God: “For you once were not a people, but now you are [the] people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” Notice that this does not say that the Jews stop being the people of God. The NASB adds a ‘the’ and calls this new group ‘the people of God’, but this definite article is not in the original Greek. Instead, it talks about a new people of God, implying that this new people of God exists alongside the Jews. Viewing chosenness from a Mercy perspective implies that choosing one group means rejecting another group. Hence, the NASB feels the need to add the definite article. But if one views chosenness from the Teacher perspective of being enrolled in a special school, then it is possible for more than one group of people to be chosen by God.
The word people is the same word that was used in the fourth item of verse 9 to describe ‘a people to full possession’. People implies a combination of race, vocation, and culture. Looking at this more generally, the word Israel means ‘God strives’. Jacob was given this name in Genesis 32:28 after he wrestled with an angel. If one looks historically at the nature of Jewish chosenness, one observes that Jews naturally emphasize the striving and technical thinking of male thought. Jews analyze the laws of Torah with technical precision. For an example of what this means, read the Wikipedia article on activities prohibited on Shabbat. Similarly, Jews naturally excel at the technical thinking of science, as illustrated by the number of Nobel prizes that have been won by Jews. Summarizing, Jewish chosenness appears to emphasize male thought. In contrast, the beginning of 1 Peter 2 described a new form of female thought emerging, and the church is referred to as the bride of Christ. Thus, there appears to be a complementarity to Jewish chosenness and the chosenness being described in 1 Peter 2, with one emphasizing male thought and the other female thought. (There is also another symmetry between these two because Judaism emphasizes Server actions while Christianity focuses upon Perceiver beliefs.)
Verse 10 concludes “you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” Mercy means ‘to have pity or mercy on’. In other words, mercy implies caring about personal identity in Mercy thought. Hence, the term Mercy thought. Teacher thought and Mercy thought do not naturally get along. I know this from personal experience because my mother was a Mercy person while my oldest brother is a Teacher person. However, Peter has just talked about a new mindset in which Mercy identity is being guided by a universal concept of God in Teacher thought. Verse 10 describes God returning the favor. God in Teacher thought is now showing mercy upon people in Mercy thought. And this showing of mercy is explicitly described as something new which was not happening previously. Looking at this cognitively, a new form of individual thinking has now reached a critical mass where it can start functioning at a social level in order to generate personal benefits. Looking at this from the perspective of divine providence, God will start using this new group of people as an aspect of his plan to guide human history.
A Meta-culture 2:11-12
The next section describes how this new group of people should respond to the rest of society. Verse 11 talks about personal behavior: “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.” The word beloved is derived from the verb agape, which refers to ‘love which centers in moral preference’. Love implies caring for MMNs of personal identity. Moral preference implies being guided by the TMN of a rational concept of God in Teacher thought. Thus, these new people are loving each other in Mercy thought in a way that follows a concept of God in Teacher thought.
The word strangers means ‘someone passing through but still with personal relationship with the people in that locale’. It is used three times in the New Testament: twice in 1 Peter, and once in Hebrews 11. It was first used in 1:1 to describe those who reside as aliens. Cognitively speaking, this describes a mindset in which one is following a path that is guided by a Teacher understanding while remaining emotionally open to personal and cultural MMNs. This would describe a professional who is employed in a foreign country. The behavior of a professional is guided by the skills and knowledge of that profession, but this professional behavior is being carried out in a foreign country with different MMNs. For instance, for several years I taught math and physics at an international high school in Korea. My work was guided by American professional standards of teaching, but I lived in Korea.
The word translated aliens in this verse is different than the word translated ‘aliens’ in 1:1. It combines the two words ‘close beside’ and ‘house’ and means ‘someone living close to others as a temporary dweller’. This describes a new alternative culture in Mercy thought. This new culture has not developed to the point of being able to stand on its own, but it does view itself as different than normal culture while still related. This word is used only once in the epistles of Peter.
Based upon this relationship with existing society, Peter is urging the new group. The word urging means ‘make a call from being close-up and personal’. Peter uses it three times: here, and twice in chapter 5. This same word is used in noun form in John 14-16 to describe the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity: a concept of the Holy Spirit emerges within Mercy thought as a result of a concept of God in Teacher thought. Similarly, ‘calling’ implies Teacher words while ‘being close-up and personal’ refers to personal identity in Mercy thought.
Peter is urging this new people “to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul”. The word abstain means ‘to have by separating from’ and ‘includes what is gained by discarding something else’. This tells us that a choice needs to be made in Mercy thought between living within the mainstream culture or residing within the new alternative culture. This new culture provides an alternative to ‘fleshly lusts’. Lust means ‘passion built on strong feelings’. Paul uses this term quite often but it is only used once by Peter.
Much of the rest of the book will describe this new people interacting with the rest of society. Fleshly ‘pertains to behavior which is typical of human nature, but with special focus upon more base physical desires’. Paul uses this term to describe the flesh as opposed to the spirit. Looking at this cognitively, a new form of motivation has emerged within Mercy thought that is different than the motivation that is acquired from growing up in a physical body. One needs to choose to follow the new motivation based in integrated Teacher understanding rather than the old motivation based in physical existence.
The reason that one chooses the new motivation is because the old physical motivation ‘wages war against the soul’. Wages war means to ‘to make war, to serve as a soldier’. Paul uses the word ‘soul’ thirteen times in all of his epistles (excluding Hebrews). Peter uses ‘soul’ eight times in his much shorter two epistles. 1:9 talked about ‘obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls’, while 1:22 described having ‘purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren’. The soul refers to the mind as a whole, including normal thought, technical thought, and mental networks, which are classically referred to as ‘mind, will, and emotions’. Peter is using the keys of heaven to unlock a form of personal transformation that is soul driven. It is a path of salvation that is being led by mental wholeness. In 1:9, mental wholeness is the result. In 1:22 this mental wholeness is being purified. In 2:11, the mental wholeness is being preserved. This is totally different than the mindset which results from absolute truth. Absolute truth believes that following God means denying self, which includes suppressing fleshly desire. Absolute truth also believes that God’s ways are too lofty for humans to comprehend. (This is commonly stated as ‘If we understood the ways of God, then we would be God.’ It is true that a finite creature cannot fully comprehend an infinite being. But it is possible for finite creatures to adequately understand the fundamental characteristics of an infinite being, similar to the way that it is possible for finite humans to adequately understand the fundamental laws of the universe.) Peter is framing this struggle in a totally different way: One is choosing to follow a new culture based upon mental wholeness as an alternative to following fleshly desire. And this mental wholeness is based in a rational, integrated understanding of the ways of God.
I know from personal experience what this means. For decades I have viewed following God as an expression of common sense and rational understanding. In contrast, those around me have typically viewed following God as letting go of common sense in order to submit to a will of God which is seen as contrary to common sense. In other words, the average Christian views following God as being ‘alien and strangers’ in current society, as reflected by the negative connotations of these two English words. But these two words have a slightly different meaning in Greek. A stranger is ‘passing through’, while an alien ‘lives beside’. Each is doing something positive, and not just rebelling from existing society in order to follow God in some incomprehensible manner.
Verse 12 focuses upon interaction with the rest of society: “Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles”. This word behavior is used thirteen times in the New Testament, seven times by Peter in his epistles. It means ‘change of outward behavior from an up-turn of inner beliefs’. 1:18 talked about being redeemed ‘from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers’. There one was leaving a behavior based in culture, tradition, and absolute truth. Here one is keeping a behavior, and the word keep means ‘to have, hold’. This tells us that a new culture has emerged. This new culture is described as excellent, which means ‘attractively good; good that inspires (motivates) others to embrace what is lovely’. In other words, mental wholeness is resulting in a culture that is attractive because it is inherently good. One is not just turning one’s back upon society but rather generating something attractive.
This new society is ‘among the Gentiles’. Among means literally ‘in the realm of’. Gentiles means ‘people joined by practicing similar customs or common culture’. This word was used in the singular in verse 9 to describe ‘a holy nation’. Here, it is being used in the plural to describe other cultures. This tells us that a new culture with its own cultural MMNs is emerging within the midst of other cultures. Looking at this cognitively, this new culture is a meta-culture, and those who live in this meta-culture are viewing themselves as third culture kids, a term used to describe people from one culture who grow up in another culture and view themselves as citizens of a third meta-culture which crosses other cultures. I refer to this as a meta-culture because third culture kids are not attracted to any specific culture, but rather find themselves resonating with others who have similar cross-cultural experiences, regardless of the specific cultures involved. That leads to an interesting question. When a missionary goes to a foreign culture to share the gospel, who is being saved, the people to whom the missionary preaches or the missionary? Actually, both are being saved in different ways out of their own cultures into a meta-culture.
Verse 12 continues by describing how the other cultures will respond to this new meta-culture: “so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers”. The word slander means ‘speak down to in a hostile, deriding way’. This is a fairly weak word which describes the way that the majority will naturally look down on outsiders. The word evildoers combines ‘inner malice flowing out of a morally-rotten character’ with ‘doing’. In other words, the majority will feel that people of this new culture are being motivated by bad MMNs to behave in the wrong manner: ‘You are not thinking correctly. You do not have a proper motivation. Your desires violate the norms of society. This is causing you to do the wrong things.’ One combats this prejudice by creating experiences that are inherently good. Looking at this in more detail, it may appear when being slandered that the struggle is at the level of Teacher words, but that is not the case. Instead, the struggle is at the level of Mercy thought. The new culture is behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with existing cultural MMNs, and this difference is being labeled as ‘bad’. The solution is to show that this new culture leads to good experiences in Mercy thought.
The long-term goal is described in the rest of verse 12: “they may because of your good deeds, as they observe [them], glorify God in the day of visitation.” Deeds refers to ‘a deed (action) that carries out (completes) an inner desire’. This emphasizes the fact that people are seeing behavior but also recognizing that this behavior is being motivated by internal MMNs. When one sees behavior that is being motivated by the MMNs of one’s own culture, one will not notice these mental networks but rather simply regard the behavior as normal. But when one sees behavior that is being motivated by MMNs of a different culture, then one will tend to notice both the behavior and the underlying MMNs.
Good is the same adjective that was used earlier in verse 12, which means ‘attractively good’. Because of literally means ‘from out of’. Observe is only used twice in the New Testament, both times in 1 Peter. (It is used once as a noun in 2 Peter.) It means ‘to look upon’.
Putting this together, people are seeing the attractively good behavior of the new group who are being motivated by their strange cultural MMNs, and this is causing new MMNs to emerge within the minds of the average person. In other words, the average person is building up a mental image of the new group which predicts how members of this new group will behave. This mental image of ‘how those strange people behave’ will become a source of motivation in the future—the emotional response in the future will emerge ‘out of’ these MMNs. Glory describes an external expression of internal behavior. The Greek phrase is literally ‘glorify the God’. God with the definite article describes a universal, integrated concept of God in Teacher thought. Looking at this cognitively, the new group is generating good Mercy experiences by behaving in a manner that is guided by an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought. This is causing MMNs to form within the minds of the rest of the population—MMNs which predict how ‘those strange people behave’, and because ‘those strange people’ behave in an integrated manner that is being guided by a concept of God in Teacher thought, these MMNs are implicitly forming the mental framework for an integrated concept of God within the minds of those who are observing these outsiders.
But this integrated concept of God will not be immediately apparent. Instead, it will become obvious ‘in [the] day of visitation’. The NASB adds the word ‘the’ and explains in a footnote that this refers to ‘Christ’s coming again in judgment’. But there is no ‘the’ in the original Greek. Instead, the Greek says that ‘they will glorify the God in a day of visitation’. The word day means ‘a day, the period from sunrise to sunset’. The sun represents the light of a general Teacher understanding. The word visitation means ‘a visiting, an overseeing’. It is used four times in the New Testament and is not the word that is normally used to describe the coming of Christ. Instead, it is translated twice as referring to the ‘office of an overseer’. In other words, this describes a future time when society at large becomes ‘overseen’ by the light of a general Teacher understanding. When that time arrives, then the observers of the strange new culture will recognize at the emotional level of mental networks that this strange new culture is being motivated by the TMN of a general understanding.
Living within Existing Society 2:13-17
The next verses describe how this new group should treat existing society: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution” (v.13). The word institution means ‘creation (creature) which is founded from nothing’. It is used 19 times in the New Testament and translated as creature or creation every other time. This is the only time that the word creation is accompanied by the adjective human, which means ‘belonging to human beings (especially as contrasted with God)’. And ‘human creation’ is preceded by all which ‘focuses on the parts making up the whole’. Cognitively speaking, Perceiver thought is again adding an aspect of self-image which makes it possible to step back and evaluate MMNs, but here the self-image is emerging at the general level of human culture itself. Peter is taking the deconstructionist attitude of recognizing that most social institutions are being fabricated by humans out of nothing.
Deconstructionism concludes that one should rebel from social institutions because they are merely the opinions of some social group. Peter says precisely the opposite, telling people to ‘submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake’. The word submit is used six times in 1 Peter. It combines ‘under’ with ‘arrange’ and means ‘to place or rank under’. This does not mean submitting to a person in Mercy thought but rather arranging oneself beneath some structure in Teacher thought. Peter presents this as a universal principle. One is supposed to arrange oneself under every human creation. This is ‘for the Lord’s sake’. Looking at this cognitively, one is practicing what it means to place personal MMNs under TMNs that have been constructed by people.
The reason for this can be seen from other prophetic passages. We currently live in a universe in which matter governs mind. This will eventually be replaced by a new covenant in which mind rules over matter. In this new covenant, all human thought and behavior will ultimately be ruled by TMNs of order and structure that have been formed by created beings. (Currently, whenever human institutions come into contact with physical reality, then physical reality wins. In the future, human institutions will prevail.) Therefore, if one wishes to live in this future realm, then one must learn at a deep emotional level what it means to rank MMNs of personal identity under institutional TMNs created by human beings. This struggle to learn how to become a citizen under the law is the primary topic of 2 Corinthians 7-13, where Paul describes his struggle to go from being an apostle who is a source of law to a citizen who lives under this law.
Deconstructionism contradicts itself. It teaches the general theory that one should rebel from all general theories because they are merely the opinions of a dominant group in society masquerading as general theories. First, if this is true, then one should also rebel from the theory of deconstructionism because it is also merely the opinion of some group of people. Second, masquerading as a general theory implies that there is a part of the mind that thinks in terms of general theories—namely Teacher thought. Therefore, it makes sense to satisfy this part of the mind with the best theory possible. Using an analogy, if I discover that all modern gadgets do not occur naturally but are constructed in factories by humans, I do not respond by rejecting all gadgets as fake reality. Instead, my focus will be upon encouraging factories to construct the best objects in the best manner. And I suggest that this is an appropriate analogy because modern technology is an expression of the Teacher understanding of science. This explains why all the deconstructionist authors that I have read so far have degrees in the social sciences and they ignore science in their writings. It is easy to ignore science and technology when one can ‘speak to power’ in comfortable surroundings that have been constructed through science and technology.
‘For the sake of the Lord’ emphasizes that the goal is to learn how to submit to incarnation. One is not submitting directly to Teacher thought but rather indirectly to Teacher thought as translated into human experiences by incarnation. This is brought out by the word ‘all’, which focuses upon the details that make up the whole. Examining all these details requires technical thought.
Peter then clarifies that there is both general Teacher order and technical details. First, he looks at the Teacher source of order: “whether to a king as the one in authority”. A king rules over some realm. This is emphasized by the word in authority which means ‘to hold above, to rise above, to be superior’.
Second, Peter looks at those who are under a king: “or to governors as sent through him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right” (v.14). The word governor means ‘a governor or official who leads others’. The phrase ‘as sent through him’ may be significant. The NASB translates it as ‘by him’ but mentions in a footnote that it is literally ‘through him’. ‘Through him’ means that delegated authority is an expression of Teacher thought, while ‘by him’ implies that delegated authority functions independently of Teacher thought. This is cognitively important because it indicates the mindset with which one thinks about authority. One should be viewing government authority as an expression of Teacher thought. This is brought out by the word ‘as’, which is a comparative. Peter is not saying that all government authority is an expression of Teacher thought. Instead, he is saying that one should mentally interpret government authority as if it is an expression of Teacher thought. One should view government authority as practice for learning what it means to live under Teacher understanding.
This is an important concept which I have tried to follow over the years. Current society contains many beneficial fragments, but these fragments have not been assembled in a manner that generates mental wholeness. Instead of rejecting current society because it is not mentally whole, one should treat these good fragments of current society as practice for learning what it means to live within wholeness. If one totally rejects current society, one is rejecting many things that are good, and one is also treating current society as an integrated unit, which means that one’s mind is still built upon the mindset of existing society. In contrast, one can follow God in a reasonably integrated manner within current society by mentally reassembling the fragments of society in the light of an integrated mental concept of God. This does not mean that one always submits to every aspect of government. First, Peter talked earlier about absolute truth and scientific thought. A government that emerges within such a setting will tend to be reasonably structured. Second, one is doing this for the sake of the lord in order to learn how to live within rational Teacher structure. Thus, there may be times when one has to submit to a law that is higher than the law of the land.
On the negative side, delegated authority is ‘for the punishment of evildoers’. The word punishment means ‘judgment which fully executes the core-values (standards) of the particular judge’. Evildoers combines ‘inner malice flowing out of a morally-rotten character’ with ‘doing’. It is only used in 1 Peter. It was seen two verses earlier and will be used once again in chapter 4. In verse 12 the new group was being accused of being evildoers. Here, government officials are supposed to be viewed as judges of evildoers. Notice how the new group is responding to false accusations with a mindset. When one is falsely accused of being an evildoer, then the natural response is to use Mercy thought to focus externally upon people: ‘How dare you say that about me!’ Instead, this new group is choosing mentally to place unpleasant MMNs associated with ‘being an evildoer’ within a structure of delegated authority guided by Teacher thought. And the new group is also choosing to believe that delegated authority is being motivated internally by ‘core values’. This illustrates the principle of choosing to view fragments of existing society through the mental lens of an integrated concept of God.
Saying this more clearly, the majority is accusing the new group of performing actions that are motivated by morally rotten MMNs. The new group is responding by mentally placing morally rotten MMNs under the rule of a TMN of authority that expresses itself through internal MMNs of value. This is mentally setting the stage for the day of visitation, when morally rotten MMNs really will be judged by internal MMNs of value that are guided by the TMN of a general understanding. Stated simply, one is responding to xenophobia with righteousness, and viewing the xenophobia as an opportunity to ‘obey God rather than men’.
Turning now to the positive side, delegated authority is also for ‘the praise of those who do right’. Praise means ‘fitting (apt) praise, i.e. accurate acknowledgment’. The word translated do right is only used once as an adjective in the New Testament and means ‘doing what is intrinsically good’. (It is used ten times as a verb, four times in 1 Peter.) In order to truly know what is intrinsically good, one must be guided in Teacher thought by a general understanding of goodness and mental wholeness.
For instance, suppose that someone tells me to drive my car in a manner that is intrinsically good. In order to apply this standard, I have to know how a car functions. If I know the parts of a car and how they work together, then I will know how to drive the car in a manner that keeps the car functioning: ‘drive smoothly, change the oil, don’t overheat the engine, keep the tires inflated, and so on’. I will then mentally place advertising about cars within my understanding of what makes a car run well. In contrast, someone who does not understand how a car functions will be emotionally vulnerable to advertising about cars. (There are a lot of vehicle ads and most of them try to create an emotional impression.)
Similarly, a mindset that is driven by social MMNs will be emotionally vulnerable to the praise of authority. In contrast, the new group is looking for praise from authority that is appropriate; it is looking for car advertising that is consistent with facts about cars. That is because the new group is being driven in Mercy thought not by MMNs of approval but rather by internal concepts of inherent goodness that are based in the general Teacher understanding that was developed at the end of chapter 1.
Notice again how an internal choice is being made to interpret MMNs of approval in the light of inherent goodness. Merely saying that God rules over human authority means nothing, because these are empty words that have nothing to do with reality. Such a doctrinal statement turns into substance as one constructs a universal concept of God in Teacher thought that is capable of ruling over human authority and then chooses over a period of time to view human authority as if it is an expression of a concept of God in Teacher thought. This does not mean that the existing government actually is an expression of the character of God. Instead, it means that the current government contains enough Teacher structure to make it possible to treat it mentally as a simulation of godly government.
Verse 15 emphasizes that the real battle is over mindset: “For so is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.” Will means ‘a desire (wish), often referring to God’s preferred-will’. And the word God is with the definite article (the God), which tells us that one has an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought.
Thus, one is dealing here at the level of what the God wants and not just what some arbitrary God chooses. One is attempting to follow the spirit of divine law and not just the letter. Doing right is the verb form of the adjective that was in the previous verse, which means ‘to do what is inherently good’. In other words, Peter is not saying that one should submit automatically to authority. Instead, Peter says that one should do what is inherently good and view authority as if it is appropriately rewarding what is intrinsically good. Cognitively speaking, this places both self and human authority under the TMN of a concept of mental and societal wholeness.
Going further, silence means ‘to muzzle, to put to silence’. Foolish combines ‘without’ with ‘inner perspective as it regulates behavior’. Ignorance is used twice in the New Testament and adds the prefix ‘not’ to experiential knowledge. And men means ‘one of the human race’. Putting this together, a natural human mindset acquires its MMNs from the experiences of living in the physical world. It lacks an internal perspective that can regulate behavior, and it has no experiential knowledge of being guided by internal MMNs. One silences such ignorance by behaving in a manner that is guided by internal MMNs which are based in a general Teacher understanding. Using the car analogy, when one is surrounded by young male pickup truck owners who drive their massive vehicles as if they are sports cars, then one responds by driving a responsible vehicle in a responsible manner. (According to Wikipedia, only 15% of pickup truck owners in North America use their vehicles for work purposes.) Obviously, such a strategy can only be successful if a general Teacher understanding exists which is capable of ruling over cultural and personal MMNs.
Verse 16 describes this attitude: “[Act] as free men, and not having your freedom as a covering for evil, but [use it] as bondslaves of God.” The NASB adds ‘act’ and ‘use it’ in italics to convey the impression that Peter is talking about actions and behavior. But these are not in the original Greek. Free men means ‘free, not a slave or not under restraint’. As is a comparison word. This means that a person may not actually be free, but rather that a person should act as if he is free. But this does not mean free from rules. The word evil means ‘the underlying principle of evil (inherent evil) which is present, even if not outwardly expressed’. Covering is only used once in the New Testament as a noun (and once as a verb) and means ‘a cover, veil’. Thus, a covering for evil means that one is internally driven by inadequate MMNs and only pretending to be moral. As the NASB says, one should not ‘have the freedom as a covering for evil’. The NASB says ‘your freedom’ implying that this freedom is a personal choice. The Greek actually says ‘the freedom’ suggesting that the freedom is an abstract concept based in a general understanding of inherent goodness. Saying this more simply, freedom does not mean rebelling from human authority but rather submitting to a higher universal authority. Freedom also does not mean automatically submitting to rules. This is not a version of Arbeit Macht Frei. Instead, freedom means being emotionally driven to obey the set of rules that define wellbeing.
Verse 17 summarizes: “Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.” Honor means to ‘assign value’. The word translated ‘all people’ is actually the impersonal word all which ‘focuses on the parts making up the whole’. In other words, do not belittle or attack anything or anyone in Mercy thought. Instead, view every situation and every person from a perspective of value. That is because every situation provides an opportunity to develop moral character and respond in an intelligent, godly fashion. The word brotherhood, which means ‘brotherhood’, is only used twice in the New Testament, both times in 1 Peter. The word for love is agape, ‘love which centers in moral preference’. Putting this together with the first phrase, one assigns value to everything and everyone, but one applies the love of God to the new group of which one is a member. One is learning how to live in a new society by treating all existing experiences as valuable. But one is then practicing living in a new society by loving the new group of people. Notice the juxtaposition of general and specific. One is learning general principles from everyone while applying these principles in a specific environment.
A similar juxtaposition can be seen in the rest of the verse: “fear God, honor the king”. The word fear means ‘to fear, withdraw (flee) from, avoid’. And God has the definite article: ‘the God’. Thus, one’s behavior is being guided emotionally by a unified concept of God in Teacher thought. In contrast, ‘one honors the king’. And honor is the same word that was used earlier in verse 17. This is quite different than the average Christian who honors God while fearing the king. Such a person will say lofty things about God while being emotionally driven by the king to change personal behavior. Looking at this personally, when one gains a general understanding of how the mind works and this understanding turns into a TMN, then one becomes terrified of violating this understanding because one knows that the consequences are unavoidable. But at the same time one still values the idea of submitting personally to an understanding in Teacher thought, and one will honor the king because it is a partial illustration of what it means to submit personally to an understanding in Teacher thought. Thus, honoring the king will occur naturally within a mental framework of fearing the God.
Government (Romans 13:1-5)
Before we continue, I would like to look briefly at Romans 13, which also talks about government. Notice first that Romans 13 happens after Romans 12, and Romans 12 talks about the spiritual gifts which form the basis for the theory of mental symmetry. Romans 12 finishes by saying that one should overcome evil with good. In other words, Romans 13 happens after the development of a Teacher understanding of mental wholeness which is then being used to guide social behavior. This is similar to 1 Peter 2 which also happens after the development of an integrated Teacher understanding which is being used to guide social behavior. Therefore, one should not use Romans 13 as a proof text for demanding absolute obedience to human authority. For instance, in June 2018, “Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended the Trump administration’s policy of separating immigrant children from their families at the border by referencing the New Testament. ‘I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13,’ Sessions said, ‘to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order.’” Session’s assumption was that government is the source of Teacher order. Such an assumption arises naturally when God is viewed as an incomprehensible mystery, because human authorities will then step in and claim to speak for God. But Romans 13 was written within the context of a source of Teacher order based in mental wholeness which exists independent of government order. This independent Teacher order based in wholeness is described in Romans 13:8-10. Quoting from verse 9: “If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
Romans 13 describes the same kind of mindset that is portrayed in 1 Peter 2, in which one places existing human authority within the mental framework of a Teacher understanding of God. Verse 1 begins, “Every soul is to be in subjection to the governing authorities.” The word governing means ‘to hold above, to rise above, to be superior’. Subjection means ‘to place or rank under’. And authority means ‘authority, conferred power; delegated empowerment’. Notice that all of these convey an attitude of Teacher thought, in which general rules over specific, and specific places itself under general.
Verse 1 continues “For there is no authority except by God”. This does not say that an earthly authority can say, like Jeff Sessions (and most ‘Christian’ rulers before him): ‘The Bible says that you should obey me because I speak for God’. Instead, it says that the idea of authority flows out of God in Teacher thought. More literally, conferred power does not exist if not under the authority of God. Saying this cognitively, if the mind is not governed by Teacher understanding, then government becomes reduced to absolute dictators and tribal warlords using Mercy status to impose themselves upon some group of people. In contrast, a mindset that is governed by rational Teacher understanding makes it possible to raise government from the level of tribal potentates to the level of delegated authority. Saying this more simply, education plays a critical role in enabling democracy.
Verse 1 finishes: “those which exist are established by God”. As with the previous phrase, by means ‘under, often meaning under authority of someone working directly as a subordinate’. Establish means ‘arrange (put in order); to place in a particular order’. This is not saying that all governments can automatically claim to speak for God. Instead, it says that if a government of conferred power exists, then it acquires its order and structure from a Teacher-based concept of God. In other words, one cannot export democracy. Instead, one must first build a mindset of being guided by Teacher understanding, and this will create the mental framework for a government based in delegated authority.
Verse 2 explains that one should not resist delegated authority: “Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God”. The word resist ‘means to reject the entire make-up of something, i.e. its whole arrangement’. In other words, one should not reject the concept of being guided by Teacher order and structure. One should not demand absolute obedience or try to circumvent the system. Ordinance comes from a verb which means ‘systematically order – literally, all the way through’. Opposed means ‘take a complete stand against, i.e. a 180 degree, contrary position’. And God is preceded by the definite article: ‘the God’. Putting this together, those who reject the concept of being guided by Teacher order and structure are directly opposing themselves to the systematic structure of an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought. Obviously, this applies to the citizen who tries to rebel from government authority. But the petty dictator who says ‘obey me because I speak for God, and Romans 13 says that you have to obey me’ is also violating Romans 13, because he is directly opposing himself to the idea of a government based in systematic structure.
Verse 2 describes what will happen to such a person: “they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves”. Opposed is the same word that means ‘take a complete stand against’. Will receive means ‘actively lay hold of to take or receive’. Judgment means ‘judgment, emphasizing its result’. And upon themselves is a reflexive pronoun which implies that people are doing this to themselves. In other words, anyone who opposes the system is inviting judgment from the system.
Verse 3 describes the emotional response to government: “For rulers are not a cause of fear for good work, but for evil”. Ruler means ‘a commander with authority (influence) over people in a particular jurisdiction’. The word fear is the noun form of the verb ‘fear’ that was seen in 1 Peter 2, which means ‘withdrawal, fleeing because feeling inadequate’. The word work was also seen in 1 Peter 2:12 and means ‘a deed (action) that carries out (completes) an inner desire’. Good means ‘intrinsically good’ and was seen in 1 Peter 2:15, which talked about doing what is intrinsically good. Evil means ‘inwardly foul’. Putting this all together, if one is doing what is intrinsically good, then one will not instinctively run away from government. But if one is inwardly foul, one will naturally run away from the idea of government.
Verse 3 then asks, “Do you want to have no fear of authority?” Want means ‘wanting what is best’. And the word authority was used in verse 2 and means ‘conferred power’. In other words, does a person want to respond emotionally in a positive way to the idea of delegated authority in Teacher thought?
If so, then one should “Do what is good and you will have praise from the same”. The word good means ‘intrinsically good’. ‘Do good’ uses the same two Greek words which Peter combines into a single word in 1 Peter 2:15. And praise is the same word that Peter used in 2:14 which means ‘fitting (apt) praise, i.e. accurate acknowledgment’. This is not talking about blind obedience to absolute authority. Instead, it says that one should do what is intrinsically good in order to become emotionally attracted to the idea of government based in Teacher thought.
I know that this interpretation sounds idealistic, but that is because an integrated Teacher understanding based in mental wholeness does not currently exist. To the extent that such an understanding does exist, I suggest that these principles do work. But Romans 13 happens after Romans 12 and 1 Peter 2 happens after 1 Peter 1. The very fact that this scriptural order is being ignored indicates that people are not thinking in terms of Teacher order and sequence.
This focus upon Teacher thought can be seen by the verb ‘wrath’, which is used in verse 4 and in verse 5. Wrath describes ‘settled anger (opposition), i.e. rising up from an ongoing (fixed) opposition’. It is used 36 times in the New Testament. Half of these occurrences refer either directly or indirectly to the wrath of God. Mercy thought tends to have outbursts of anger and episodes of pleasure. Teacher thought, in contrast, experiences the long-term positive emotion of joy and also exhibits a long-term negative emotion of wrath. The use of wrath in verses 4 and 5 implies government officials that are being motivated by Teacher thought.
Verse 4 begins, “for it is a minister of God to you for good”. Minister means ‘servant, minister’ and is the source of the English word ‘deacon’. Cognitively speaking, a minister of God is someone who acts in Server thought guided by a concept of God in Teacher thought. This is the mental basis for righteousness. The word for literally means ‘to or into’. And good means ‘intrinsically good’. ‘It’ presumably refers to the authority of verse 3. This turns the idea of authority on its head. Instead of viewing rulers as important people in Mercy thought, one is viewing authority as a servant that leads toward inherent goodness. That is because authority teaches the mindset of being guided by Teacher understanding, and this mindset is a requirement for recognizing and experiencing inherent goodness.
Verse 4 continues, “But if you do what is evil, be afraid”. Evil means ‘inwardly foul’. Be afraid is the same word that means ‘to put to flight’, but it is in the imperative. Thus, if one is being motivated by rotten MMNs to behave in some manner, then one should be afraid of authority. In other words, authority is a method of limiting actions that are motivated by rotten MMNs.
Verse 4 explains how authority is a servant of God: “for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God”. For nothing means ‘without basis and therefore not to be taken seriously’. A sword is ‘a short sword or dagger mainly used for stabbing’. And bear means ‘to bear (or wear) as a habit’. Putting this together, secular authority wields physical power and this needs to be taken seriously. That is because ‘it is a minister of God’. Minister is deacon, which means ‘servant, minister’. And God here is without the definite article. In other words, authority may be a partial expression of being ruled by Teacher thought, but authority should not be viewed as an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought.
Verse 4 describes authority as “an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil”. Avenger means ‘someone executing a just judgment’. This ‘just judgment’ is to or into wrath. In other words, authority teaches the idea that there is a justice that can be based in Teacher emotions. This lesson is being taught to ‘the one who practices evil’. Evil means ‘inwardly foul’. And practices means ‘a routine or habit’. Thus, those who develop Server habits motivated by inwardly foul MMNs will learn that there is a form of just judgment that can be motivated by Teacher wrath, as opposed to Mercy feelings such as hate, xenophobia, or personal status.
Verse 5 says that “it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake”. Subjection was used in verse 1 and means ‘to place or rank under’. Necessary means ‘a compelling need requiring immediate action’. In other words, it is imperative to learn what it means to submit to Teacher order and structure. Paul gives two reasons: The first is wrath. It is not pleasant to experience negative Teacher emotions because they tend to be both thorough and final. The second reason is conscience. Conscience combines ‘together with’ ‘seeing that becomes knowing’ and means ‘joint-knowing’. Thus, one observes the facts, puts these facts together, and then becomes mentally guided by the resulting principles. Conscience is required for an integrated concept of God.
Summarizing, Romans 13:1-5 is not a divine excuse for despotic rulers. Instead, it describes how people should respond to government that is guided by Teacher understanding within a context of Teacher understanding. These principles would have applied to some extent to the Roman era because the Romans did make major progress in the idea of government by the rule of law. Similarly, these principles apply much more strongly to the modern scientific era which understands that the natural world is an expression of Teacher order. And these principles would apply most fully to a future time in which there is an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought. I am not suggesting that one should violate these principles if there is no Teacher understanding. Instead, I am suggesting that one should not allow human despots to hijack this passage in order to justify their tyranny. One should not view a petty tyrant as a servant of God who is ordained by God. Instead, one should find another—more law-abiding—place to live if at all possible. I am a Mennonite, and that is what my ancestors have done for the last 500 years. But the historical Mennonite response of running away is no longer valid in today’s reasonably scientific, largely democratic society. Instead, one needs to learn from democratic government what it means to submit to authority in Teacher thought.
Masters and Servants 2:18-20
We will now return to 1 Peter 2, continuing with verse 18. The previous section looked at government. These verses deal with work. Verse 18 begins: “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect”. The word servant is used five times and means ‘a household-servant working for a family, implying it is done with affection and devotion’. This tells us that Mercy emotions are involved. One is not submitting to authority in Teacher thought but rather following some person in Mercy thought. Notice that this personal section follows the section on authority, implying that Mercy thought is building upon the foundation of Teacher thought.
Submissive combines ‘under’ with ‘arrange’, and is the same word that was used in verse 13 when talking about human institutions. (The verb occurs in a different voice which may mean ‘to obey’ rather than ‘to place or rank under’.) ‘Respect’ is actually fear, which means ‘fleeing because feeling inadequate’. And a master ‘implies someone exercising unrestricted power and absolute domination’. (The Greek word is despot.) These words describe a situation in which one is being ruled by a person with Mercy status. Peter is saying that it is appropriate to respond to imposed Mercy status with Mercy fear. In other words, do not fight the tyrant. Instead, try to avoid getting punished.
Verse 18 continues by saying that this applies to both good and bad despots: “not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are perverse”. Good means ‘intrinsically good’. Gentle means ‘gentle in the sense of truly fair by relaxing overly strict standards in order to keep the spirit of the law’. These two traits describe the type of attitude that people within the new group would have. They would look for what is intrinsically good rather than simply impose personal status, and they would go beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of the law. Saying this another way, one is submitting to someone who follows the cultural MMNs of the new group. Perverse means ‘crooked (bent) because dried out (like a piece of parched wood)’. ‘Dried out’ implies a lack of Mercy emotions, while ‘crooked’ implies the absence of Teacher elegance. In other words, this kind of master completely lacks any of the mental networks of the new group.
Mercy thought will naturally regard people with similar cultural MMNs as part of ‘us’ while regarding people with different cultural MMNs as ‘them’. Peter’s description matches the feelings of ‘us versus them’ that would be felt by people within the new group. Someone who is ‘good and gentle’ is behaving in a manner that is consistent with the new cultural MMNs. In contrast, someone who is ‘perverse’ would violate the new cultural MMNs: ‘He has no personal feelings, and no sense of order. All he cares about is the rules, which he applies in an inconsistent manner.’ This tells us that being part of the new group will not eliminate Mercy feelings. One is not suppressing personal identity in order to follow God in Teacher thought. Instead, one is allowing Teacher understanding to reshape Mercy feelings, and Mercy thought will continue to function emotionally. It will still generate feelings of ‘us versus them’ based upon the behavior of the new group of people.
Verse 19 describes why one responds in a submissive manner. “For this [finds] grace, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.” The first phrase is literally ‘for this is grace’. The word grace ‘is preeminently used of the Lord's favor – freely extended to give Himself away to people’. Saying this more generally, grace is one of a family of Greek verbs that start with xar- which all appear to refer to God in some way.
Peter is referring here to the principle of righteousness, which Jesus describes in Matthew 6:1-6. In brief, one will only receive a reward from God in Teacher thought if one does not receive a reward from people in Mercy thought. Saying this another way, righteousness describes behavior that is motivated by a TMN of God. The default is for human behavior to be guided by cultural and personal MMNs. One becomes righteous by choosing to follow the TMN of God in the absence of a motivation from MMNs. This righteousness will be experienced as grace, because the TMN of God will provide an emotional motivation for behavior. Applying this to verse 18, if one behaves in a manner that is consistent with the new group even when subject in Mercy thought to a person who violates the cultural norms of the new group, then one will experience grace from God in Teacher thought.
Continuing with verse 19, one is doing this ‘for the sake of conscience toward God’. God is actually in the genitive case here, which is usually translated as ‘of God’. Thus, a more literal rendition would be ‘for the sake of conscience of God’. In other words, one is trying to construct and preserve a conscience that is based in the TMN of a concept of God. This Teacher-based concept of God already exists. One is attempting to expand the domain of this concept through the use of conscience.
The next phrase describes the emotional cost: “a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly” (v.19). The word bear up means ‘to bear by being under, to endure’. Sorrows means ‘pain of body or mind, grief, sorrow’. Suffering ‘relates to any part of us that feels strong emotion, passion, or suffering – especially the capacity to feel suffering’. Unjustly is used once in the New Testament as an adverb and comes from an adjective that means ‘unjust, unrighteous’. This phrase is traditionally interpreted to refer to physical suffering, and in Roman times it probably did involve physical hardship. But the words by themselves refer to strong emotions and not necessarily to physical violence. Interpreted cognitively, the master is behaving in an unrighteous manner that does not reflect the TMN of a concept of God. This discrepancy leads to emotional discomfort, because it feels bad in both Teacher thought and Mercy thought. One is responding by allowing these painful emotions to continue.
This bearing up does not automatically lead to grace, because verse 19 has an ‘if’. It is grace if for the sake of conscience of God one bears up under injustice. The positive motivation of being guided by a TMN of God has to be consciously present.
The next sentence does talk about physical punishment: “For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience?” (v.20). The word credit is only used once in the New Testament and comes from a verb that means ‘to celebrate’. The implication is that there is an internally generated emotional reward. Teacher thought is happy. Sin was ‘regularly used in ancient times of an archer missing the target’. Cognitively speaking, this represents a Server sequence that travels through the air of Teacher thought which does not arrive at the desired Mercy target. This portrays sin as falling short in one’s use of Teacher thought rather than being associated with something bad in Mercy thought. The word harshly treated means ‘to strike with the fist’. This suggests physical punishment.
The word ‘endure’ is slightly different than ‘bear up’. Endure means ‘remaining under (the load)’, while bear up means to ‘carry under’. In both cases one is remaining under, but ‘enduring’ is passive while ‘bearing up’ includes action and movement. Looking at this further, a person who is passive will always ‘miss the target’ because he is not shooting any arrows. Putting this together, Peter is saying that there is no benefit in responding passively to mistreatment. Instead, one needs to add Server actions to abstract Teacher understanding.
This focus upon acting rather than responding passively can be seen in the rest of verse 20: “But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this is grace with God”. Do what is right has been seen several times and adds ‘doing’ to ‘intrinsically good’. Similarly, Server actions need to be added to a Mercy sense of what is intrinsically good.
Suffer is the same word that was used in verse 19 which means ‘to feel heavy emotion’ and describes ‘especially the capacity to feel suffering’. Thus, the emphasis is not upon the suffering itself but rather upon the fact that Mercy thought feels vulnerable: ‘I could get hurt. Something terrible might happen to me.’
Endure is the passive verb which means ‘to remain under’. Comparing this with the other verbs, in verse 19, one is ‘remaining under’ in an active manner being guided by a concept of God in Teacher thought. In the beginning of verse 20, one is applying Teacher understanding in an inadequate manner and then remaining passively within the situation. Here, one is performing Server actions guided by Mercy feelings of ‘inherent goodness’ and then remaining passively within the situation. In both cases, the benefit requires a sense of Server sequence. In verse 19 an abstract Server sequence is being followed, guided by a Teacher feeling of bearing up under some sequence. In verse 20, a Server action is being performed, guided by Mercy feelings of inherent goodness and remaining within the situation.
These may sound like irrelevant details, but they illustrate what it feels like to live within Mercy thought guided by Teacher understanding. On the one hand, Server sequence must be present, but this will not always express itself explicitly through Server actions. On the other hand, the feeling of righteousness will not always be explicitly present. Instead, it is sufficient to act in a way that is guided by Mercy feelings of inherent goodness, because these Mercy feelings are an indirect expression of Teacher understanding. This is brought out by the final phrase “this [finds] grace with God”. The word with is not usually translated as ‘with’ but rather means ‘in the presence of’ when followed by the dative. ‘In the presence of’ implies two people: one acting in the presence of the other. This is consistent with the idea of being motivated by Mercy feelings of inherent goodness to behave in a manner that is consistent with the character of God in Teacher thought. Teacher thought will notice what is being motivated by Mercy thought and respond in the positive manner of grace.
The Example of Incarnation 2:21-25
Chapter 2 started by placing MMNs of personal identity under the TMN of God. This was then followed by an expanded concept of incarnation. Similarly, the attitudes being described in verses 13-20 are followed by a description of the attitude of incarnation in verses 21-25. Notice how incarnation is following in both cases rather than leading. This illustrates what it means for Peter to unlock the keys of heaven, because one is treating imperfect human reality as if it is an expression of heavenly structure in order to enable an expansion of incarnation. This is like treating a computer game as a simulation of what reality could be like in order to gain the technical skills that would be needed to live within that kind of reality. In fact, I suggest that treating computer games—and games in general—in such a fashion is an effective way of applying the message of 1 Peter 2. Saying this more simply, one should view alternate reality as an opportunity to learn moral lessons in a less painful manner. Peter has been talking about intrinsic goodness. Intrinsic goodness does not depend upon the circumstances, because the goodness is intrinsic. Something that is intrinsically good remains good everywhere, both in games and in reality. Thus, someone who acts like a gun-toting or sword-wielding savage in the alternate reality of some online game does not comprehend the concept of intrinsic goodness.
Verse 21 describes how one should approach incarnation: “For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps.” The word for in ‘for this’ is literally ‘to or into’. And called was last seen in 2:9 which talked about a new group of people being ‘called out of darkness into God’s marvelous light’. Thus, this next section describes where this calling is heading.
Peter starts by saying that ‘Christ also suffered for you’. The word suffered means ‘to feel heavy emotion, especially suffering’. This word was used in verse 20 which talked about suffering for ‘doing what is intrinsically good’. As I mentioned, the focus is upon deep feelings based upon physical vulnerability and does not have to involve physical suffering itself. Verse 20 said that suffering for goodness is grace with God. Verse 21 introduces the idea of Christ suffering for others. Notice that the focus is upon Christ, the abstract divine side of incarnation. Thus, Peter is generalizing beyond the physical sufferings of Jesus to come up with a more general concept of incarnation that applies to everyone.
This generalization can be seen in the phrase ‘leaving you an example’. The word leaving is only used once in the New Testament and means ‘to leave behind’. Example is also used only once in the New Testament and means ‘a writing to be copied, an example’. When Jesus left the earth, what was left behind? The natural tendency is to use Mercy thought to empathize with the physical suffering of Jesus. Thus, what was ‘left behind’ for the average Christian is a Mercy feeling of how much of Jesus suffered for me. In contrast, Peter says that what was left behind is ‘a writing to be copied’. Writing implies that one should use Teacher understanding and not Mercy empathy. Copying means using Server thought to act in a similar manner. This is similar to the approach taken by science which uses the Teacher words of mathematics to understand how the natural world behaves and then uses this Teacher understanding to guide Server actions.
This can be seen in the final phrase of verse 21: “for you to follow in His steps”. The word translated you to follow means ‘to follow in close correspondence’. And steps refers to ‘the impression made by the sole of the foot (foot-step)’. Putting this all together, when one looks back at the historical Jesus, one should start by using Teacher thought to understand how one can behave in a similar manner. Then one should carefully use Server thought to follow in close correspondence. This describes what it means to think in terms of Christ rather than Jesus. Jesus was a historical illustration of the general character of Christ, and Christ sets the general pattern to be followed.
Peter then describes how Jesus behaved. Verse 22 begins, “who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth”. The word committed means ‘to make, do’, and ‘sin’ was seen in verse 20. In other words, Jesus never performed Server actions that missed the mark. This is typically interpreted as Jesus being a special person who acted sinlessly because he was God. That may be true, but Jesus repeatedly says in the gospel of John that he always did what he saw the Father doing. Stated cognitively, his Server actions were always guided by a Teacher understanding of the character of God. And 1 Peter has described what it means to have an integrated Teacher understanding of the character of God. This makes it possible to follow in the footsteps of Jesus by adopting a similar mindset.
Deceit ‘uses decoys to snare (deceive) people which implies treachery to exploit the naive’. Peter said in 2:1 that one should put aside all deceit. Found means to ‘discover, especially after searching’. And mouth refers specifically to ‘the mouth’. Thus, if one carefully examines what Jesus said, one finds that his words in Teacher thought never tried to manipulate people in Mercy thought. For instance, a lot of modern news is actually sensationalism, designed to appeal to people’s emotions rather than build understanding. Jesus never did that, and one is supposed to follow his example closely. This is only possible if one has a Teacher understanding that is bigger than people’s fears and childish desires.
Verse 23 describes how Jesus responded to others: “who being reviled, He did not revile in return”. Reviled means to ‘revile a person to his face, abuse insultingly’. Revile in return is used once in the New Testament. It adds the prefix ‘corresponding’ to ‘revile’, and means ‘to return abusive insults’. Jesus did not use Teacher words to manipulate childish MMNs. In contrast, others spewed Teacher words at Jesus which were based in childish MMNs. But when this happened, then Jesus did not descend to their level. He did not respond in kind. He always kept the higher ground of being guided by Teacher understanding.
Verse 23 continues: “while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting [Himself] to Him who judges righteously”. Suffering means ‘to feel heavy emotion’. Thus, Jesus was emotionally troubled by this mistreatment and he was also emotionally vulnerable. Threaten means ‘to threaten’ and is used twice in the New Testament. The other instance is in Acts 4:17 where the rulers of the Sanhedrin warn Peter and John not to speak any more in the name of Jesus. This describes Teacher words that will be backed up by Mercy punishment: ‘You obey our words or else...’ When others attacked Jesus, verbally motivated by inadequate Mercy emotions, Jesus did not respond by saying that his Teacher words would eventually be enforced by Mercy emotions, even though Jesus was deeply troubled emotionally.
This does not mean that Jesus swallowed his feelings and pretended that nothing mattered. Instead, he ‘kept entrusting to him who judges righteously’. Entrusting means ‘to deliver over with a sense of close (personal) involvement’. Judges means ‘to pick out (choose) by separating’. This describes choice based upon abstract technical thought, because abstract technical thought comes up with more precise definitions by picking out and separating. And righteously means ‘righteously’. Righteously means behaving in a way that is guided by Teacher understanding. The Greek emphasizes the personal nature of this entrusting. More literally, ‘he gave himself over to him judging justly’. Saying this cognitively, Jesus took his Mercy feelings and handed them over to the mental concept of a God who uses technical thought guided by a Teacher understanding of ‘how things work’. Saying this more simply, God has made the world to work in certain ways. I can make decisions based upon a clear understanding of God’s ways. God’s ways will prevail. I will entrust my personal hurt to God’s ways.
Verse 24 describes the redemptive nature of such a path: “and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the wood”. (The word translated ‘cross’ is literally ‘wood’). ‘The word bore means ‘carrying something through its sequence to reach its needed consummation’. This describes a Server sequence being carried out and completed rather than some event happening. The original Greek emphasizes the personal nature of this: ‘the sins of us himself bore in the body of him’. Body refers to the physical body and this word is only used once in the epistles of Peter. Wood means ‘anything made of wood, a piece of wood’. Wood is something solid which comes from a tree. A tree is alive but does not move. This would represent some fixed social structure based upon mental networks.
Putting this all together, Jesus is responding in a righteous manner guided by Teacher thought and not being motivated by childish Mercy emotions. However, Jesus is surrounded by others who are ‘missing the mark’, and this inadequate environment is causing Jesus himself to fail. Jesus is carrying out to completion the sequence of experiencing personal failure as a result of the attacks and inadequacies of others. These attacks are systemic—they are backed up by the mental networks of a solid, immovable social system. And this failure is being experienced physically by Jesus. (The pattern described here can also be seen in 2 Corinthians 5:21.)
The goal of suffering through the stupidity of others is to open up a better way: “so that we might die to sins and live to righteousness”. The word translated might die is only used once in the New Testament and combines ‘from’ with ‘come into being’. Thus, it means ‘become from’. The word ‘die’ in the NASB focuses upon the event of death and the historical death of Jesus. But the original Greek word does not mean ‘die’. Instead it describes a re-forming of mental networks. Something new is coming into being that involves moving away from what existed. In addition, this verb is in the past: ‘having come into being from’.
The result is to “live to righteousness”. Live refers to either physical or spiritual life. And righteousness describes behavior that is guided by a Teacher understanding of God.
Summarizing, if one looks beyond the specific event of the death of Jesus to the general pattern of Christ, what emerges is a sequence and not just an event. Jesus continued to follow a path of allowing Server actions to be guided by Teacher understanding even though this meant experiencing repeated failure. And Jesus responded to this repeated failure by appealing to the concept of a righteous God. The purpose of this path was to make it possible for the core mental networks of others to be transformed so that they too would be guided by righteousness. This is the path that needs to be followed closely by the followers of Christ. Saying this more simply, if one has a general Teacher understanding of God and is surrounded by those who are motivated by base Mercy desires, then continuing to behave righteously in such an environment will push a person through to a higher level of functioning. That is because one is choosing to follow the TMN of a concept of God even when people and society provide no reason in Mercy thought to do so. This will eventually make it possible for others to walk in righteousness as well.
Verse 24 finishes, “for by His wound you were healed”. The word wound is in the singular. It is used once in the New Testament and means ‘a bruise, stripe, left on the body by scourging’. A stripe is inflicted upon the skin. It is painful and looks like a line. Cognitively speaking, a Teacher sequence is being deeply implanted upon Mercy identity. One is following Teacher understanding in a righteous manner to the extent of being wounded and marked in Mercy thought. The word healed is in the past tense and means ‘heal, generally of the physical, sometimes of spiritual, disease’. Looking at this symbolically, the failure that one experiences as a result of being righteous in a godless environment is extending to the level of physical existence, leading to a Teacher sequence that deeply wounds Mercy identity. When righteousness extends to this level of embodiment, then it becomes possible to heal the inadequate MMNs of others. Saying this more generally, the depth of salvation that righteousness can bring to human society depends upon the depth with which righteousness is being embodied.
Notice again how Perceiver thought is extending and expanding the saving work of Contributor incarnation. Contributor thought can perform the essential transformative step of death and resurrection. But Perceiver thought—combined with Server actions—is required to expand this into the transformation of core mental networks.
Verse 25 uses the analogy of sheep and a shepherd: “For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and overseer of your souls.” Like is a comparative which tells us that Peter is using an analogy. Sheep are traditionally viewed as stupid animals, but they are actually intensely social. Saying this cognitively, they are strongly driven by social and personal MMNs. Neurologically speaking, “Sheep possess specialized neural mechanisms in the right temporal and frontal lobes of the brain and may recognize familiar human or ovine faces for as long as 2 yr.” The brain regions that are mentioned are connected with Mercy thought.
Going astray means ‘to deviate from the correct path’. The social behavior of sheep leads naturally to flock dynamics: “Flock dynamics are apparent in groups of four or more as evidenced by willingness to follow a leader or flee in unison.” Applying this to the context, those who attack righteous people guided by childish MMNs are not usually deciding consciously to reject Christ. Instead, they are being driven instinctively by fears triggered by childish and social MMNs. Like sheep, they appear dumb because they are being driven primarily by social pressure. That is because, like sheep, they have no Teacher understanding that allows them to respond intelligently to personal threats.
Sheep need a shepherd. The sheep will view the shepherd as their social leader in Mercy thought while the shepherd provides the Teacher understanding that the sheep lack. Overseer is related to the word visitation that was used in verse 12 when talking about a day of visitation. If sheep have returned to their shepherd and overseer, this implies that the day of visitation is now happening. In other words, a time of Teacher understanding will eventually come when those who are driven by social MMNs will follow the lead of righteous people rather than instinctively turning upon them and attacking them. But one has to follow righteousness to its completion and continue responding in a righteous manner in order to break through to this level of transformation.
Finally, notice that Christ is described as the shepherd and overseer of your souls. Thus, the goal is building and preserving mental wholeness, because the soul refers to the entirety of the mind.
Female Thought 3:1-4
The first six verses of chapter 3 tell women how to behave. If one interprets this passage literally, then it sounds both chauvinistic and out of place. But if one takes a cognitive perspective and thinks in terms of female thought rather than female persons, then Peter’s emphasis makes sense.
I suggested that the beginning of chapter 2 is describing the appearance of a new form of high-level female thought. This led in the middle of chapter 2 to a new group of people and in the end of chapter 2 to the idea of viewing incarnation as a general pattern to follow. I suggest that 3:1-6 is describing this new group using female thought to save society.
Putting this into the larger context, present-day society emphasizes the technical specialization of male thought. This provides the pieces for assembling an interdisciplinary concept of God in Teacher thought. The integrated concept of God described in chapter 1 could only emerge in an objective, scientific society such as ours. That is because assembling a puzzle requires puzzle pieces, and technical specializations provide the puzzle pieces for an integrated Teacher understanding of God. This means that the new group which emphasizes female thought will emerge within a societal context of secular male thought.
3:1 describes this combination: “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any [of them] are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives.” Notice how husbands are being won by the behavior of their wives. One can tell that Peter talking about a pattern to follow because the first word is in the same way, which means ‘likewise, in like manner’. And the word wives does not mean just wife but rather is the generic term for woman. This implies that Peter is talking about using female thought to bring male thought up to a higher level. In contrast, most discussions these days regarding gender bring thinking and social interaction down to a lower level of tribalism and xenophobia. One can see this by the terms that are typically used: outrage, boycott, betrayal, protest, phobia, hate-crime.
The word submissive combines ‘under’ with ‘arrange’. The same word was used in 2:13 when talking about submitting to human institutions and in 2:18 when talking about servants being submissive to masters. Cognitively speaking, 2:13 talked about Teacher thought while the focus of 2:18 was upon Mercy thought. Female thought emphasizes and combines the two emotional modules of Teacher and Mercy thought. Thus, it makes sense to start a section on female thought by saying that it should function in the same way as the previous sections on Teacher thought and Mercy thought. And Peter uses the same verb ‘submit’ in each case.
Going further, we saw earlier that the verb ‘submit’ involves Teacher thought. One is arranging oneself under another person and Teacher thought thinks in terms of order, structure, arrangement, and rank. This leads us to pose the following question, which I will introduce with the historical example of Ben-Yehuda. Hebrew was for many centuries a religious language that was only spoken in the synagogue. Ben-Yehuda resurrected Hebrew and transformed it into the language of secular Israel. Religious Jews fiercely opposed what Ben Yehuda was doing, but when they started attacking him in Hebrew, then he knew that he had won.
The point is that Ben-Yehuda had a meta-victory. Instead of defeating his opponents he changed the context for his opponents. Chapter 2 has been describing something similar. On the one hand, the new group is being mistreated by the general population. But on the other hand, the new group is responding in a manner that is implanting new mental networks within the minds of those who are mistreating them. This same kind of thing happens often in the interaction between husbands and wives. The husband, focusing upon facts and decisions, thinks that he has won because he has made the decision. But he does not realize that his wife has used her ability to guide mental networks to shape the emotional context for his decision. He may have achieved the victory, but she has achieved the meta-victory.
Applying this to 1 Peter, the word ‘submission’ on the surface implies allowing another person to decide. But if female thought submits in a manner that expresses Teacher thought, then female thought has actually achieved the meta-victory of defining the manner in which one submits. Male thought can use technical understanding to construct Teacher theories. But intelligent female thought is unsurpassed at living within Teacher theories. Therefore, if submission becomes defined in Teacher terms, then female thought has actually won. He may think that he has won the argument, but she has determined the language of the conversation.
One can make a similar statement about the next phrase which is ‘to your husbands’. The word husband is also a generic term which means a man and does not just mean husband. Your is not merely a simple possessive. Instead, Peter explicitly uses an adjective which means ‘uniquely one’s own, peculiar to the individual’. Thus, Peter is emphasizing a wife being submitted to her own unique husband. Looking at this in terms of male and female thought, male thought tends to fragment into various specializations, while intelligent female thought will be integrated by Teacher understanding. Thus, if each wife submits to her own unique husband, then female thought is implicitly imposing an integrated mindset upon male thought. Which then has won, male thought or female thought? He may think that he has won the victory by getting her to commit solely to him, but she has won the meta-victory by setting a context of mental integration.
The rest of verse 1 describes this strategy in more detail. Peter first describes the potential problem: “if any are disobedient to the word”. The NASB adds the phrase ‘of them’ assuming that Peter is talking about literal husbands and wives. But the original Greek uses a generic pronoun which can refer to ‘any one, some one, a certain one or thing’. Thus, Peter is describing a generic principle. Disobedient means ‘literally, refuse to be persuaded’. Word is logos, which we are interpreting as the TMN behind some technical paradigm, as exemplified by Jesus Christ the logos of God. This concept can be seen in the following more detailed dictionary definition: ‘those things which are put together in thought, as of those which, having been thought i. e. gathered together in the mind, are expressed in words’. Stating the problem of verse 1 in cognitive terms, male technical thought is unwilling to think in terms of Teacher mental network; it refuses to be persuaded by paradigms.
The next phrase describes the solution: “they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives”. The word translated by actually means ‘through, throughout, by the instrumentality of’. ‘By’ conveys the male method of focusing upon some Perceiver fact or pursuing some Server action. ‘Through’ is a more female concept because it implies a person and a set of experiences. The word behavior has been seen several times and means ‘change of outward behavior from an up-turn of inner beliefs’. This goes beyond behavior to a complete way of life that is being expressed through transformed mental networks. This way of life is ‘of the women’. This principle can apply to a wife converting her unbelieving husband through her behavior, but ‘women’ is in the plural, which implies that Peter is talking about something bigger that is happening at a social level.
The goal is that “they may be won without a word”. This conveys the impression that the wife is supposed to shut up and not say anything, but the original Greek is a little different. (However, I think that it is valid to suggest that female nagging—or shouting, or screaming, or publicly shouting and screaming—is not an effective way of convincing the male mind.) Word is the same word logos that was used in the previous phrase. Without is an unusual preposition that is only used three times in the New Testament, twice in 1 Peter. It means ‘without the cooperation (or knowledge) of’. In other words, female thought cannot use the Teacher language of paradigms to talk with male thought, because male thought is not thinking in terms of paradigms. For instance, I face this problem when talking with most people. I cannot use the theory of mental symmetry, because the average person is ignorant of what it means to follow a theory in Teacher thought and refuses to be persuaded by a general Teacher theory.
The verb won is ‘an ancient mercantile term for exchanging (trading) one good for another; (figuratively) to exchange (trade out) what is mediocre (good) for the better’. This means improving the big picture one puzzle piece at a time. If male thought refuses to think in terms of the entire puzzle, one can still transform the entire puzzle over time by swapping out individual pieces. If this swapping of individual pieces is being guided by a general Teacher theory, then the puzzle as a whole will gradually start to resemble the general Teacher theory.
For instance, even though I cannot talk about the theory of mental symmetry with the average person, I can still make many specific statements about specific issues as long as I do not explicitly use the language of mental symmetry. If I use the vocabulary of other paradigms and specializations, the person with whom I am talking will not think that I am be guided by an integrated, general Teacher theory. But all of my comments are still being guided within my mind by the Teacher theory of mental symmetry. Because I am always using puzzle pieces that belong to the same big picture, what appears to be a random swapping of puzzle pieces is actually inserting a paradigm into other people’s minds one puzzle piece at a time.
Verse 2 seems to be describing the ideal conservative Christian wife who wears long dresses and never has an impure thought: “as they observe your chaste and with respect behavior.” (The grammar seems strange because I am using the literal meaning from a footnote.) But there is more going on here if one examines the original Greek from a cognitive perspective. The verb observe is only used twice in the New Testament, both times in 1 Peter. It is used once as a noun in 2 Peter 1 when Peter describes himself as an eyewitness of the transfiguration. It means ‘a looker-on, a spectator’. The Bible dictionary explains that ‘those were called ἐπόπται by the Greeks who had attained to the third (i. e. the highest) grade of the Eleusinian mysteries’. This implies a kind of intense observation that is implanting Mercy mental networks within the minds of the observers. Saying this crudely, people are gawking at female thought the way that men sometimes gawk at women.
What is being gawked at is literally ‘in fear pure conduct’. The word fear is the same word that has been seen several times which means ‘fleeing because feeling inadequate’. The original Greek does not suggest that this is a fear of the husband. The word ‘husband’ was only used back in verse 1. The two verbs ‘won’ and ‘observe’ are not accompanied by any specific pronouns, with ‘they’ being implied by the conjugation of verbs. In contrast, ‘wives’ is explicitly mentioned at the end of verse 1 and a pronoun is explicitly added to ‘behavior’. Putting this together, a more literal rendition would be ‘so that even if any are disobedient to the word by the of the wives conduct without word will be won over. Having observed the in fear pure conduct of you’. Notice the placement of the definite articles and the pronouns. The focus is not upon the woman fearing her almighty husband. Instead, the focus is upon the behavior of the woman and the response that this is provoking from others. Thus, I suggest that it is appropriate to use the verb ‘gawk’.
Looking at this more closely, the word behavior has been seen several times and means ‘change of outward behavior from an up-turn of inner beliefs’. In other words, what is being observed is internal growth and transformation expressing itself in external behavior. Pure means ‘pure inside and out; holy because uncontaminated (undefiled from sin)’. One could interpret this from a Mercy perspective as avoiding any kind of personal connection with ‘bad’ MMNs, and it is possible that many people will be observing this from a Mercy perspective. But remember that we are talking about a new group of people that is following an integrated TMN of God in an intuitive fashion. Teacher thought naturally leads to purity, because Teacher thought hates exceptions to the general rule. This explains the word ‘fear’. This does not describe a wife being scared of her husband. Instead, female thought is being driven emotionally to avoid Mercy experiences that might violate Teacher understanding. Speaking from personal experience, my behavior is emotionally driven by a desire to avoid behaving in a way that will contradict my Teacher understanding. I have found over the years that this motivation is stronger than any other motivation. I suggest that verse 2 is describing this kind of mindset.
Verse 3 is interesting if one applies this verse to itself. On the surface, it appears to talk about the physical appearance of women: “Your adornment must not be [merely] external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses.” The NASB adds the word ‘merely’ to soften the blow and suggest that it is still permissible for women to wear pretty dresses and put on jewelry. But interpreting this verse physically indicates that one is missing the point of this verse, which says that one should not focus upon physical appearance.
The verse actually starts with a relative pronoun which refers back to ‘your pure conduct in fear’ mentioned at the end of verse 2. Thus, verse 3 is elaborating upon pure conduct and not describing physical appearance. Verse 3 does have some physical application because one should not focus merely upon hairstyles, jewelry, and clothing. But that is not the primary application.
Hair has been discussed in previous essays and appears to symbolize intuitive thought. I say this for two reasons: First, intuition jumps directly to a Teacher theory without assembling facts. Teacher thought thinks in terms of sequences. Visually speaking, a pure Teacher theory without any supporting structure is a string or a hair. This same symbolism can be seen when comparing mysticism to a snake. The difference between a snake and hair is that a snake is alive and disconnected to anything else. Hair, in contrast, is not alive and remains connected to the head. Looking at this cognitively, mysticism uses overgeneralization to come up with the TMN of a universal theory that is disconnected with any facts of reality. Hair, in contrast, uses intuition to come up with Teacher theories, and intuition flows out of mental structure. Intuition may appear to jump directly to a theory, but it is actually traveling emotionally along mental paths that been laid down by others modes of thought. Saying this another way, informed intuition is a shortcut to intelligent thought that can come up with ideas quickly that are usually correct.
This similarity provides a possible cognitive explanation for the myth of Medusa, who had hair made of snakes. According to the myth, anyone who looked at Medusa turned into stone. Similarly, when female intuition is combined with Teacher overgeneralization, then those who look personally at this form of thought will get frozen in place. This is happening currently with gender struggles. Describing this in more detail, Teacher overgeneralization comes up with a general Teacher theory by ignoring Perceiver facts. This leads to the belief that one can achieve social unity by ignoring all differences between people. But this belief actually enables female thought while suppressing male thought. What is left is pure female intuition based upon raw Mercy feelings of physical sensation, tribalism, and xenophobia. The end result is a Medusa, whose hair is made of snakes. When a Medusa mindset becomes personally aware of an opposing viewpoint, then it will feel intuitively driven to shut (or shout) it down. In the myth, Perseus defeated Medusa by viewing her through a mirrored shield. Similarly, one needs to approach a Medusa mindset with the cognitive mirror of applying a system to itself. One should not try to interact directly with such a mindset.
Looking at myths more generally, we are using cognitively natural symbolism to interpret the Bible. Symbols that resonate with the structure of the mind should also show up in other places, such as the Greek myths. I do not think that one can analyze Greek myths with the rigor that can be applied to the Bible, but one can gain cognitive insights from myths and fairy tales.
Second, Luke 12:4-12 makes a connection between hair, Teacher thought, and intuition. The passage talks about defending oneself against persecution. Verse 7 says, “The very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.” Jesus mentions ‘the hair of your head’ and then says that one should not fear. The reference to sparrows implies Teacher thought, because a bird travels through the ‘air’ of Teacher thought. Consistent with this, verse 8 says that “everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God”. Confessing involves words in Teacher thought, and the ‘angels of God’ live within a realm of Teacher thought. Verses 11-12 then describe intuition guided by the Holy Spirit: “do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” Notice how the Holy Spirit is intuitively guiding speech.
Returning to 1 Peter, braiding is used once as a noun in the New Testament and comes from a verb that means ‘to weave in, to entwine’. If hair represents intuitive thought, then braiding hair would mean forming a fabric out of intuition. In other words, using intuition is fine, but one should not build an entire integrated structure upon intuitive thought. Saying this gently, when female thought is used in isolation to weave together a structured explanation, the result is usually lacking in intellectual rigor.
The next phrase refers to ‘wearing gold jewelry’. Gold has been mentioned twice in 1 Peter. 1:7 said that tested faith is more precious than perishable gold. We interpreted gold as describing a mindset that does not fall apart when subjected to stress. 1:18 said that redemption does not come from gold but rather from precious blood. Again the emphasis is not upon never falling apart but rather upon falling apart and being put together in a better way. The word translated wearing is used once as a noun in the New Testament and comes from a verb that means ‘to place around’. Thus, the phrase is actually ‘a placing around of gold’. Jewelry is not explicitly mentioned. This phrase could refer to wearing gold jewelry but one has to interpret the words symbolically to come up with this physical meaning.
Looking at this cognitively, Peter appears to be describing the idea of female thought surrounding itself with stability that will not fall apart. Saying this another way, female thought is placing its emotional vulnerability within a solid wall of protection. Peter says that one should not do this. That is because the power of female thought comes from the juxtaposition of Mercy vulnerability and Teacher understanding. Attempting to make female thought invulnerable simply turns female thought into a second-class imitation of male thought.
Peter uses the adjective external to apply to braiding of hair and placing around of gold. External means ‘the outside’. Both of these strategies are external to female thought. What matters for intuition is not the hair itself but rather the head from which this hair grows. Instead of braiding the intuition one needs to develop the mind. Saying this another way, intuition happens on the spur of the moment and is guided by the context. One should not build an integrated fabric out of something that is being done on the spur of the moment. Instead, one should focus upon improving the mindset from which intuition flows. Similarly, female thought should not surround itself by an external shell of invulnerability but rather balance Mercy vulnerability with Teacher understanding.
The final phrase of verse 3 talks about ‘putting on dresses’. The word dress describes ‘an outer garment, a cloak, robe’. Putting on is used once as a noun in the New Testament and comes from a verb that means ‘to clothe or be clothed with (in the sense of sinking into a garment)’. Finally, the Greek adds the word cosmos which is not included in the NASB. It means ‘an ordered system (like the universe, creation); the world’ and ‘the English term cosmetic is derived from cosmos, i.e. the order (ensemble) used of treating the face as a whole’.
Cosmos is used 186 times in the New Testament and is translated as ‘world’ every single time except for 1 Peter 3:3 where both the NASB and the KJV move the word from the very end of the verse to the beginning of the verse and translate it as ‘adorning’. (Over the years, Bible-believing Christians have attacked me for starting with the theory of mental symmetry rather building upon what the Bible says. I think it is becoming clear by now that the translators of the Bible are also implicitly starting with a paradigm and not just ‘building upon the Bible’.) Clothing represents the fabric of social interaction. The word that Peter uses specifically refers to outer clothing, which implies the less personal side of social interaction. Similarly, ‘sinking into a garment’ also suggests that the personal is finding comfort in the peripheral. This explains the meaning of cosmos. Female thought wants integrated Teacher understanding. Peter is warning that female thought should not get its Teacher understanding from the structure of the physical cosmos and then allow personal identity to sink into a social fabric based upon this peripheral Teacher order. This may include putting on many dresses and wearing cosmetics but it goes beyond this to the general attitude motivating such behavior.
Verse 4 describes the positive alternative: “but [let it be] the hidden person of the heart”. Heart refers to ‘the affective center of our being’ which we are interpreting as MMNs of personal identity. Person is ‘the generic term for mankind’. And hidden means ‘hidden, secret’. Looking at this cognitively, male and female thought take different paths towards constructing the same kind of personal identity in Mercy thought. Male thought starts by defining how I am different than others and then gradually adds personal emotions to this factual definition. Female thought starts with personal emotions and then gradually learns that some personal emotions need to be kept secret and should not be shared with everyone. Using current social language, one does not share every detail of one’s personal life on Facebook.
The next phrase describes what this means: “with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit”. Spirit describes something internal and invisible that emerges within Mercy thought as an indirect result of Teacher understanding. Chapter 2 has described a new group of people whose personal identity in Mercy thought is based in an integrated understanding of God in Teacher thought. Spirit provides a positive emotional reason for having a hidden self. One is not blocking off external experiences by ‘placing around gold’. Instead, Mercy identity is turning to the spirit in Mercy thought for emotional comfort and stability, as opposed to getting social affirmation from others.
Gentle ‘is not weakness but rather refers to exercising God’s strength under His control’. Looking at this cognitively, Mercy feelings are not being bottled up. Instead they are being emotionally shaped by Teacher understanding. This attitude is brought out by the word quiet which is ‘properly, quiet (still), i.e. steady (settled) due to a divinely-inspired inner calmness’. This gentle and quiet spirit is described as ‘in the realm of the imperishable’. Imperishable means ‘undecaying, imperishable’. It is used eight times in the New Testament, three times in 1 Peter. It was used in 1:4 to talk about an imperishable inheritance reserved in heaven. And 1:23 talked about being born again through the imperishable seed of the living and enduring word of God. In both cases, imperishable is being connected with living TMNs within Teacher thought. Putting this together, when one constructs a general Teacher understanding of ‘how things work’ and when personal identity becomes reborn within this Teacher understanding, then this leads to a ‘quiet and gentle spirit’. That is because one understands at a deep emotional level the fundamental, inescapable principles of personal existence.
Verse 4 finishes by saying that this “is precious in the sight of God”. The word precious means ‘very costly’ and is only used three times in the New Testament. In the sight of means literally ‘in the eye of’ and God is actually ‘the God’ with the definite article. ‘The God’ refers to an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought. ‘In the eye of the God’ portrays a personal interaction with this God. Looking at this cognitively, Teacher thought wants to build Teacher structures out of bricks that are solid. The Teacher person will avoid acquiring facts from people who are deemed to be unreliable. Similarly, God wants to build structure out of people who are solid. This was discussed in the section of ‘living stones’. Thus, God would place great value upon people who can feel in a manner that expresses Teacher thought in a lasting and stable manner. Such a person becomes a friend of God.
Women in the Past 3:5-6
Verse 5 looks back at previous examples: “For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves”. The word translated in former times means ‘at one time or other, at some time, formerly’. And in this way means ‘in this way, thus’. Thus, Peter is comparing how female thought functions under an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought with the way that it used to function in the absence of such a Teacher understanding. Present-day society is currently between these two extremes because there is some Teacher understanding but there is no integrated concept of God.
Peter uses the term ‘holy women’. The word holy means ‘set apart by or for God’. It is found 235 times in the New Testament but this is the only time that the term ‘holy women’ is used. (The term ‘holy man’ referring specifically to a man rather than mankind is also used only once in Mark 6:20 to describe King Herod’s view of John the Baptist.) The implication is that being set apart to God was something unusual which happened an individual level. For instance, John the Baptist was not a typical person.
The next phrase suggests why this was unusual, because the holy women ‘hoped in God’. Hope means ‘to expect, to hope’ and hope is an expression of Exhorter thought. In actually means ‘to or into’. And God is without the definite article. Looking at this cognitively, female thought is being emotionally driven to head in the direction of a concept of God in Teacher thought. This type of mindset would be uncommon in a society which lacked general Teacher understanding. Within such a society, some women would choose to be motivated by the idea of being set apart to God in Teacher thought. (I do not think that being a nun would automatically qualify, because most nuns probably viewed God as a special person in Mercy thought.)
The verb adorn is the verb form of cosmos and means ‘to beautify, having the right arrangement (sequence) by ordering’. And the reflexive pronoun themselves is specifically mentioned. Cosmos describes physical Teacher order. Physical beauty is also an expression of Teacher attributes such as order, elegance, symmetry, grace, and smoothness. Saying this more clearly, we have been looking at feminine thought which places MMNs of personal identity within the TMN of an integrated concept of God. Physical beauty does the same thing cognitively by placing the physical body within the integrated TMN of feminine beauty. Peter is saying that in the absence of an integrated Teacher understanding, holy women tried to present their physical beauty in a manner that reflected the characteristics mentioned in 3:1-4.
This led to an inherent contradiction between physical beauty and internal character. On the one hand, physical beauty and elegance conveyed the idea of being guided personally by Teacher understanding in a society which lacked Teacher understanding. On the other hand, because the beauty was primarily physical, this distracted attention away from internal character. Thus, a woman had to display some beauty but not too much beauty. Historically speaking, when the ladies show up, then this tends to have a civilizing impact upon the men. If that is what female thought can achieve in the absence of an integrated Teacher understanding, imagine what female thought could achieve when empowered by an integrated Teacher concept of God.
On the Mercy side this expressed itself in the same kind of attitude toward male thought as was mentioned at the beginning of the chapter. The phrase ‘being submissive to their own husbands’ is exactly the same as the phrase that was used in 3:1. A woman is ranking herself under her own husband in order to shape the relationship in the direction of an integrated Teacher understanding.
But the attitude was different in Teacher thought. Verse 6 says: “just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord”. The word translated obeyed does not mean placing oneself under another person in Teacher thought. Instead, it means ‘to obey what is heard’ and is only used once in the epistles of Peter. In other words, when a woman could not submit to an integrated Teacher concept of God, then the alternative was to obey the words of a husband. This implies that ‘obeying your husband’ is not the ultimate expression of holy, Christian femininity. Instead, it is an incomplete expression that can be used in the absence of an integrated Teacher understanding. ‘Calling’ means using words in Teacher thought. ‘Calling him Lord’ tells us that Sarah did not just adopt a Mercy attitude of obedience but brought this obedience up to the level of Teacher thought by calling him lord.
I know that this sounds desperately chauvinistic, but remember the difference between winning and meta-winning. Winning means telling the other person what to do. When feminism focuses upon winning, then female thought may win the battle but it ends up losing the war, because the result is societally degrading. Meta-winning means successfully reformulating the societal context to be guided by Teacher thought, because female thought will naturally flourish in an environment that exalts integrated Teacher understanding. This means women should be educated in order to emancipate them from a society of male dominance. But the goal is not to turn women into second-rate versions of men, but rather to transform female intuitive thought into something awe-inspiring that transcends male technical thought.
The name Sarah means ‘princess’ and Abraham means ‘father of a multitude’. ‘Princess’ implies this concept of civilizing society through one’s personal demeanor. I am not suggesting that it is godly to act in a haughty and demanding manner, because that contradicts the attributes mentioned earlier in chapter 3. But there is a way of quietly projecting an aura that is socially uplifting. Similarly, Abraham left the MMNs of existing civilization and was promised that he would become a father of a multitude because he stepped out in faith. Thus, Sarah the princess did not insist upon staying within the comforts of existing civilization but followed her husband as a princess into the unknown in obedience to the voice of God.
Verse 6 then returns from the past to the present: “and you have become her children if you do what is right and are not frightened by any fear”. ‘The word children means ‘a child living in willing dependence’. Become means ‘to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another’. In other words, Peter is addressing the question of femininity. What does it mean to use female thought in this new era of integrated Teacher understanding and how does that relate to the way that female thought used to express itself? One can state categorically that current feminism does not recommend adopting the attitude of ‘a child living in willing dependence’. And the verb ‘become’ suggests that the answer will not be immediately obvious but rather will become gradually apparent as mindsets are transformed.
Peter mentions two attributes. The first is ‘do what is right’. This is the familiar verb that means ‘doing what is intrinsically good’. Notice that Peter does not say that one should obey one’s husband and call him lord. Instead, he says that female thought should do what is intrinsically good, which means translating a Teacher concept of mental wholeness into personal behavior. One is still ‘a child living in willing dependence’ but this dependence is now upon a concept of God in Teacher thought rather than upon obeying the words of male thought. Peter is saying that if female thought does what is intrinsically good, then this will convey the same aura that was previously conveyed by ‘obeying your husband in a submissive man’.
For instance, my mother was a Mercy person who was good at detecting personal character. She would tell me when she felt that something was wrong with my attitude and she was usually correct. For many years she did not understand the path that I was taking with mental symmetry. But she approved of the type of person that I was becoming by following this path. Even though I was following a different route than the traditional Bible-believing route of absolute truth, I was still conveying to my mother the aura of ‘being a good Christian’. Similarly, Peter is talking about a new form of female thought that conveys the same femininity that used to be conveyed by the old form of female thought. This is a significant principle. I lived in South Korea for seven years and most women there convey an aura of femininity in a manner that the average North American woman does not. That is because the typical North American woman associates being feminine with being stupid and obedient. But I suggest that doing inherent goodness as an expression of an integrated Teacher understanding can lead to a femininity that is intelligent and awe-inspiring.
The final phrase of verse 6 is ‘not frightened by any fear’. The original Greek has two negatives. The first is a normal not, while the second is a stronger term that means ‘properly, no one, nothing" – literally, not even one’. The word frightened is the verb form of the familiar word that means ‘to fear, withdraw (flee) from, avoid’. The word fear is only used once as a noun (and twice as a verb) in the New Testament and means ‘a fluttering, excitement, caused by any emotion, but especially by fear’. A more colloquial term would be hysteria. This type of behavior occurs when a person who is physically vulnerable emphasizes Mercy emotions. Modern psychology has moved away from using this term, and I suggest that verse 6 is also talking about moving beyond such a mindset. I think that a lot of radical feminism qualifies as being hysterical. In the words of one newspaper article, “When did female empowerment become female infantilization? Women once were encouraged to be strong and independent, to brush aside insensitive words and actions and to emerge stronger. But now, politicians, pundits, even celebrities are feeding an outrage machine by telling women they should be offended by anything and everything.”
The solution is not the physical security of ‘placing around gold’, but rather having a concept of God in Teacher thought that is sufficiently potent to bring a ‘gentle and quiet spirit’ to all situations. In other words, female thought does not submit to Teacher understanding in order to suppress personal identity in Mercy thought, but rather to bring peace, dignity, and understanding to personal identity.
A Better Society 3:7-9
Verse 7 turns to male thought. It begins, “You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman.” At first glance this sounds again rather chauvinistic, but let us look at the original Greek. In the same way means ‘likewise, in like manner’. This tells us that male and female thought are different but similar. They are not identical and one is not superior to the other. Instead, they are different but similar. This can be seen in the verb live with, which is only used once in the New Testament. It combines the prefix ‘together with’ with the verb that means ‘to make a home’ and means ‘to reside together (as a family)’. Thus, male and female thought are complementary forms of thought that need to reside together to create a home. Current society emphasizes male technical thought and most feminism is a rebellion against this which lacks Teacher understanding. Peter is talking about intelligent female thought cooperating with intelligent male thought.
This intelligent interaction is brought out by the phrase ‘in an understanding way’. In the English this sounds patronizing: ‘I the intelligent husband need to be understanding of my emotional wife’. But the Greek combines two words: according to and experiential knowledge, which is defined more fully as ‘functional (working) knowledge gleaned from first-hand (personal) experience’. This kind of knowledge combines male and female thought. On the one hand, one is being guided by facts rather than emotions. But on the other hand, these facts are being acquired through Mercy experiences. Female thought will emphasize the experience while male thought will emphasize the knowledge. Together, they can come up with experiential knowledge.
The next phrase is ‘as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman’. ‘The word weaker means ‘without strength, weak’. And vessel means ‘a vessel, implement’. A vessel is a container for holding something. Peter is not saying that female thought is inferior. Instead, he is saying that the container is more fragile. Female thought can be very strong and powerful, but it is placed within the emotional container of mental networks which are more fragile than the facts and skills of male technical thought. In addition, a woman resides in a physical body which is physically weaker than the typical male body.
Looking at this from a different perspective, many men find competent women intimidating. If this is the case today, imagine what it would be like if female thought became guided by an integrated Teacher understanding. Male thought would have to find some basis for having a good self-image. Peter mentions the two traits of Perceiver facts and Server strength. First, male thought needs to add Perceiver facts to the Mercy experiences of female thought. Hence, according to experiential knowledge. Second, male thought can add Server strength to the Server sequences of female thought.
The next phrase makes it clear that male and female thought are now on an equal footing: “show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life”. The verb show is found once in the New Testament and means ‘to apportion honor, giving someone their due’. Thus, ‘show honor’ does not mean ceasing to belittle her or worshipping at her feet. Instead, rational thought is being used to give her the honor that is due.
Fellow heir means ‘a co-inheritor’. Grace describes help from God in Teacher thought, while life refers to either natural or spiritual life. Notice the combination of male and female thought. Male thought thinks in terms of wages and reward. Female thought adds the personal element, turning this into inheritance: I receive a reward because of who I have become, not because of what I have done. Male and female thought are co-inheritors, which means that both of them are needed to reach the level of inheritance. Grace can be viewed impersonally as help from God. Living grace adds the personal element. In other words, God helps people primarily by helping them to become certain kinds of people rather than giving them resources. Using a common saying, instead of giving people fish, God makes people fishermen. (There is a place for giving resources, but this should be followed by enabling people to gather their own resources.)
Verse 7 finishes with the motivation: “so that your prayers will not be hindered”. Hindered means ‘cut into (like blocking off a road)’. The word translated prayer means literally ‘exchange of wishes’. Looking at this cognitively, prayer is communication between personal identity in Mercy thought and a concept of God in Teacher thought in which each shares their wishes. The male thinking of incarnation is needed to translate between Teacher understanding and Mercy experiences. This exchange of wishes will only happen effectively if male and female thought cooperate as equal but different partners.
The next section describes where this is heading: “To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit” (v.8). The word sum up actually means ‘the end-goal, purpose’. Thus, Peter is not summarizing a set of statements, but rather describing the end goal of a cognitive process. If mature female thought becomes integrated with mature male thought, then it will result in this list of traits.
Peter begins his list with all, which means ‘each part of a totality’. The NASB adds ‘of you’, suggesting that Peter is focusing upon people, but this is not in the original Greek. Instead, ‘all’ indicates that Peter is making a general statement which applies to all areas including people, mindsets, social interaction, work, home, science, and religion.
The first term is harmonious. This word is only used once in the New Testament and combines ‘same as’ with ‘inner outlook as regulating outward behavior’. ‘Harmonious’ implies that social interaction is pleasant. Peter is saying that everyone should be internally guided by the same moral system. This is possible if one has an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought, because a concept of God applies morally to personal identity in Mercy thought, and it is possible for everyone to have the same general concept of God. For instance, mental symmetry is a moral system because it describes the path of reaching mental wholeness, it can by embraced by many different kinds of people because it is a meta-theory that applies to many different specializations, and it can be viewed either from the perspective of male thought or female thought.
The second term is sympathetic, which is also used only once in the New Testament. It combines ‘together with’ with the word translated ‘suffer’ which we have seen several times throughout 1 Peter, which actually describes the ‘part of us that feels strong emotion, passion, or suffering – especially the capacity to feel suffering’. If this term really meant ‘suffering’, as the KJV and NASB translate, then Peter would be saying that he wished that we could all suffer together. That describes masochism and not Christian maturity. Christianity has sometimes defined Christian maturity as feeling physical pain together with others. But that is an expression of the self-denial that accompanies absolute truth, and constructing an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought requires moving beyond absolute truth.
In contrast, the capacity to feel suffering indicates an emotional sensitivity and vulnerability. In other words, people are not putting up emotional walls to try to protect themselves from others or from the environment. To use an earlier term, they are not ‘putting around gold’. I do not think that this means sharing all of the emotional details of one’s personal existence with everyone else. First, that leads eventually to emotional numbing because no one can handle being continually exposed to such raw Mercy feelings. Second, that contradicts the concept of each woman having her own husband, because sharing my emotional details with everyone turns everyone into the husband of my feelings.
However, I have found that the theory of mental symmetry leads to the kind of sympathy that Peter is describing. Mental symmetry describes the weaknesses and strengths of each cognitive style. For instance, when I tell someone that I am a Perceiver person, then that person instantly knows many emotional details about me. However, these emotional details are all packaged within the TMN of a general understanding of the mind. Thus, the emotional context is not personal weakness but rather general understanding and mental wholeness. Instead of sharing all the emotional details of personal life with others, one is sharing the ‘capacity to feel suffering’—the ability to feel deep emotions.
The third term brotherly is used only once as an adjective in the New Testament, but it is found six times as a noun. This noun is philadelphia, which combines ‘loving friend’ with ‘brother’. This is not agape love but rather phileo love. Agape love is guided by the TMN of a concept of God. In contrast, a philos is ‘a friend; someone dearly loved (prized) in a personal, intimate way; a trusted confidant’. This kind of love becomes evident when people are working together to reach some common goal—when people with differing abilities cooperate to carry out some project which none of them could achieve by themselves. The most general project is the project of reaching mental wholeness. Reaching this goal requires interacting with other cognitive styles because each cognitive style is only conscious in one part of the mind. For instance, Teacher thought functions within my mind primarily because I spent years interacting with my oldest brother who is a Teacher person. Studying engineering taught me to use Teacher thought, but I had no conscious awareness of the existence of Teacher thought or how it functions until I started working together with my Teacher brother.
The fourth term kindhearted is used twice in the New Testament. The other instance is in Ephesians 4:32 where Paul instructs: “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other”. It combines ‘good’ with ‘the visceral organs (bowels) as they exercise positive gut-level sympathy’. Neurology has discovered that there is a mini-brain within the gut, known as the enteric nervous system. My personal experience is that truly following a path of personal transformation will lead to a troubled gut, and the last part of the mind to become transformed is one’s gut feelings. If one can follow God without one’s stomach being in a knot, then one knows that one has really been transformed. Becoming transformed to this extent requires the TMN of an integrated concept of God. I do not think that anything less will suffice. Combining ‘good’ with ‘gut-level sympathy’ suggests that one is becoming transformed to the point where one is attracted to goodness at a gut level.
The final term humble in spirit is found eight times in the New Testament. The first term in the list combined ‘same as’ with phren. This final term combines ‘low, humble’ with phren. I mentioned that phren means ‘inner outlook as regulating outward behavior’, but it is more literally ‘the midriff (diaphragm), the parts around the heart’. This is interesting in the context of gut-feeling. I have noticed that the tension between internally following mental symmetry and living in an environment that rejects the very idea of cognitive styles expresses itself not only at the gut level but also as a muscle tension at the level of my diaphragm. I am currently in the process of learning how to release this diaphragm-level tension.
Cognitively speaking, this physical sensation can be viewed as another kind of mental network. However, in this case the mental network is being physically reinforced by internal sensations from the body. Some mental network is experiencing something new or different, this difference is giving a mental network discomfort, and this mental discomfort is expressing itself in physical sensation.
These physical manifestations of internal tension may be related to what is described as chakras. The standard view is that the physical body has seven chakras. Chakras are associated with Buddhism and meditation, which deal with chakras in a manner that is totally different than mature Christianity. Meditation uses Teacher overgeneralization to create the emotional illusion of having a universal concept of God in Teacher thought, and then adds content by focusing upon the physical sensations of the physical body. In contrast, 1 Peter starts with an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought which includes human content and then submits personal identity in Mercy thought internally to this concept of God. This internal transformation then extends outward until it impacts the physical body with its seven chakras. These two approaches can be summarized by the distinction between idolatry and glory. Idolatry builds the mind upon physical objects and experiences. Glory extends the mind to include physical objects and experiences. Idolatry goes from the external to the internal; glory goes from the internal to the external. Going one step further, Peter will mention the spiritual realm in a few verses. It appears that chakras have spiritual overtones. But even if this is the case, the direction still needs to be from transformed mind through body to spirit, rather than from the spirit of meditation to body to changed mind. That explains why Peter begins this list with the word telos, which means ‘end-goal, purpose’. One starts with being ‘transformed by the renewing of your mind’, and the end-goal of this transformation is to extend as far as the physical body with its gut feelings and chest tension.
Verse 9 describes how one should interact with others who are following a different path: “not returning evil for evil or insult for insult”. The word returning means ‘to return (especially as a payment)’. This describes a mindset of justice in which one gives other people what they have earned. But mental maturity goes beyond thinking in terms of justice and repayment. The two prepositions translated for are actually anti, which means ‘opposite, corresponding to’. This describes a mindset of tit-for-tat, in which one responds in a like manner.
The word evil means ‘inwardly foul’. This describes being motivated by immature MMNs. Insult comes from a verb that means to ‘revile a person to his face, abuse insultingly’. Looking at this cognitively, when one becomes personally transformed to the extent of having a gut-level attraction to goodness, then one will trigger gut-level responses in others who have not become transformed. Others will be driven at a gut level to defend their childish MMNs from being questioned. And they will also be driven at a gut level to verbally lash out at anyone who dares question their childish MMNs.
The problem with responding in kind is that it wins the battle but loses the war. At the level of justice, one is reaping what one has sown: one sows inward foulness and reaps inward foulness. But at the level of mental networks, responding in kind reinforces inadequate behavior; repaying evil with evil reinforces mental networks of evil. If one wishes to transform mental networks, then one must respond in a different manner. If one continues to respond in a different manner, then this will eventually start to question underlying mental networks driving the gut-level response.
Verse 9 describes this alternate positive response: “but blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing”. The word translated but is only used three times in the New Testament and actually means ‘on the contrary, on the other hand’. Thus, the goal is to change the kind of response. The word blessing means ‘to speak well of, praise’. It combines ‘well, good’ with logos. If logos refers to rational thought guided by the TMN of some paradigm, then responding with blessing means being guided in a positive manner by TMNs of understanding. When the other person emotionally vomits childish MMNs, one responds with TMNs of intelligent understanding. This is easy to say, but does not naturally occur when one is in the midst of being vomited upon. It cannot happen through grit and determination. But it will naturally happen when one becomes internally transformed by the TMN of an integrated concept of God to the extent of altering one’s gut level response.
Peter finishes the verse by giving a positive emotional reason for responding in this manner. In the Greek, this phrase begins with a because. This is followed by the preposition to or into. In other words, the purpose of responding in this positive manner is to propel a person in a certain direction. The NASB translates this as ‘for the very purpose’. This process began with being called. Calling implies using Teacher words to direct personal behavior. In 2:21 Peter talked about being called to follow the example of Christ. The focus there was upon the details of the journey. Here, one is being called to ‘inherit a blessing’, and the focus is upon the result of the journey. An inheritance is something I receive on the basis of who I am. ‘Inheriting blessing’ means receiving blessing on the basis of who I am. Other individuals are responding with evil and insults on the basis of who they are. They are being driven by gut-level MMNs of personal identity to respond in a certain manner. One is choosing to respond with blessing in order to become a new kind of person who responds at a gut-level with MMNs of blessing.
Looking at this more closely, a mental network will only respond if it is triggered. Therefore, if one lives in a pleasant environment in which everyone is polite then this will give the impression that people have become transformed, but what is really happening is that gut-level mental networks are not being triggered. They still remain intact under the surface. Using modern social language, one is merely creating a safe space in which everyone has agreed not to trigger certain mental networks. Quoting from Wikipedia, “In September 2016, Prime Minister Theresa May hit out at universities for implementing ‘safe space’ policies amid concerns that self-censorship is curtailing freedom of speech on campuses. The Prime Minister said it was ‘quite extraordinary’ for universities to ban the discussion of certain topics which could cause offence. She warned that stifling free speech could have a negative impact on Britain’s economic and social success.” Gut-level mental networks will only become transformed if they are triggered in a threatening manner and one responds by choosing to consistently respond in a way that expresses TMNs of rational understanding. In contrast, a university ‘safe space’ coddles gut-level mental networks in order to ensure that they are never challenged by TMNs of rational understanding. The challenge is to respond to such ‘safe spaces’ in a positive manner which emphasizes rational understanding rather than responding in a tit-for-tat manner which exchanges volleys of verbal outrage.
Seeking Wholeness 3:10-12
Verse 10 focuses upon the future hope: “The one who desires life, to love and see good days...” The NASB attaches ‘love’ to ‘good days’ but the other translations connect ‘love’ with ‘life’. For instance, the KJV says ‘for he that will love life’. The interlinear translation says ‘for the one desiring to love life’. Desire means ‘wanting what is best (optimal) because someone is ready and willing to act’. The word love here is agape. And life refers to either physical or spiritual life. Putting this together, this describes a desire to be driven by core MMNs that express the love of God in Teacher thought. One wishes to become the sort of person who is instinctively and naturally guided by the love of God to build up living mental networks. A safe space tries to control the environment in order to avoid triggering existing mental networks in an unpleasant manner. Desiring to love life tries to be guided by an integrated Teacher understanding in order to construct lasting and healthy mental networks. A safe space covers a festering wound with a bandage, while desiring to live life cures the wound.
Moving on, see means primarily ‘to see with the mind’. A day means ‘a day, the period from sunrise to sunset’. Symbolically speaking, this represents a society that is illuminated by the ‘sun’ of a general Teacher understanding. And good refers to ‘intrinsically good’. Thus, the goal here is not to create a pleasant environment but rather to be mentally capable of recognizing an integrated Teacher understanding when it appears within society. A safe space creates a pleasant environment but it also leads to a mindset that is incapable of recognizing integrated Teacher understanding. In fact, safe space thinking would actually regard an integrated understanding as evil, because the light of the sun would remove all the bandages and reveal the underlying festering wounds. This is similar to what Jesus says in John 3:20-21: “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
Notice that these are ‘days of intrinsic goodness’. Thus, the purpose is not just to shine light in a non-judging manner, or to shine light in order to condemn evil, but rather to shine light so that one can recognize the festering wounds in order to make them whole. That is because a lack of intrinsic goodness will exhibit itself as some sort of festering wound—something that is intrinsically not good. In a similar manner, John 3:17 emphasizes that the goal is to save people and not to judge the world: “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”
Peter follows with two statements: First, one “must keep his tongue from evil”. Keep means ‘to make to cease, hinder’. This describes making a choice, which implies that one is emotionally capable of making such a choice. In order for free will to exist, the mind must contain competing mental networks between which a person can choose. The previous verses have described the development of an alternate set of core mental networks. This makes it possible to choose.
Tongue means ‘the tongue, a language’. From means ‘from, away from’. And evil means ‘inwardly foul, rotten (poisoned)’. Thus, like a safe space, certain kinds of speech are being avoided. But what kind of speech is being avoided? A safe space avoids any kind of language that makes a person feel bad. In contrast, Peter says that one should avoid talking about what is inwardly foul. These are not the same.
The distinction between these two results from the nature of intrinsic goodness and inward foulness. With intrinsic goodness, the experience or quality generates its own reward. Similarly, something that is inwardly foul generates its own punishment. In both cases, the situation carries with it its own reward. Suppose that my behavior is being motivated by MMNs that are ‘inwardly foul’. A safe space protects and affirms these painful MMNs by discussing them in an affirming and non-judgmental manner. This makes sense if the bad consequences are coming from other people. But if the MMNs are inherently foul, then any affirmation that is received from others will actually trap people emotionally within an environment of self-inflicted pain. Escaping inward foulness requires breaking the painful MMNs, which means that these MMNs must stop being the focus of attention and the topic of conversation. This is only possible if one can focus instead upon a positive alternative that is more potent than any of the inherent foulness. Hence the reference to ‘days of intrinsic goodness’.
Looking at another example, my previous essay was on The Great Controversy by Ellen White. White helped found the Seventh-day Adventist church, which grew out of a failed prediction that Jesus would return physically to earth in 1843. White reinterpreted this failed prediction by saying that Jesus started to cleanse the temple in heaven in 1843. And there is something to her reinterpretation because it was becoming apparent to the average person at that time that rational Teacher understanding would transform society. For instance, the first long-range telegraph was invented in 1843. And the railroad first arrived in White’s home town of Portland, Maine in 1842. But White did not mentally see what was happening because she was too busy talking about evil. As I mentioned earlier in this essay, the primary topic of The Great Controversy is not the character and plan of God. Instead, White waxes on and on about the rebellion, intelligence, and maliciousness of Satan.
Peter’s second statement is to keep “his lips from speaking deceit”. Speak means ‘talk, chatter in classical Greek’. This would describe normal conversation. Deceit has been used twice before in 1 Peter and it ‘implies treachery to exploit the naive (undiscerning) – baiting them through (with) their own greed’. The first statement avoids talking directly about inward foulness. The second statement says that one should not converse in a manner which triggers or exploits peoples’ immature MMNs. This does not mean that one avoids talking about any subject. Instead, one always discusses the subject from the vantage point of the TMN of an integrated concept of God. The primary context is always reaching mental wholeness rather than fighting evil. Evil is always treated as an aberration of good rather than as an independent entity that exists by itself. When one ‘returns evil for evil or insult for insult’, one is treating evil as an independent entity. But I suggest that most—if not all—evil can be defined as taking a shortcut to meeting some legitimate need. Therefore, one can discuss the subject in a positive manner by describing how one meets this legitimate need in a legitimate manner.
These two statements describe the process by which a new paradigm is adopted in Teacher thought. First, one chooses the new paradigm rather than the old paradigm. Similarly, one chooses not to speak about evil. Second, one eliminates any references to the old paradigm. Similarly, one stops even referring to evil. In the first, the new paradigm is growing at the expense of the old. In the second, the new paradigm is eliminating all remnants of the old.
Verse 11 turns from words to actions: “He must turn away from evil and do good”. Turn away is used three times in the New Testament and means to ‘fully avoid by deliberate, decisive rejection (turning away from)’. Again one sees a deliberate choice, but in this case one is choosing to avoid behavior rather than words. The word for evil is the same word that was used in verse 10. Good means ‘intrinsically good’. And ‘good’ is preceded by ‘do’, leading to the same combination of doing what is intrinsically good that was seen earlier in the book.
Notice the progression from verse 10 to verse 11. In verse 10 one is eliminating any words that are based in foul MMNs. This is only possible if one is being motivated by the TMN of a general concept of God in Teacher thought, because one is replacing an old paradigm with a new paradigm. Instead of allowing speech to be driven by childish MMNs, one is using the TMN of a Teacher understanding to explain childish behavior. For example, these essays talk about childish behavior, but we are always placing these inadequate MMNs within the general context of the theory of mental symmetry. The end result is a pure internal Teacher understanding that is no longer emotionally troubled by exceptions to the general rule. This makes it possible to ‘mentally see good days’. In fact, one will start to view current childish behavior as a partial expression of future wholeness. Instead of seeing people behaving in an evil manner, one will mentally see people taking shortcuts. This unified Teacher understanding makes it possible to do intrinsic goodness. Otherwise, one will find oneself thinking in terms of foul MMNs and either being tempted to behave in a similar manner or else to behave in the opposite matter. Intrinsic goodness, in contrast, no longer thinks in terms of foul MMNs but rather follows an integrated Teacher understanding of lasting goodness.
For instance, Ellen White talks extensively in The Great Controversy about the evil Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church has historically been a great source of evil. But White wrote her book before the First World War. When the word ‘evil’ is mentioned now, what comes to mind is typically Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. (Though this is starting to change.) In other words, a century of history has totally redefined the concept of evil, and a similar kind of redefining happens when one uses an integrated Teacher understanding of God to reinterpret everything.
Verse 11 continues: “He must seek peace and pursue it”. Seek means ‘to search, getting to the bottom of a matter’. Peace means ‘wholeness, i.e. when all essential parts are joined together’. This has the same meaning as the Hebrew word shalom. Peter used the word peace in his initial greeting in 1:2, and he will use it again in the final verse, but this is the only time that the word peace is used in the body of the text of 1 Peter. The goal of mental symmetry is to achieve peace. Pursue means ‘aggressively chase, like a hunter pursuing a catch’, and this is the only time that this word is used in Peter’s epistles. Thus, the goal at this point is to extend an integrated Teacher understanding of God into a concept of wholeness, and then pursue this wholeness.
Notice that this pursuit of wholeness was preceded by the transformation and integration of male and female thought. Current society cannot achieve the peace of mental wholeness because male technical thought has been transformed by the integrated Teacher theories of science and technology while the general consensus of society is that female mental networks cannot be analyzed by any rational Teacher understanding.
Verse 12 describes the emotional impact that this will have upon a concept of incarnation: “For the eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous, and His ears attend to their prayer”. The New Testament uses the word Lord usually to refer to Jesus Christ. The eyes are obviously a major source of Mercy experiences, but they are also related to Perceiver thought, because the brain uses the eyes to scan the environment in order to construct a mental map of the immediate surroundings. Righteousness describes Server actions that are guided by Teacher understanding, and this is the first time that 1 Peter has talked about righteous people. Ears represent Teacher words. The word for prayer in this verse is ‘heart-felt petition, arising out of deep personal need’.
Looking at this cognitively, when one constructs an integrated Teacher understanding and then places transformed male and female thought within this understanding, this will create a fertile mental climate for expanding and developing the technical thinking of incarnation. That is because incarnation may use the technical thinking of male thought, but it is motivated by an emotional bottom provided by female thought. A fully developed concept of incarnation emerges when the feelings of female thought become channeled through the content of male technical thought. One can see this combination in verse 12, because Perceiver thought is being used to examine the Server actions of righteousness, while the ears of Teacher thought are being motivated by the Mercy needs being expressed through prayer.
Verse 12 continues, “But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil”. Face describes subjective thought in a more general manner. And ‘do evil’ combines ‘doing’ with ‘inwardly foul’ the way that previous verses have combined ‘doing’ with ‘intrinsically good’.
Looking at the larger picture, verses 10-12 use several anthropomorphic references to describe incarnation: tongue, lips, eyes, ears, and face. 1 Peter 2:4-8 used the analogy of living stones to describe incarnation. This implies that a new mental concept of incarnation is starting to emerge as Perceiver thought unfolds Contributor incarnation. A living stone combines Perceiver truth with mental networks. In chapter 3 incarnation is being described as a lord and is connected with a face, eyes, ears, lips, and mouth. This concept of incarnation is looking and listening and turning his face away from people.
This is different than forming a concept of incarnation by ‘asking Jesus in your heart’ and then mentally extrapolating from the gospel description of the historical Jesus. Here, a Teacher understanding of God is mentally descending from heaven down to earth and being translated into the mental concept of a Christ who watches, listens, and has a face. The word Christ, which refers to the abstract side of incarnation, will be mentioned three times in the next section. Jesus Christ will finally be mentioned in verse 21 in the phrase ‘through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’. This implies that a new concept of incarnation is being formed which starts with a concept of God in Teacher thought, expands to become a concept of Christ and then descends to concrete thought to become a concept of Jesus Christ. This may sound like a strange idea, but I know from personal experience that this has happened within my own mind. This new concept of incarnation has the same character as the Jesus of the Gospels, but it is based in Teacher understanding rather than Mercy experiences. This is examined in more detail in the essay on the Gospel of John.
Motivated by Christ 3:13-18
Verses 1-7 talked about developing and integrating male and female thought. Verses 8-12 instructed that one should choose to follow a TMN of integrated understanding rather than fragmented and childish MMNs. This led in verse 12 to a concept of Christ as an intelligent person. The next section describes what it means to be motivated by this emerging concept of Christ.
Verse 13 says, “Who is the one who will harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?” The word harm is the verb form of ‘inwardly foul’. Good is again ‘intrinsic goodness’. Zealous means ‘a person with zealous enthusiasm who (literally) boils over with passion’, and this is the only time that this word is used in the epistles of Peter. Finally, prove actually means ‘to come into being’. This phrase describes a new form of goal-oriented behavior coming into being. One is becoming driven to head in the direction of intrinsic goodness. The phrase ‘who is the one will harm you’ conveys the impression that inward foulness may attempt to stand in the way but will be unable to impede the progress of this new drive for intrinsic goodness.
Verse 14 expands upon this idea: “But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed”. We saw previously that the word suffer refers primarily to ‘the capacity to feel suffering’. And this is the second time that righteousness has been used in 1 Peter. In 2:24 Christ ‘bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness’. Here, people are living within righteousness. The word blessed comes from the Greek root mak- that means to ‘become long, large’. Jesus uses this word several times in the Beatitudes but this is the first of only two times that it is used in the epistles of Peter. (4:14 says that “if you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed”.)
Speaking from personal experience, whenever I have experienced some external setback or rejection as a result of mental symmetry, I have responded by developing mental symmetry in a new direction. Thus, these various dead-ends have actually caused me to ‘become long and large’, and mental symmetry has expanded to the point of becoming a meta-theory that is capable of explaining many fields.
Verse 14 continues by describing how one should feel: ‘And do not fear their fear, and do not be troubled”. The word fear has been seen several times and means ‘withdrawal, fleeing because feeling inadequate’. The phrase ‘do not fear their fear’ sounds strange but it accurately reflects the original Greek. Speaking from personal experience, most researchers are afraid of being rejected, losing their jobs, reaching a dead-end, losing academic respect, or not getting published. I have experienced all of these and none of this has prevented me from continuing to develop mental symmetry. On the contrary, I have become emotionally disentangled from all the institutional baggage that hinders most researchers from fully pursuing their topics of interest. This has not been easy. But it is possible if the zeal of following a developing concept of Christ is strong enough to override these various fears.
The word troubled is found once in Peter’s epistles and means ‘inner perplexity (emotional agitation) from getting too stirred up inside (upset)’. For instance, it hurts when one submits a paper and it is rejected with dripping sarcasm. That is because honestly studying the mind increases one’s capacity to feel suffering. But one cannot ‘get too stirred up inside’. Instead, one must use Teacher thought to try to understand why academic experts would respond to mental symmetry in such a fashion. This kind of thinking has caused mental symmetry to become more technically rigorous. As a result, mental symmetry now seldom triggers an academic response of ridicule, and the paper that was rejected gets a steady dribble of views on academia.edu and researchgate.net.
Verse 15 describes this kind of response: “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts”. Sanctify means ‘to regard as special (sacred)’. Christ is mentioned several times in 1 Peter and ‘lord’ was just used twice in verse 12. But this is the only time in 1 Peter that ‘lord’ is explicitly connected with ‘Christ’. This strongly implies that a new concept of incarnation is forming within the mind. Christ refers to the divine side of incarnation based in abstract technical thought. Lord implies that one is submitting personal identity to this concept of Christ. Heart refers to Mercy identity which tells us that Mercy thought is starting to mentally see Christ as a living person. And ‘regard as special or sacred’ indicates that this emerging concept of incarnation needs to be regarded as connected with God in Teacher thought and distinct from MMNs of culture and childish identity. Making this transition is not trivial, but will involve struggling through many deep questions regarding the nature of God and incarnation.
The rest of verse 15 is usually interpreted as always being willing to talk about Jesus: “always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you”. However, the context is an emerging concept of Christ and not an internalization of the historical Jesus. I am not suggesting that is wrong to talk about ‘asking Jesus in your heart’, but this goes beyond merely ‘sharing one’s testimony’. Ready means ‘ready because prepared’. Previous sections have talked about developing female thought with its intuition. ‘Ready because prepared’ implies using male thought with its facts and sequences. This is consistent with the idea of developing and expanding a concept of incarnation. Always is used seven times in the New Testament and means ‘ever, unceasingly’. In other words, one is supposed to apply male technical thought to all potential topics, and not view certain topics as either undiscussable or not worthy of discussion.
The word defense is the source of the English word ‘apologetics’ and is used once by Peter. It ‘is the term for making a legal defense in an ancient court’. A deeper meaning emerges from the etymology because it combines the prefix ‘from’ with ‘logos’. If logos describes technical thought based in the TMN of some paradigm, then ‘from logos’ would mean using abstract technical thought based upon the TMN of some general theory. Modern Christian apologetics uses abstract technical thought but it is not guided by the TMN of an integrated concept of God. I say this from personal experience because I have interacted with Christian apologists and they do not seem to see any benefit in starting with a general Teacher theory such as the theory of mental symmetry.
The word translated to everyone has been seen before and means ‘each, every; each part of a totality’. This suggests that one is using technical thought to add details to the TMN of an integrated concept of God. This describes what I have been attempting to do with this series of essays. I have been adding technical detail and rigor to the Teacher theory of mental symmetry. This becomes obvious if one compares a recent essay with one that I wrote several years ago.
Ask means ‘to ask, request’. In other words, one does not start a marketing campaign. Instead, one responds to questions. Speaking from personal experience, most of my essays have resulted from others pointing me towards various books or systems of thought. Looking back, I can see that God has providentially guided me to study the right kind of book at the right time.
The phrase ‘to give an account’ is not an accurate translation. Instead, the original Greek is ‘asking you a logos’. In other words, one does not respond to every question indiscriminately. Instead, one responds to comments that are posed in the language of Teacher paradigms, such as ‘Can you explain this system?’, or ‘You need to read this book’.
This ‘asking for a logos’ is ‘concerning the in you hope’. Thus, one is not just doing abstract research. One is not merely using technical thought to develop some paradigm in Teacher thought. Instead, this Teacher understanding is causing Platonic forms of potential perfection to form within Mercy thought and these Platonic forms are providing hope and motivation. One is not talking about someone else’s hope. Instead, one is using technical thought to add details to the TMN of some paradigm with the hope that one will experience the personal benefits of living within this paradigm. For instance, from a Teacher perspective I am using technical thought to add details to the general theory of mental symmetry. But from a Mercy perspective, I am using technical thought to explore what it would be like for me to live personally within a society that was governed by mental symmetry. This distinction became especially apparent to me when going through 2 Corinthians, which appears to be talking in detail about future events. People like to study prophecy and read science fiction, but this is normally viewed as a way of escaping from current society. In contrast, 2 Corinthians continually examines what it would actually feel like to live within a future society.
Verse 15 finishes, “yet with gentleness and fear”. Gentleness means ‘gentle strength which expresses power with reserve and gentleness’. This combination becomes possible when a concept of incarnation emerges out of integrated male and female thought. Looking at this further, Contributor thought always combines the emotions of some bottom line with the content of some plan. But the typical Contributor person will pursue this plan in a manner that emphasizes male thought, minimizes emotional freedom, treats people as pawns that must not move, and mentally downplays emotional implications. Female thought, in contrast, works with mental networks. Normal thought places both male technical thought and female mental networks within a grid of Perceiver facts and Server sequences. This makes it possible for Contributor thought to come up with integrated plans which guide living beings rather than specialized paradigms that pursue limited emotional goals. Saying this another way, technical thinking expands to become a legitimate concept of incarnation, because incarnation goes beyond concrete technical thinking by saving people rather than things, and it goes beyond abstract technical thinking by following a concept of God rather than some specialized paradigm. This will express itself as gentleness, because deep Teacher and Mercy emotions are being directed and channeled through the plan of incarnation. There is great power, but it is being guided with reserve and gentleness.
Using an analogy, the ‘rocket’ of Contributor thought becomes human-rated. Contributor thought is like a rocket in the sense that it channels Exhorter energy through some Contributor plan, similar to the way that a rocket channels explosive gases through some nozzle. Building a rocket that is safe enough for humans to travel on means testing all the parts to make sure that they will not blow up, following a flight sequence that does not place too much stress upon the human body, and giving humans some control over the path of a rocket. The result is ‘power with reserve and gentleness’.
This type of gentleness goes deeper than the ‘right stuff’ that was discussed in chapter 1. The right stuff avoids falling apart by controlling the physical world while minimizing internal emotions. Gentleness, in contrast, acquires the internal confidence that is required to acknowledge emotions—and give freedom to people.
This gentleness is combined with fear, which is the familiar word that means ‘withdrawal, fleeing because feeling inadequate’. One can understand the source of this fear by looking at the analogy of a human-rated rocket. Applying ‘power with reserve and gentleness’ is not easy, because fragile humans are being placed on top of a controlled explosion. The fear is that this system will fall apart. Similarly, I am very careful when interacting with others about the theory of mental symmetry, because I do not want to respond in a manner that threatens the integrity of my understanding.
This is brought out in verse 16: “having a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame”. The word conscience combines ‘together with’ and ‘to know, see’. In other words, conscience is strongly related to integrity of understanding. Both require solid connections; both take ‘knowing’ and connect them ‘together with’. In the Greek, the word ‘conscience’ immediately follows the word ‘fear’, implying that conscience is a way of responding to fear. Having means ‘have, hold, possess’. And good is the familiar word that means ‘intrinsically good’. ‘Having’ implies that the goal at this point is not to build a conscience but rather to maintain conscience. Conscience predicts what will happen in some situation. It does this by comparing the existing situation with other situations. If one has a general understanding of intrinsic goodness, then the ‘together knowing’ of conscience makes it possible to predict which other situations will either lead to intrinsic goodness or threaten intrinsic goodness. Saying this more simply, if I have a general understanding of what is intrinsically good, then conscience can expand this understanding by pointing out similar situations.
Slander means ‘speak down to in a hostile, deriding way’. This is a common symptom of following technical thought within some specialization. Every specialization is emotionally guided by the TMN of some paradigm. Within the specialization, rational, rigorous thought will be used. But anything that lies outside of the paradigm, or anything that threatens the paradigm, will naturally be emotionally denigrated: ‘What you are doing is not important. You do not know how to think.’ I have received such a response several times when attempting to share mental symmetry with technical experts.
The word shame means ‘shame, disgrace, put to utter confusion’. In the original Greek the word ‘ashamed’ follows right after the word ‘slander’. I think I know why this might happen. Specialized technical thought focuses upon details. This can be seen in the phrase ‘in the thing in which you are slandered’. Slander may express itself in an emotional way as a generalized putdown, but it is usually being triggered by specific deficiencies that are being noticed by technical thought. This is brought out by the word revile. It is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘to intimidate by using threats and false accusations tailor-made to the situation’. Notice the focus upon specifics and details. Those who revile are not trying to follow general principles. Instead, they are focusing upon specific people and specific situations.
Conscience, in contrast, builds connections between one area and another. Therefore, one responds to emotional attacks prompted by specific problems by building connections, and these connections will result in shame for the attacker. For instance, I have found that an effective technique is to apply a system to itself. Here one is building connections between the system and the behavior or thinking of the author.
One can see an example of this in John Darby’s doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture. If one compares Darby’s doctrine with the way that Darby himself treated those who challenged him, one observes that Darby was predicting that God would treat the world the same way that Darby treated his fellow human beings. Those who defend pre-tribulation rapture will typically focus upon technical details and emotionally attack those who believe something else. Peter is suggesting that one should respond with a good conscience, pointing out that Darby is predicting that God will treat humanity in a manner that violates intrinsic goodness because Darby himself treated humanity in the same manner. (Mental symmetry suggests that something like the rapture will happen soon, which I refer to as the theoretical return of Jesus. The kingdom of the beast will happen later and the final resurrection will happen much later. However, God will not unleash seven years of supernatural terror upon the earth. Instead, God will unveil his power in a manner that blesses those who follow intrinsic goodness while causing those who violate intrinsic goodness to curse themselves. I should also add that John Darby was an amazing linguist, translating the Bible into German, French, Dutch, and English. Thus, Darby had legitimate technical expertise.)
Verse 16 emphasizes intelligently following a path of intrinsic goodness: “those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame”. Peter uses the term good behavior six times in 1 Peter, and it means ‘change of outward behavior from an up-turn of inner beliefs’. This ‘manner of life’ is literally ‘intrinsically good in the realm of Christ’. Christ describes the abstract side of incarnation, which deals with general principles that can be uncovered by using conscience to compare one situation with another. In other words, ‘a manner of life that is intrinsically good in the realm of Christ’ describes the type of behavior that we saw a few paragraphs back when looking at conscience. One is using a general concept of incarnation to implement a lifestyle of intrinsic goodness guided by the connections of conscience.
Looking at this in more detail, technical thought is proficient in some limited area, but it will be emotionally driven by the TMN of the underlying paradigm to make generalized emotional statements. This leads to the strange juxtaposition of focusing upon specific issues in a technical manner while making sweeping statements in a demeaning manner. The technical expert can jump almost effortlessly between these two, focusing upon technical details to establish an aura of expertise and then using this status as an expert to make sweeping statements for which there is no rational justification.
For instance, theoretical physicists are proficient at the specific task of solving the mathematical equations of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. This is a specialized, highly technical form of mathematical analysis. Theoretical physicists will often use this expertise in a specific subset of mathematics as a justification for making universal pronouncements about the existence of God. But the theoretical physicist who makes such a grand statement is not qualified to make such an extrapolation. The way to combat this extrapolation is to follow a lifestyle that is being transformed by an integrated, interdisciplinary concept of God and incarnation. This will make it obvious that the grandstanding technical specialist is speaking out of ignorance. He neither understands nor has any personal experience about what he is talking about.
Notice the contrast between verse 15 and verse 16. In verse 15 one is carefully answering those who are looking for the TMN of a general understanding, while in verse 16 one is behaving in a manner that shames those who attack based upon specific details.
Verse 17 focuses upon the big picture: “For it is better, if the will of God will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.” The word better means ‘what is better because more fully developed, i.e. in reaching the needed dominion’. In other words, the goal is not to defeat the opponent in Mercy thought but rather to extend the domain of understanding in Teacher thought. This focus upon a concept of God in Teacher thought is brought out by the phrase ‘if the will of the God wills it’. (The Greek says ‘of the God’ and not just ‘of God’.) ‘Will’ is used twice in this phrase, once as a verb and once as a noun. The verb means ‘wanting what is best (optimal) because someone is ready and willing to act’. The noun adds a ‘-ma suffix, focusing on the result hoped for with the particular desire’. Abstract technical thought develops the TMN of some paradigm. Here, the TMN of a concept of God is being developed and optimized, focusing upon the result of having a more adequate concept of God.
This will of God involves suffering, which means ‘to feel heavy emotion, especially suffering’. Looking at this cognitively, developing a concept of God in Teacher thought is an emotional process because one is functioning at the emotional level of general Teacher theories and not at the non-emotional level of using technical thought to solve specific puzzles. Using the language of Thomas Kuhn, one is performing revolutionary science rather than normal science.
Going further, one is expanding an understanding in Teacher thought by behaving in Mercy thought. That is because two kinds of ‘doing’ compared in this verse. The first is the familiar doing intrinsic goodness, this time expressed is a single compound verb. The second is doing inward foulness, also expressed as a single compound verb. The point is that everything that one does at this point becomes a learning experience that expands one’s Teacher understanding of the character of God. That is because Teacher thought will observe and explain the MMNs that motivate every behavior. No matter what someone does, one’s concept of God will dissect the underlying emotions and explain them in a joyful manner.
Saying this another way, verses 15 and 16 are not just happening externally to other people. Instead they are happening all the time within one’s own mind. Teacher thought is continually asking for the logos behind every hope, and Teacher thought is continually placing specific behaviors within a general, interdisciplinary context. Given such an internal searchlight, it is far better to expand one’s Teacher understanding by ‘doing intrinsic goodness’ rather than by ‘doing inward foulness’. Doing intrinsic goodness may lead to personal attacks from others, but doing inward foulness will lead to much more painful internal attacks from a concept of God that observes and explains everything. Finally, the double reference to will implies the presence of divine providence. One will notice that one is not experiencing emotional discomfort at random. Instead, one’s experiences seem to be shaped in such a manner to maximize the growth of Teacher understanding. Thus, not only is one’s concept of God growing inexorably, but one also has the sneaking suspicion that a real God is working behind the scenes.
Verse 18 looks at this from the perspective of incarnation: “For Christ also died for sins once for all, [the] just for [the] unjust, so that He might bring us to God”. The NASB adds the word ‘died’, assuming that the passage is talking about the physical death of Jesus. But this is not in the original Greek, and this verse refers to Christ and not Jesus. Instead, as the KJV accurately translates, the verb is actually the familiar word suffer. The first phrase says that Christ suffered once concerning sin. We have talked about a new mental concept of Christ emerging. Developing such a concept of incarnation is an emotional struggle. But this struggle does not have to be repeated. It only happens once. In a similar manner, I have found that the theory of mental symmetry has turned into a meta-theory and that I do not have to suffer the emotional pain of going through a paradigm shift anymore. Relating these two, the theory of mental symmetry explains how the mind forms a concept of incarnation. Such a theory will obviously apply whenever one is using technical thought guided by some paradigm.
Verse 18 describes this suffering as ‘righteous on behalf of unrighteous’. Looking at this cognitively, righteousness describes behavior that is guided by the TMN of a concept of God. The previous verses have described the emotional pain that is involved in extending such a concept of God. This pain is being caused by responses from those who do not have an integrated understanding and probably do not even believe that such an understanding could exist. But the righteous person is responding to this pain by extending the Teacher theory of God, making it possible for those who are unrighteous to be guided by Teacher understanding. Using the language of Peter, righteous is suffering on behalf of unrighteous.
The next phrase of verse 18 describes this movement in the direction of an integrated concept of God: “so that He might bring us to God”. The word bring means ‘to bring or lead to’. And ‘to God’ is actually ‘to the God’. Thus, the goal is to carry people towards an integrated concept of God. Notice how one is not simply learning a Teacher theory but rather making a personal movement in the direction of a Teacher theory. Saying this another way, the Teacher theory has turned into an internal world within which personal identity lives and moves. That is what happens when a concept of incarnation extends to include people.
The final phrase does mention death: “having been put to death in [the] flesh, but made alive in [the] spirit”. (The two ‘the’s are not in the original Greek.) Put to death simply means ‘to put to death’. ‘Made alive’ combines the word ‘alive’ with the verb ‘make’, and this term is used once in the epistles of Peter. Flesh means ‘flesh, body’ and is used by Paul to refer to the carnal nature. Like Paul, Peter is comparing flesh with spirit.
This phrase cannot be describing the physical resurrection of Jesus because Jesus described his resurrected body in Luke 24:39 as being flesh and bones, using the same word for flesh. However, it does make sense if one views it as a concept of incarnation based in the historical Jesus being replaced by a concept of incarnation based in Platonic forms of the spirit. Platonic forms emerge within Mercy thought as an indirect result of Teacher understanding. Thus, a ‘Christ of flesh’ would describe a concept of incarnation that extrapolates from the fleshly existence of the historical Jesus. In contrast, a ‘Christ of spirit’ would describe a concept of incarnation based in Platonic forms that result from a general concept of God in Teacher thought. Verse 18 says that the Christ-of-flesh has died and been replaced by the Christ-of-spirit. This new concept of Christ was ‘made life’ indicating that Server actions were required to bring life to this new concept of incarnation.
Looking at this in more detail, the Christ of flesh is based in the Server actions that Jesus performed on earth which are described in the Gospels. In order to replace such a concept of God, one must do a new set of Server actions based in righteousness. That explains why the previous phrase talked about ‘righteous on behalf of unrighteous’. Saying this more clearly, merely studying about a new concept of Christ is not enough. Instead one must act out this new concept of Christ through acts of righteousness. And action is only righteous if it is guided by a concept of God in Teacher thought and not by MMNs of human approval. Thus, the righteousness has to be performed despite an environment of unrighteousness.
Proclaiming to Spirits 3:19-22
Verses 19-20 are generally considered to be strange. We will look at them from a cognitive perspective and then suggest some possible spiritual overtones. Verse 19 says: “in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison”. ‘In which’ refers back to ‘made alive in spirit’. Thus, something is being done by the new concept of incarnation, which is Christ-in-spirit. Prison means ‘a guarding, guard, watch’. Went comes from the word ‘passageway’ and means ‘to transport, moving something from one destination (port) to another’. Finally, proclamation means ‘to preach (announce) a message publicly and with conviction (persuasion)’. Thus, Christ is making some kind of journey to spirits in order to announce some message. If Christ is a new concept of incarnation that is based in Teacher thought and if spirits are related to mental networks, then making a proclamation to spirits would mean extending Teacher thought to mental networks. This is consistent with what we have been discussing in the previous verses.
In order to examine this topic further, we have to examine an alternate way of creating Platonic forms. What normally happens is that Perceiver thought comes up with facts, Teacher thought works out the essence of these facts, and then this Teacher essence causes the Platonic form to emerge within Mercy thought. The alternate method is to experience something good in Mercy thought and then lose this without any hope of regaining it. Mercy experiences that originally came from the external world will now turn into imaginary Mercy images. If Teacher thought thinks about these Mercy memories, then Teacher thought will work out the essence of these images, leading to a Platonic form. Saying this simply, one will naturally remember the past through rose-colored glasses.
This kind of thing happens naturally when one gets old, because Mercy thought will contain many personal memories which can no longer be re-created because one’s physical body is no longer capable of re-creating these experiences. It also happens in a larger way when war destroys some society or when there is the collapse of a civilization. This also would have happened in the aftermath of the flood of Noah, because for the eight survivors of the flood, the pre-flood civilization was merely a memory. When this happens, then cognitively speaking, one ends up with spirits in prison—Platonic forms that have no way of expressing themselves.
For instance, people in the Middle Ages looked back at the bygone glory of the Roman Empire, focusing upon ‘spirits in prison’. And the glories of the Roman Empire became seen as larger-than-life because the Roman past was being viewed through rose-colored glasses. The development of modern science and technology made it possible for Western civilization to escape this fixation upon the past, because it finally became possible to build something in the present that was more magnificent than the lost glories of the past. Using the language of 1 Peter, the partial incarnation of science that was based in a Teacher understanding of natural processes came to the spirits in prison and made a proclamation.
Did the real historical Jesus do something similar to real spirits after his physical death? It is possible, but I would rather not speculate. And the reason for this hesitance is based in the concept of ‘proclaiming to spirits’. Leviticus 19:31 specifically forbids using mediums and familiar spirits: “Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them.” This is usually interpreted as a taboo against any form of spiritual contact. But if one looks at this verse more carefully, one notices that what matters is the attitude. The word medium means ‘a bottle (made from animal skin), a necromancer’. A necromancer is someone who contacts the dead. A spiritist is a ‘familiar spirit, properly either as knowing, wise (acquainted with secrets of unseen world)’. In both of these cases humans are turning to the spiritual realm in order to get special information. This is brought out by the verb ‘turn to’, which suggests that one is looking to spirits for guidance. In contrast, Christ is proclaiming to spirits. Information is passing from Christ to the spirits and not from the spirits to humanity.
Looking at this more generally, the Bible talks about spirits (and demons) inhabiting human minds. Cognitively speaking, spirits are empowering MMNs while demons are empowering TMNs. This means that spirits do not have inherent content but rather acquire their content from human thought. Therefore, it does not make sense to turn for inside knowledge to some source that has no inside knowledge. On the contrary, it is dangerous to look for knowledge to some source that is naturally influenced by whatever it encounters. The primary religious search today is for spirituality without content. This is dangerous, because some malicious entity can easily step in and add content.
Christ is doing precisely the opposite. A concept of Christ has acquired extensive content from an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought that has been expanded to human details. This integrated concept of Christ is then being verbally extended to the spiritual realm. Using the analogy of the Roman Empire, it was dangerous for people of the Middle Ages to look back at the Roman Empire because this led naturally to various forms of wishful thinking and escapism. However, if one is firmly grounded in science and technology, then thinking about the Roman Empire is no problem, because one can place the Roman era within a modern framework of integrated rational thought.
Turning now to personal experience, applying mental symmetry as a meta-theory has been accompanied in my mind by internal interaction which could be interpreted as spirits. I was not searching explicitly for help from the spiritual realm but rather attempting to develop subconscious cognitive modules and give them freedom to exist. In other words, as I started to form a new concept of incarnation based in Teacher understanding, I noticed that personal interaction started happening within my mind which felt like it was coming from the spiritual world, spiritual interaction which could be interpreted purely as mental networks within my mind acting as if they are alive. Going further, I have found that this spiritual interaction has added an extra dimension to my cognitive analysis but it continues to be guided by rational cognitive analysis. Saying this another way, the focus remains proclaiming to spirits rather than receiving special knowledge from the spiritual world. Therefore, I find it intriguing when 1 Peter seems to be talking about the kind of experiences that I am having.
Verse 20 says more about these spirits: “who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark”. Disobedient means ‘refuse to be persuaded’. And once means ‘at one time or other’. Thus, at some time in the past, these Platonic forms refuse to be guided by Teacher thought. This relates to the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is discussed in chapter 10 of Natural Cognitive Theology. This blasphemy results from a specific sequence: 1) One builds Teacher understanding and this causes Platonic forms to emerge. 2) One experiences benefits from these Platonic forms of the spirit. 3) One makes these Platonic forms the servant of childish MMNs. 4) One then comes up with a Teacher theory which insists that it is natural to make these Platonic forms the servant of childish identity. This fourth step defines blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. For instance, the military-industrial complex would qualify as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is guided by the Platonic forms of science and technology to build gadgets. It uses these gadgets as weapons of war, driven by childish MMNs of dominance and nationalism. It then regards such submission of technology to tribalism as natural and respected.
It appears that verse 20 is talking about something similar. Teacher understanding is being followed enough to generate Platonic forms of the spirit. But then these spirits are choosing not to be persuaded by Teacher thought. The NASB says that ‘the patience of God kept waiting’, but the original Greek is stronger. The word waiting is ‘a triple compound (properly) meaning ‘welcome from and out of’; waiting that decisively puts away all that should remain behind’. It is used eight times in the New Testament, seven times to talk about people waiting for salvation from God, and once in this verse to talk about God waiting. Patience means ‘long-passion, i.e. waiting sufficient time before expressing anger’. In other words, God has left the old and moved on to something new but is waiting before carrying out judgment.
The next phrase ‘during the construction of the ark’ tells us the new thing that God was doing. God was focusing upon building an ark and was waiting for the ark to be finished before judging the rebellious spirits. Construction means ‘prepare (make exactly ready), skillfully using implements according to a tooled-design’. Saying this cognitively, technical thought guided by a concept of God in Teacher thought was constructing a detailed container that was capable of preserving saving life. And the goal of the ark was not just to preserve human life but rather to preserve all life. We have been seeing something similar in chapter 3, with a concept of Christ based in a Teacher understanding of God extending down to include the details of human life.
The name Noah means ‘rest’. This implies that everything looks peaceful during this time of preparation. This is explicitly stated in Matthew 24:38-39: “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.” An ark can only be constructed carefully in an environment of peace and rest, because societal chaos will prevent the mind from thinking clearly.
The Greek word for ark is curious, because the same Greek word is used to describe both Noah’s Ark and the Ark of the Covenant. This word is used six times in the New Testament, three times to refer to Noah’s Ark and three times to refer to the Ark of the Covenant. Noah’s Ark saved a group of believing people from the disaster of the flood by protecting these people from the wrath of nature. Similarly, the Ark of the Covenant saved a group of believing people from the disaster of sin by protecting these people from the wrath of God. The biblical language that is used to describe these two arks is similar, with the Ark of the Covenant being taken on journeys and Noah’s ark being described as a means of salvation.
1 Peter 3:20 may be talking about Noah’s Ark, but the focus is upon saving souls: “a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through [the] water”. This language is sufficiently ambiguous that the NASB adds a footnote ‘explaining’ that Peter is talking about the great flood. And the word ‘persons’ is actually souls. Looking at this cognitively, the soul refers to the entire internal person. Saving one’s soul requires coming up with an integrated, detailed solution. In other words, one must ‘make exactly ready, skillfully using implements’ an entire ark that is capable of containing all life.
Brought safely means ‘save all the way through’. Thus, an ark must not only be comprehensive but it also must complete the journey. It must not fail halfway through. The ark saved ‘through water’, and water represents Mercy experiences. Looking at this cognitively, all the experiences of the past become washed away by a flood of new Mercy experiences. For instance, growing old does not just leave behind the experiences of youth. It also replaces them with new experiences of old age. Similarly, when a civilization collapses, the old experiences of order and peace are replaced by a flood of new chaotic experiences. This flood of new experiences is required to transform what was physical existence into merely an idealized memory.
This flood brings salvation to those who are in the ark. Building the ark constructed a container that was capable of containing life, while the flood forced the inhabitants of the ark to depend upon this ark for continued life. Similarly, constructing a detailed, new concept of Christ that is based in a general Teacher understanding may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. Instead, existing connections to current society have to be eliminated so that personal identity is forced to depend upon this new concept of Christ for salvation.
Looking at the big picture, spirits interact with the mind through mental networks. Saving a mental network is not trivial, because a mental network encapsulates many related emotional memories. Thus, saving a mental network requires creating a new context within which the existing mental network can continue to flourish. Something similar happens when attempting saving old technology. It is not sufficient just to save a few gadgets. Instead, the knowledge to use these gadgets also has to be preserved, as well as the ability to service and repair these gadgets. This explains why God would wait for an ark to be built before judging the existing culture. This need to save an entire context can be seen in the term ‘saving souls’, because the soul refers to the entire context of the mind.
When existing structure is swept away by a flood of Mercy experiences, then only a few souls will be saved. That is because a destructive method is being used. Peter makes it clear in verse 21 that he is referring to Noah’s ark as a symbol: “Corresponding to that”. The word corresponding is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘an antitype which corresponds to (fulfills) a type’. In Hebrews 9:24 the earthly tabernacle is described as an antitype of the heavenly one. In verse 21, Noah’s Ark is being compared with baptism.
Peter then describes two better methods, both related to baptism: ‘baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God from a good conscience” (v.21). The word baptism is the noun form of a verb that means ‘to immerse (literally, dip under)’. Being immersed in liquid implies experiencing something totally in Mercy thought.
The first option is ‘the removal of dirt from the flesh’. Flesh represents the carnal nature. Removal means ‘a putting off (letting go) to remove’. This word is only used twice as a noun in the New Testament: here, and in 2 Peter. What is being put aside is dirt, a word used only once in the New Testament which means ‘grease-filth, soiling all it touches’. Cognitively speaking, this describes a strong mental network that imposes its structure upon anything that it touches. Getting rid of such a mental network is not trivial, and would require the TMN of a concept of God backed up by MMNs the spirit and then implemented through some immersing within Mercy experiences.
The second option is ‘an appeal to God from a good conscience’. Conscience means ‘joint knowing’, and good means ‘intrinsically good’. Conscience was last mentioned in verse 16 where it talked about having a good conscience, and the same term ‘good conscience’ is used here in verse 21. The goal of verse 16 was to interact with others in a way that protected a good conscience. Here a good conscience is bringing salvation.
Appeal is only used once in the New Testament and means ‘a response to an inquiry’. (The KJV translates this as ‘the answer of a good conscience’.) This response is ‘to or into God’. Looking at this cognitively, God in Teacher thought is questioning and a good conscience is responding. Saying this in more detail, as a concept of incarnation expands, Teacher thought will come into contact with new mental networks which it has not yet encountered. Teacher thought will then turn to conscience to evaluate these mental networks, which conscience will then do in the light of intrinsic goodness. Thus, instead of washing away old mental networks, they are being dissected in the light of conscience.
This is happening ‘through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’. This is the second and final time that Peter mentions resurrection. 1 Peter 1:3 talked about being “born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead”. And the name Jesus was last mentioned back in 2:5. Chapter 3 has been talking about Christ, but now it talks about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ refers to the abstract side of incarnation while Jesus refers to the concrete side. This means that a new concept of Christ has developed to the point of creating an internal image of Jesus.
Notice again how Perceiver thought is unlocking a new aspect of Contributor incarnation. Perceiver connections of conscience are helping Jesus Christ to become resurrected. What this means in practice is that one stops thinking about Jesus Christ as an extrapolation of the historical Jesus of the Gospels and starts viewing the historical Jesus of the Gospels as a personification of the incarnation of Christ. These essays illustrate what this means, because we are examining the Bible through the lens of the theory of mental symmetry. This is giving us a clearer picture of what the Bible says than if one begins with the traditional assumptions of Christian theology, which is shown by how often the traditional assumptions cause the original Greek text to be slightly mistranslated. Similarly, a concept of Jesus Christ that is based in a Teacher understanding of the character of God does not contradict the Jesus of the Gospels but rather makes it possible to comprehend the thinking and behavior of the historical Jesus. Instead of viewing Jesus as someone totally unlike normal humanity, one can view Jesus as like integrated, rational Teacher understanding.
This new basis for a concept of Jesus Christ is described in verse 22: “who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.” When the New Testament talks about left and right, I have found that this makes neurological sense. Technical thought naturally uses the hands to perform fine motor movement. The left side of the brain controls the right side of the body. Therefore, the right hand would refer to Server thought. ‘At the right hand of God’ would represent Server thought that is an expression of a concept of God in Teacher thought. This interaction describes righteousness and one sees this kind of interaction in the exemplars of science. Science also is a form of Server thought that is an expression of general understanding in Teacher thought.
Having gone means ‘to transport, moving something from one destination (port) to another’. This same verb was used in verse 19 to describe Christ going to the spirits to make a proclamation. In verse 22, Jesus Christ has gone into heaven. Heaven is a realm of Teacher thought. If Jesus Christ has gone into heaven, then this means cognitively that a concept of Jesus Christ that is based in the earthly perspective of the historical Jesus has been replaced by a concept of Jesus Christ that is based in the heavenly perspective of a Teacher concept of God.
The historical resurrected Jesus did ascend to heaven in the ascension. But Peter is talking here about a journey that involves proclaiming to spirits. Jesus Christ is taking a journey to heaven in some larger sense involving the Platonic forms of the spirit.
This larger sense is reflected in the final phrase “after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him”. Subjected is the familiar word that combines ‘under’ with ‘arrange’. This term describes Teacher generality rather than Mercy status. ‘Arranged under’ means having less Teacher generality. Peter then talks about three kinds of angelic beings. The first is angel, which means ‘messenger, angel’. In 1:12, angels were desiring to look into the Gospel. Here, angels are underneath Jesus Christ. This implies that the gospel has now been translated into a form that is intelligible to angelic thought. Looking at this cognitively, humans use Server actions to move through a physical universe composed of Mercy experiences. In contrast, angels appear to use Perceiver power to move through an angelic realm composed of Teacher messages. In verse 21, the Perceiver thinking of conscience was used in a new and active manner in response to a concept of God in Teacher thought. This translated the gospel into a form that was compatible with angelic existence.
This may sound rather abstract, but I suggest that one can find a partial illustration in the modern professional. The closest human analog to angelic thought appears to be the technical specializations of modern society with their Teacher paradigms. Modern technical thought has translated most aspects of human existence into a collection of technical specializations. In order to receive some good or service, one sees the appropriate specialist. This technical specialization of human existence is an indirect result of the Teacher theories of mathematics descending through the incarnation of science and technology.
The second entity is authorities, which means ‘conferred power; delegated empowerment’. Delegated empowerment becomes possible when one thinks in terms of Teacher order and structure. This requires a general Teacher theory—with technical details. One sees this, for instance, in a federal form of government which combines a central government with regional governments. In the United States, power is divided between the federal government and state governments.
The final entity is powers, which means ‘(miraculous) power, might, strength’. Power is an expression of Perceiver thought. A human being does not have inherent Perceiver power but rather controls the environment through the strength of Server actions. However, modern technology has given humans access to power. For instance, when I turn the wheel of my car, power steering amplifies my strength making it easier for me to turn the wheel. Similarly, an audio amplifier increases the power of a human voice, making it possible for more people to hear what is being said. Again we see that the concept of power becomes evident when Teacher understanding descends to humanity through the technical thinking of incarnation.
I suggest that verse 21 is describing something similar happening in a personal manner. Angels, authories, and powers are being placed within a system of divine order that is based in a Teacher understanding of God and extended through the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Theologians will usually say that this all happened when Jesus returned to heaven after his physical resurrection. However, theologians will then add the proviso that this has not yet become true in reality. This did start to be theologically true when Jesus physically returned to heaven. But 1 Peter 3 appears to be describing this becoming cognitively true to the extent that it impacts the physical and angelic realms. This will then extend to the physical realm at some later date. I have suggested that one travels between the physical and the supernatural by going through the spiritual. One sees something similar here in 1 Peter. 3:18 talked about proclaiming to spirits, while 3:22 mentions heaven with its angels, authorities, and powers.
The order of these two is significant, because it appears that one goes through spiritual to reach the supernatural. This order can also be seen historically in the development of science, because the angelic thinking of science emerged out of a medieval mindset which placed a major emphasis upon the invisible realm of the spirit.
Transcending Materialism 4:1-2
Chapter 4 opens by describing the impact that this has upon the human realm. Verse 1 begins, “Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose”. The NASB adds in a footnote that ‘suffered’ really means ‘suffered death’. But there is no mention of death in the original Greek. Instead, this addition illustrates how theology currently extrapolates from the physical life and death of the historical Jesus.
The phrase ‘Christ has suffered in the flesh’ is rather strange, because Christ refers to the abstract side of incarnation while flesh describes the physical nature with its Server actions. Looking at this cognitively, the new concept of Christ has been descending from abstract thought to concrete reality. At the end of chapter 3, Perceiver thought used conscience to extend a concept of incarnation. Here, Server thought is being used to extend incarnation. Server thought expresses itself primarily through physical actions. Therefore, using Server thought to extend incarnation means suffering in the flesh. Remember that suffering does not necessarily mean that one is being physically persecuted. Instead, the focus is upon the capacity to suffer. One is experiencing strong emotions as a result of physical vulnerability. Saying this another way, one is performing Server actions in real life with its Mercy vulnerabilities and not just within some protected lab environment.
Verse 1 instructs to “arm yourselves also with the same purpose”. The word purpose is used twice in the New Testament. It combines ‘engaged in’ with ‘the mind, the reason’ and means ‘the engaged mind’. The other occurrence is in Hebrews 4:12 which says that the word of God is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Arm yourselves is used once in the New Testament and comes from a noun that refers to ‘instruments to make war’. Notice the combination of concrete and abstract. One is physically engaged in a form of warfare which involves physical action and strong emotions. But one is also mentally engaged; one is thinking about what one is doing and not merely going through the experiences of life. And this thinking is happening at the level of technical thought. Using the language of Thomas Kuhn, this resembles normal science rather than revolutionary science.
What this means in practical terms is applying a concept of Christ to the nitty-gritty of life, day-by-day, struggle-by-struggle. One does not go to church on Sunday and praise Jesus in comfortable surroundings and then spend the rest of the week living within reality pretending that God and Jesus do not exist. Instead, one sees the details of human existence as illustrations and expressions of a developed concept of incarnation. For instance, when one is waiting in traffic, one thinks about the transportation system, what made it possible, what the alternatives are, and how one should respond in order to maximize learning. Or when one is watching some program on television, one thinks about the values being taught by that show and what it would really be like to live within that scenario. In other words, one brings abstract understanding to bear upon what one is currently doing in the present. I realize that the average person does not do this, but that is because the average person has not constructed a concept of incarnation based in an integrated Teacher understanding of the character of God. And I am not suggesting that one needs a PhD in science or philosophy in order to go through life. (And many who have such PhDs lack the practical knowledge that is required to go through daily life.) What matters is having a concept of incarnation that contains sufficient detail so that it can function mentally as a weapon of war when going through the mess of daily life.
The next phrase describes why this is necessary: “because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin” (v.1). The word ceased means ‘cease, stop, leave off’. And sin comes from a verb that means to shoot at a target and miss. Notice that this is a Server definition of sin: the arrow is following a path that does not lead to the desired target. The goal of being mindful is to adjust Server actions so that they hit the target. This describes one of the functions of concrete technical thought which is optimization. Any Server action that is repeated will become habitual. But practice does not make perfect. Instead, practice simply reinforces existing actions. What makes perfect is mindful action. One performs the task, intelligently observes the outcome, and then adjusts the action in order to achieve a better result. This happens when shooting physical arrows at physical targets and it also happens when optimizing any set of Server actions. This principle is well known to anyone who has developed some skill.
But what is unique about this verse is the kind of awareness that is being used to adjust Server actions. One is not just being mindful of the current situation. Instead this mindfulness about the present actions is an expression of a fully developed concept of incarnation based in a Teacher understanding of God. In other words, one is mindful of shooting an arrow and one is also mindful of how shooting arrows fits into God’s plan of reaching mental and societal wholeness. In this case, one will hopefully conclude that shooting an arrow at a living human is not compatible with mental wholeness. This may sound like a contrived example, but I have found a similar distinction with mental symmetry. At the level of concrete action, mental symmetry teaches principles of mindfulness that are compatible with those that are taught by pop psychology. But mental symmetry also teaches deeper principles related to larger significance. For instance, both pop psychology and mental symmetry can help a person to be a better businessman. But mental symmetry also points out the inadequacies of the current system of business. It questions why intelligent humans are using inadequate thinking to pursue meaningless goals. This second, deeper level of adjustment is a sign of being guided by a concept of incarnation and not just by principles of marketing. Pop psychology can help a person to sin more effectively and efficiently. A concept of Christ that extends to the flesh can help a person to stop sinning.
Verse 2 describes this deeper motivational change: “so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God.” On the one hand, there are ‘the lusts of men’. Lust means ‘passion built on strong feelings’. Men is a generic word that refers to mankind. This describes behavior motivated by human goals, such as the kind of motivation that one finds in normal human business. On the other hand, there is ‘the will of God’. Will means ‘to desire, wish’. This is also an emotion, which tells us that one emotion is being replaced with another. The will of God would describe being motivated by the TMN of an understanding of God.
Peter says that one should stop following the desires of men in order to follow the will of God. This is typically interpreted as denying oneself in order to follow God in full-time service as a pastor, missionary, social worker, or monk. But that indicates an inadequate concept of God in Teacher thought. The new concept of Christ has now become fleshed out sufficiently to provide a valid alternative to the normal human worldview. For instance, one can find a partial illustration of this in the modern technological society, because the scientific laws of nature have become fleshed out through technology to the extent where it is possible to live within technology. Living within technology does not require leaving home and moving into a lab. Instead, the entire home or neighborhood can now be transformed into a lab-like environment.
I am not suggesting that pervasive technology is necessarily a good thing, because current technology is based upon objective scientific thought which ignores both personal identity and a concept of God. Thus, technological society can be dehumanizing and it is also vulnerable to being hijacked by human dictators. But it does illustrate what it means to have a concept of Christ that is sufficiently fleshed out to create a new alternative for normal life. And prophecy seems to indicate that a form of spiritual technology will emerge in the future within which one can fully live while remaining human and acknowledging God. The thinking and practicing that is being done in 1 Peter 4 before the theoretical return of Jesus will lay the cognitive and spiritual foundation for living this out in practice after the theoretical return of Jesus.
This idea of practicing for the future is brought out by the phrase ‘so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh’. The word time refers to ‘time in duration in the physical-space world’. Physical time is governed by clocks which perform repetitive Server actions. For example, in a mechanical clock some pendulum swings to and fro in a regular manner. Again, one sees the focus upon Server actions. (The difference between clock time and sequence is discussed in another essay.) Using the language of physics, abstract equations are coming into contact with the arrow of time. The word live is not the normal verb that describes either normal or spiritual life but rather refers specifically to biological life and is only used once in verb form in the New Testament. The modern scientific mindset is based upon biological life with its biological clocks. A concept of incarnation has now become sufficiently detailed to provide an alternative to this materialistic mindset. Thus, Peter is using three words one after another to emphasize physical existence: flesh, biological living, and clock time.
The adjective rest of is an intensified form that is only found once in the New Testament which combines ‘on, fitting’ with ‘remnant, what remains afterward’. This ‘stresses the profound, eternal results that build on each decision (action), in every scene of life’. This is consistent with the examples that I gave earlier. One really is going through the remaining time of biological existence by being mindful of universal principles and cosmic implications. When one gets frustrated waiting in traffic, one really is thinking about how God would put together a transportation system, and how one should behave in the present in order to practice living within this eternal system. Similarly, when one is watching a movie or a television show, or playing some computer game, one does not practice suspension of belief. Instead, one thinks about the moral and global implications of what one is viewing, and one evaluates what one is watching in the light of eternal principles of intrinsic goodness.
Looking at this from a different perspective, evolution places life within a physical, biological, materialistic framework. Belief in evolution has now become the accepted standard within most Christian universities, and Christian intellectuals are now trying to place Christian doctrine within a framework of evolution. This is precisely the opposite of what Peter is saying. I suggest that this is because Christians do not currently have a formulation of Christianity that is compatible with scientific thought. The theory of evolution is being adopted because it seems scientific; it has a veneer of rational scientific thought. As I have continued to develop mental symmetry, I have gradually realized that mental symmetry can provide an alternative to the theory of evolution. Evolution talks about physical mutations and chemical DNA and then extrapolates to thinking and the mind. Mental symmetry is a rational theory of the mind that applies to religion and science and is compatible with scientific thought. Thus, mental symmetry can legitimately fill the psychological need which the theory of evolution claims to meet.
Looking at this another way, if I ignore a theory of science such as the law of gravity, then I will experience painful, physical consequences. But I can disbelieve the theory of evolution for my entire life and experience no painful, physical consequences. Therefore, the theory of evolution meets a psychological need. And the best way to meet a psychological need is with a theory about psychology. It does not make sense to meet a psychological need with a theory that is based purely in physical processes—which then tries to extend itself awkwardly to include psychological processes.
Desperate Authenticity 4:3
Verse 3 describes the emergence of a new group of people who stop thinking in terms of materialistic, biological life: “For the time already past is sufficient [for you] to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles”. The NASB adds ‘for you’, guided the assumption that Peter is talking primarily about the previous godless behavior of the Christians to whom he is writing. It is possible that this is what Peter himself consciously had in mind. But the ultimate divine author ensured that Peter described this in a manner that reveals universal cognitive principles. In other words, Peter may have thought that he was writing a letter, but God ensured that Peter was actually using the keys of Peter to unlock the kingdom of heaven.
The word translated desire provides the context for this verse. It is different than the two words translated ‘lusts’ and ‘will’ in verse 2. Instead, it is used three times in the New Testament and means ‘a pre-set, fully-resolved plan’. Thus, the focus is not on specific behavior but rather upon the general mindset that is behind this behavior. For instance, this goes beyond conducting business in an ethical manner to changing the very system within which one currently conducts business.
This explains why Peter would say that ‘the time already past is sufficient for you’. It would not make sense for Peter to say, ‘You have been dishonest in business for long enough. Now it is time for you to start having personal integrity.’ But it does make sense if Peter is saying, ‘You have followed materialistic thinking for long enough. It is now time for you to start thinking in terms of eternal order and structure.’ That is because the order of the physical universe has taught people what it means to follow Teacher understanding in a righteous manner. Generally speaking, Christianity and other religions have not taught this lesson. The average Christian does not know what it means to be righteous but rather insists that the character of God is ultimately incomprehensible. Therefore, God had to teach humanity the concept of righteousness by using secular, materialistic, supposedly godless, scientific thought. But that is no longer needed. People have learned how to think scientifically. It is now time to make a transition from materialistic righteous thinking to godly righteous thinking.
Looking at this phrase in more detail, sufficient means ‘sufficient, enough’. This implies that some is needed but not too much. The word time means chronological, clock time, which tells us that Peter is talking about natural, physical existence. Already passed means ‘to pass by, to come to’. In other words, it takes physical time to become convinced about natural sequences, because natural sequences take physical time to reoccur, and this repetition gives confidence to Server thought. And we already saw that desire means ‘a pre-set, fully-resolved plan’, consistent with the idea of natural order.
This desire is ‘of the Gentiles’, and the word Gentile is the source of the English word ethnic and means ‘people joined by practicing similar customs or common culture’. In other words, groups of people have formed cultures based upon the natural cycles of the physical universe. The most general example is the Western culture of materialism, which is based upon the natural structure of the physical universe. But a similar kind of mindset can also be found in religious circles. For instance, Jewish culture is organized around the yearly cycle of Jewish festivals. One finds something similar in the liturgical calendar of the Christian church. Most religions and cultures are guided by holidays centered upon physical cycles, such as spring and harvest. Peter is not saying that this is wrong, but rather that it has now been followed long enough.
For instance, I currently attend a liturgical Mennonite church. Liturgy is good in the sense that it encourages Christians to view God in terms of Teacher order and structure. And the liturgical services in my church are compiled afresh every week, which helps to keep the structure fresh and alive. But it would be better to base Christianity in a Teacher understanding of how the mind works. However, making such a transition is only possible if one has a sufficiently developed Teacher understanding of Christianity.
This idea of leading to something better is brought out by the verb carried out, which means ‘to transport, moving something from one destination (port) to another’. This verb was previously used in 3:19 describe Christ going to make a proclamation to spirits, and in 3:22 to describe Jesus Christ having gone into heaven. In each case, some journey or path was being followed in order to lead to a further development in the concept of incarnation. When cultures are learning to think in terms of Teacher order and structure, then this is mentally equivalent to Christ making proclamation to spirits, as well as being part of the process by which a concept of Jesus Christ goes into heaven. In each case, Mercy-based thinking is being replaced by Teacher structure revealed through the technical thinking of incarnation.
Peter then provides a list of behavior: “sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and lawless idolatries” (v.3). Sensuality means ‘outrageous conduct, conduct shocking to public decency, a wanton violence’. Lusts mean ‘passion built on strong feelings’. Drunkenness is used once in the New Testament. It means ‘drunkenness, debauchery’ and combines ‘wine’ with ‘what bubbles over (like a seething, boiling pot)’. Carousing describes ‘village-merrymaking that took place at the gathering of the grapes’. Drinking parties is used once in the New Testament and means ‘a drinking bout’. Lawless means ‘not acceptable based on the prevailing custom or ordinary practice’. And idolatry combines ‘an image (for worship)’ with ‘sacred (technical) service’.
Looking at these first as a group, most of these talk about drinking wine. Wine represents MMNs of culture. But these words do not describe normal drinking but rather obsessive drinking, as if one is trying to assert MMNs of culture in the face of some overwhelming force. The nature of this overwhelming force becomes apparent if one understands the society within which an integrated Teacher understanding of God will develop. Technical specializations provide the mental bricks that can be assembled to form an integrated concept of God and incarnation. For instance, mental symmetry is a meta-theory which uses Perceiver (and Server) thought to build connections between various specializations and mental networks. It is only possible to construct such a meta-theory if various specializations and mental networks exist. Western society has fragmented into technical specializations which emphasize objective technical thought. The rational thinking of technical specialization has caused existing cultural, moral, and religious MMNs to be questioned and belittled without providing an emotional alternative. The results have been dehumanizing, and people are trying to fill this emotional vacuum with various MMNs. This is expressing itself as the kind of frantic cultural expression described by this list of words.
This relates to the philosophical concept of authenticity. Quoting from Wikipedia, “Authenticity, according to Kierkegaard, is reliant on an individual finding authentic faith and becoming true to oneself. Kierkegaard develops the idea that news media and the bourgeois church-Christianity present challenges for an individual in society trying to live authentically. Kierkegaard thus sees ‘both the media and the church as intervening agencies, blocking people’s way to true experiences, authenticity, and God.’” Similarly, Sartre said that “authenticity is connected with creativity: the impetus to action must arise from the person in question, and not be externally imposed.” In both cases, the underlying concept is that people are being driven to express themselves emotionally within a dehumanizing, scientific society.
Looking at this list in more detail, there are three aspects to ‘outrageous conduct’. First, the underlying assumption is that existing moral norms are based in MMNs of emotional status which can be challenged through strong Mercy emotions created by outrageous behavior. Second, this is typically accompanied by the idea that natural physical behavior should not be suppressed by outdated social norms. Instead, ‘If it is natural and it feels good, then do it’. Third, there is the compulsion to be authentic by expressing oneself in some outrageous manner that breaks free of societal norms.
The second term means ‘passion built on strong feelings’. One sees this in the idea of self-expression: ‘Be yourself. Express yourself fully. Don’t hold back’. Or using philosophical language, ‘be authentic’. This typically has a positive and negative side. On the positive side, discredited social norms are no longer holding people back from expressing their creativity. On the negative side, growing technical dehumanization adds an aspect of desperation to this authenticity: ‘If I do not express myself fully, then I will be swallowed up by the system’.
This desperation can be seen in the third term which combines ‘wine’ with ‘bubbling over like a boiling pot’. When one expresses personal feelings strongly in order to break free of impersonal, technical thought, then this is not a normal expression of the wine of culture. Instead, one is drinking in order to forget, and not just to be happy. In other words, one is drinking in order to get drunk. When one is drunk, then one can express oneself freely without being limited by the normal restrictions of rational thought.
This leads to a new kind of culture described by the fourth term of ‘village-merrymaking at the gathering of the grapes’. One is getting together with others in order to ‘drink to forget’. Saying this another way, one follows rational technical thought in order to create consumer devices which then make it possible to live temporarily within a culture that is not restricted by technology. For instance, one purchases the latest audiovisual equipment in order to become emotionally immersed within an environment in which people pretend to transcend the shackles of inhuman technology. Or one uses audiovisual technology in a church service in order to pretend that God transcends technology.
The fifth term of ‘drinking bout’ gives the impression that this mental strategy becomes increasingly ineffective. One has to drink longer and harder in order to forget. The special effects have to be more intense in order to transcend reality. The authenticity has to be more physical and more in-your-face. The praise-and-worship has to be louder and more multimedia. That is because it is ultimately self-defeating to use technology to create an emotional environment which allows one to pretend that technology does not exist.
The final term of ‘lawless idolatry’ is almost an oxymoron. Lawless means violating ‘prevailing custom or ordinary practice’, while idolatry sets up a technical system of worshiping physical objects and experiences. One is violating MMNs of culture in order to worship MMNs of idolatry in a manner that expresses Teacher order. These three features can be seen in most modern entertainment and religion. The goal is to temporarily break free emotionally of existing cultural MMNs. One does this by fixating in an idolatrous manner upon some vivid experience, such as a group of people on a stage, or an image on a screen. What makes it idolatrous is that one is emotionally narrowing down to this specific group or event rather than placing it within a mental context. In the words of one Christian chorus, ‘So forget about yourself, and concentrate on him and worship him’. But this is being done in a structured manner enabled by the order and structure of technology. For instance, one sits in an auditorium constructed with modern technology in order to watch a multimedia show. Or one watches some escapist movie that is filled with special effects generated through computers on a high-tech audiovisual system.
Summarizing, one can see why Peter would say that it is enough. This process has performed the positive transformation of replacing a culture based in MMNs with ordered behavior guided by TMNs. But if this process continues longer, then the frantic MMNs of authenticity will destroy the foundations of society. The average Christian reads verse 3 and concludes in a self-righteous manner that these nasty adjectives do not apply to him, not realizing that modern Christianity as a whole has become transformed by the mindset being described by these ‘nasty adjectives’.
Beyond the Consumer Society 4:4-6
Verse 4 describes the interaction between culture transformed by technology and the new group of people who are following an integrated Teacher understanding of God and incarnation: “In [all] this, they are surprised that you do not run with [them] into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign [you].”
The NASB describes this in a manner that uses the impression of people carousing at drunken orgies hurling epithets at moral, upright teetotalers. This probably is how this verse was experienced in Roman times, and how it is also occasionally experienced today. The Roman era was also experiencing its version of traditional culture being questioned and replaced by the Teacher order of civilization. For instance, most Roman cities had coliseums and hippodromes in which thousands of citizens would congregate in an ordered manner in order to become mesmerized by outrageous behavior. The primary difference between then and now is that we usually pretend to do outrageous behavior while the Romans actually performed outrageous actions. However, the emotional response is similar.
I am very glad that there is a modern taboo against actually behaving in an outrageous manner, but when this modern taboo gets lifted then so-called modern man is capable of behaving in a manner that is just as demonic as the ancient Romans, and demonic is not too strong a word. If you want to know more details, then look up the terms damnatio ad bestias or ludi meridiani. (Or if you have a sensitive Mercy part, don’t. I only skimmed through these articles without reading the details. I also cannot watch most modern action movies.)
Looking at verse 4 in more detail, ‘in this’ means ‘in the realm of this’, with ‘this’ referring to the cognitive progression that we have just described. In other words, this culture of desperate authenticity in an environment of growing inhuman technology has become the set of eyeglasses through which people view behavior. Saying this another way, it has turned into an implicit concept of God.
Surprised comes from a word that means ‘foreigner or stranger’ and means ‘to receive as a guest, to surprise’. Run with adds the prefix ‘with’ to the verb ‘run’. In other words, society as a whole is heading in certain direction, not at a leisurely walking pace but rather running in that direction like a proverbial herd of lemmings. If one wants to know what this means, one simply has to observe modern society. Anyone who is not running in the direction of desperate authenticity is regarded as strange and abnormal. The NASB adds several personal pronouns: they, you, them, they, you. But the only one that is in the original Greek is the first ‘you’. A more literal rendition would be ‘in the realm of this, think strange you not running into the same excessive dissipation’. In other words, this is an impersonal process that is being driven by cognitive mechanisms which transcend personal identity, and the individuals of the new group are sticking out as individuals within this lemming-like mentality.
Continuing with verse 4, dissipation is used once in Peter’s epistles. It adds the prefix ‘without’ to the verb ‘save’ and means ‘what can’t be saved (waste)’. Excess is used once in the New Testament and means ‘a pouring out, overflow’. Liquid symbolizes Mercy experiences. Thus, ‘excesses of dissipation’ would describe in most general terms a consumer society in which there is a continual outpouring of new experiences and gadgets which are consumed and then immediately discarded.
Looking at this physically, humans buy about 1 million plastic bottles every minute. Americans throw away 100 billion plastic bags annually. 500 billion disposable cups are consumed every year. 1/3 of the 78 million tons of plastic packaging produced each year flows into the oceans. This type of overflowing of waste is not physically sustainable—but this is not the primary problem. The real problem underlying the physical problem is a mindset of overflowing waste which is continually reaching for some experience in order to forget for a moment the inhumanity of modern technology. If one wishes to solve the physical problem, then one must first address the underlying cognitive problem.
Verse 4 finishes: ‘and they malign’. Malign is the source of the English word blaspheme and means ‘refusing to acknowledge good (worthy of respect, veneration); hence, to blaspheme which reverses moral values’. One can see this in the consumer society. Most purchasing is driven by impulse and novelty. Such a mindset will ignore factors such as quality, intrinsic goodness, durability, or usability. The result is a reversal of value in which junk gets sold by the containership-load while lasting quality sits on the shelf without being sold. This is not a universal statement, but it is sufficiently general to be a fundamental characteristic of modern Western society. Similarly, most current religion and entertainment is also impulsive and novelty driven. Worshippers do not want lasting truth, they want immediate fixes. Viewers do not want to be educated, they want exciting escapism. This mindset has now taken over news and politics with soundbites replacing in-depth understanding. Anyone who goes against this trend is maligned. Again, this is not a universal statement but it is sufficiently general to be a fundamental characteristic of today’s society.
Verse 5 looks at the long term: “But they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.” The word account is actually logos, which refers to the TMN of some rational understanding. Give means ‘to return (especially as a payment)’. We saw this already happening in the list of verse 3. It began with a shocking outburst of personal MMNs. It ended in the TMNs of some system of worship. Looking at this historically, every counter-cultural rebellious outburst within recent times has eventually been co-opted by the system. For instance, rap started as rebellion within the inner cities. It is now merely another facet of the entertainment industry.
The word ready means ‘the state of being ready (prepared)’. Is means ‘to have, hold’. And judge means ‘to pick out (choose) by separating’. Living refers to either natural or spiritual life, and dead simply means ‘what lacks life’. Looking at this purely from a cognitive perspective, the societal system of technical thought is prepared to analyze and choose everything, either impersonal objects or mental networks. Anything and everything is merely fodder for the meat-grinder of the modern technological consumer society. Everything will be turned into another technical specialization.
Verse 6 says that this is part of God’s plan, and that this plan can be interpreted in one of two ways: “For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.” The phrase the gospel has been preached is a single Greek verb which means ‘literally, gospelizing that announces the complete message of the good news’. The need for good news is obvious. Everyone is frantically trying to preserve personal identity in a world of ever-growing impersonal science, technology, and technical specialization. The good news is a new concept of Christ based in Teacher understanding and expressed through the technical thinking of incarnation which is compatible with intrinsic goodness. Instead of turning humans into machines, it makes humans whole. That is good news.
For instance, the theory of mental symmetry is a meta-theory in Teacher thought that is more general than technical specializations, it contains sufficient technical thought to stand up to technical specializations, it describes the process of reaching mental wholeness, it is a reformulation of the religion of Christianity, and it is consistent in detail with the holy book of the Bible.
This gospel is being ‘preached to the dead’. The NASB explains that it was ‘preached in their lifetimes’ but we now live in a society of living dead in which most of the life of human MMNs has been eliminated by TMNs of science, technology, and specialization. A person who believes that he is nothing more than a bag of chemicals is mentally dead.
From a human perspective, people are being ‘judged in the flesh as men’. Judged means ‘to pick out (choose) by separating’. This implies the application of technical thought. Abstract technical thought begins by making precise definitions. It then chooses based upon these precise categories. Men refers to mankind in general, and flesh describes the carnal nature that is programmed by living in a physical body. Thus, if one views this process from a human, materialistic perspective, one concludes that technical thought is turning living humans into machine-like beings who are mentally dead.
But from a divine perspective, “they may live in the spirit according to [the will of] God”. ‘The will of God’ gives the impression that God is telling people what to do but that is not in the original Greek. Instead a more generic comparison is being made between ‘according to men in flesh’ and ‘according to God in spirit’. A person will only become righteous by following the TMN of a concept of God instead of MMNs of culture or approval. What appears from a human perspective to be a headlong plunge into the inhuman machine is actually a large-scale teaching of righteousness.
I am not suggesting that everyone in modern society will automatically go to heaven. Instead, I am observing that modern society is being driven through a transition which is making it receptive to receiving the new concept of Christ that is based in Teacher understanding. This assessment is backed up by Revelation 7:9-15 which talks about a great multitude being saved out of the great tribulation. (Remember that tribulation actually means squeezing, and we currently live in a time of great squeezing due primarily to the fragmented specializations being imposed upon human existence by technical thought.)
Looking at this more personally, I have noticed that people are more receptive to mental symmetry today than they were ten years ago. From a spiritual perspective, submitting to the TMN of the system rather than to MMNs of culture is actually creating a mindset that is capable of thinking in terms of the Platonic forms of the spirit. Saying this another way, the gospel or good news is always preached within some societal context. A Bible-thumping Gospel used to communicate but it does not communicate anymore. What does communicate today is a rational gospel of human dignity. And this is the kind of gospel that has been developed in the first three chapters of 1 Peter.
Practicing Righteous Wholeness 4:7-11
Verse 7 says that something new is about to happen: “The end of all things has come near”. All things ‘means all in the sense of each (every) part that applies.’ End means ‘consummation (the end-goal, purpose)’. And has come near which means ‘has drawn close’ is in the past. 1 Peter 4 has been talking about a process. This process is now coming to an end. Applying this to current society, I suggest that it is correct to believe that God is on the verge of stepping in to intervene. But I think that this intervention will take the form of a theoretical return of Jesus rather than a physical second coming or rapture.
Verse 7 continues by saying how one should prepare for this upcoming event: “Therefore, be of sound judgment and sober [spirit] for the purpose of prayers.” ‘Therefore’ tells us that this advice is based upon the end being near. The word sound judgment means ‘safety-minded; having a sober outlook that reflects true balance’. This is strange advice. Imagine saying, ‘The end of the world is near. Stay safe and remain balanced.’ One can definitely say that this is not the sort of behavior that would precede a rapture in which one was removed from earth to the safety of heaven. There would be no need to worry about safety if I were to be leaving my physical body in a short time. And if I were about to spend time with God in heaven then what would be needed is fervor and not balance. But this is the kind of advice that one would need to follow if one is going to have to stick around and deal with the consequences of some major societal shift. And pursuing safety and balance is also quite different than the frantic authenticity that we have just been discussing. Looking at this cognitively, if God is leading the world towards mental wholeness and integration, then one needs to prepare for divine intervention by practicing mental wholeness and integration. Going further, pursuing safety and balance means that the major personal transitions are now over. A new way of thinking and living has been developed. It is now time to apply this thinking.
The word sober means ‘to be sober, to abstain from wine’. The list in verse 3 talked a lot about excessive wine, which we interpreted as fixating upon MMNs of culture and authenticity. Sober means avoiding such a desperate search for identity. Others may be trying to find themselves, but a concept of Christ that promotes intrinsic goodness is the best possible foundation for personal identity. If one is really being guided by a concept of incarnation that wants intrinsic goodness, then this should provide an adequate basis for staying safe and balanced in a world that is going increasingly radical and reactionary.
This focus is brought out by the final phrase ‘for the purpose of prayers’. For the purpose of means ‘to or into’. And the word translated prayer means ‘exchange of wishes; prayer’. In other words, one is not remaining calm by ignoring the problems of society. Instead, one is sharing one’s emotional concerns with a concept of God in Teacher thought and receiving in exchange the desires of God. The word ‘prayer’ is in the plural, which implies that many prayers need to be given in many different areas.
This brings to mind the familiar passage of Philippians 4:5-7. “The Lord is near. Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” Notice the similar statements. Paul also says that ‘The Lord is near’. He advises an integrated mindset, because anxious means ‘drawn in opposite directions; divided into parts’. He promotes prayer, referring both to ‘exchange of wishes’ and to ‘petition arising out of personal need’. And he says that God will respond with peace which means ‘wholeness’. The English may give the impression that this divine peace is something irrational that contradicts reason. But the word surpasses means ‘to hold above, to rise above’, which means being more general in Teacher thought. Comprehension means ‘mind, understanding, reason’. Thus, this peace will act as a meta-theory that is more general than the specific reasoning of technical thought. Instead of contradicting rational thought, this divine peace will ‘guard or keep’ both the mental networks of the heart and the ‘results of mental effort’. And this will happen in the realm of an integrated concept of Christ Jesus.
Philippians 4:8 then continues by saying that one should focus upon that which has inherent goodness: “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.”
Similarly, the next verses of 1 Peter 4:8 describes a positive, integrated focus. Verse 8 talks about love: “Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.” Above means ‘before, in front of’, while all means ‘each part of a totality’. Thus, ‘above all’ means applying something in a general manner to all of the specific details. What is above all is ‘fervent love’. ‘Love’ is agape love, which means ‘love which centers in moral preference’. In other words, interact with each other emotionally in Mercy thought guided by a Teacher understanding of morality.
Fervent is used once as an adjective in the New Testament and adds the prefix ‘wholly out’ to ‘stretch’. It means ‘stretch out, i.e. fully because completely taut’. This same word is found twice in the New Testament as an adverb and was seen back in 1 Peter 1:22. We interpreted it back there as following a sequence to its full conclusion. In other words, do not start imagining something and then stop halfway through. Rather, develop conscience by following cause-and-effect mentally through to its final conclusion in order to ‘stretch it out fully’. Similarly, Peter says here that one should have fervent love ‘to or into’ yourselves. This is an external version of what was being done internally in 1:22. Previously, moral cause-and-effect was being stretched out internally. Here, moral cause-and-effect is being stretched out socially. People are supposed to love each other in a moral fashion to the end. One is not merely doing acts of love, but rather following sequences of love until they reach the end.
This explains the accompanying phrase ‘because love covers a multitude of sins’. Peter cannot be saying that one overlooks sins with an overgeneralized feeling of unconditional acceptance, because that has nothing to do with morality based in an integrated understanding of the character of God, but instead uses Teacher overgeneralization to ignore Perceiver facts. Looking at the Greek words, the verb covers means ‘to cover; (figuratively) keep secret, hidden’. Multitude means ‘a great number’. And sin means to miss the mark.
The verb ‘cover’ is used eight times in the New Testament. It is used twice in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 to talk about covering up or veiling the gospel: “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” Notice what is happening cognitively. People are mentally incapable of seeing the Teacher light of the good news of incarnation because they have been mentally blinded by the TMN of the god of this world. In a similar manner, Thomas Kuhn describes how a change of paradigm causes a person to see things in the environment that were not noticed before. It is not that these things did not exist, but rather that they were being mentally filtered out. Something similar is happening in 1 Peter 4:8. Looking at the world through this new Teacher paradigm of an integrated concept of God is causing people to see things that they did not see and to stop seeing things that they used to see. What is being noticed are the sequences of moral love. What is no longer being noticed are the sins of others. Where others see problems and deficiencies, people are seeing opportunities for long-term growth.
Verse 9 adds, “Be hospitable to one another without complaint.” Hospitable literally means ‘loving strangers’. (The word ‘love’ here is philos, as in philadelphia.) And one another is ‘a reciporical pronoun’. Complaint means ‘muttering, murmuring’. An integrated Teacher understanding will naturally drive a person to interact with those who are different. For instance, the theory of mental symmetry emotionally drives me to continue examining new areas in the light of mental symmetry. Peter is not instructing here to be hospitable, but rather to be hospitable without murmuring. This implies that the Teacher drive to love strangers will be present but it needs to be accompanied by positive personal emotions in Mercy thought.
Verse 10 then places this within the context of cognitive styles: “As each one has received a [special] gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” The word gift here is charisma, and has the char- root which relates to God. (For instance, charis means grace from God.) This same word is used in Romans 12:6 to describe the seven cognitive styles (or spiritual gifts) and also in 1 Corinthians 12 when referring to various spiritual gifts. The word each means ‘each (individual) unit viewed distinctly’. And received means ‘actively lay hold of to take or receive’. This relates to the discussion of divine sovereignty at the beginning of this essay. On the one hand, people have been given gifts by God. On the other hand, each individual is responsible for actively developing this gift. This principle definitely applies to cognitive styles, because one has to reach a certain level of cognitive development and individuality before one even recognizes that one has a cognitive style.
The word serving is the source of the English word deacon, and means ‘to serve, minister’. This word is relatively common but it is only found three times as either a verb or a noun in Peter’s epistles. It was used in 1:12 when saying that the sources of absolute truth were not serving themselves. Here in 4:10 people are explicitly being told to serve each other. (And the verb serving will be used once more in verse 11.) The implication is that a new societal system is starting to emerge within which it is possible for people to perform Server actions that help one another. 1 Peter has emphasized new ways of thinking and reacting. This internal transformation has now reached the level of affecting the actions of daily interaction.
The final phrase emphasizes that this daily interaction should being guided by an integrated concept of God: ‘as good stewards of the manifold grace of God’. A steward is a ‘household manager’. This implies using intelligent thought to create a home for personal identity. The word good here means ‘attractively good; good that inspires (motivates) others to embrace what is lovely’. Peter usually uses the word ‘intrinsically good’. Peter only uses this alternate word, which means ‘attractively good’, here in 4:10, and twice in 1 Peter 2:12 where he instructed to “Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe [them], glorify God in the day of visitation.” In 2:12 one was behaving in a visibly good manner in order to forestall criticism. Here, one is behaving in a visibly good manner because one is going beyond a new way of thinking to a new way of behaving within society.
The source of this visibly good behavior is ‘the manifold grace of God’. Manifold means ‘various, of different colors, diverse’. If the grace of God is manifold, this means that one is receiving help from God in Teacher thought in many different, complementary ways. Looking at this cognitively, a concept of God is based in Teacher thought, but each cognitive style emphasizes a different facet of the character of God: Teacher thought emphasizes theology, Perceiver thought focuses on truth and doctrine, Exhorter thought pursues hope, Contributor thought practices faith, Server thought acts righteously, Mercy thought follows the spirit and love, and Facilitator thought brings peace and shalom. When these all function together, then the end result is attractive goodness.
Verse 11 emphasizes the two sides of righteousness. Righteousness starts with Teacher thought: “Whoever speaks, [is to do so] as utterances of God”. The word talk means ‘talk, chatter in classical Greek’. Thus, this is referring to normal conversation. The NASB uses the long phrase ‘is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God’. But if one removes the words in italics and goes with the literal translation, what remains is ‘as utterances of God’. I think that the NASB provides this long translation because the average Christian does not know how one could connect normal conversation with the words of the Bible. Does this mean that one only converses in King James English? Peter cannot be saying this.
However, the word utterance is actually related to logos, which we have been interpreting as TMNs of rational understanding. Thus, what Peter is really saying is to ensure that normal conversation is consistent with TMNs of rational understanding which themselves are integrated by a concept of God in Teacher thought. In other words, do not practice verbal escapism. Do not chatter with others in a manner that either contradicts one’s understanding of the character of God or pretends that such an understanding does not exist. This is not possible if one views the Bible as a source of absolute truth which relates to religious experiences and religious places. But it is possible if one has a rational integrated understanding of God in Teacher thought which applies in detail to the experiences of real life. One can see this principle illustrated in physics. The laws of physics are stated as general principles using mathematical language. One can apply these general principles in many different specific ways, making it possible for the daily chatter of physics to be an expression of the logos of God. (Because the laws of physics are limited to the physical and the objective, the dignified chatter is also typically limited to the physical and the objective.)
Moving now to the other side, righteousness expresses itself through Server actions: “whoever serves [is to do so] as one who is serving from the strength which God supplies” (v.11). The word supplies is used twice in the New Testament and means ‘to fund and lead a grand event, bearing all the expenses necessary to stage the grand event.’ This conveys the concept of God as a universal person in Teacher thought who is putting everything together and ensuring that it functions as a system. And when people collaborate to put on some massive production then this will create an implicit concept of God. The Nuremberg rallies of Nazi Germany provide an example as do the Arirang festivals of North Korea.
The word strength is used once in 1 Peter and combines ‘force’ with ‘have’. Putting this all together, the Server actions of ‘deaconing’ are supposed to flow out of the strength which the God supplies. This describes the receiving end of righteousness in which Server actions are being emotionally guided by an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought. This is similar to the way that a person participating in a huge spectacle would feel energized, but the energy is not coming from the external Teacher order of masses of people behaving in a coordinated manner, but rather from the internal Teacher order provided by a concept of ‘the God’.
This is brought out by the next phrase: “so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ”. Glorified means ‘to render or esteem glorious’. Glorifying ‘the God’ would mean behaving in an integrated manner that visibly expresses the character of an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought. (‘The’ is in the original Greek both here and in the previous reference to God.) For instance, the modern technological society glorifies the laws of physics because it visibly expresses the Teacher order and structure of science. This glory is supposed to be ‘in all things’ and all means ‘each part of a totality’. For instance, the Arirang festival glorifies the Teacher structure of North Korean communism once a year for several weeks in a large stadium. However, outside of this stadium and apart from this time, North Korean society is characterized primarily by chaos and a lack of technological order. Therefore, the Arirang festival does not glorify juche communism ‘in all things’. In contrast, it is possible for everything to glorify an integrated concept of God, similar to the way that most aspects of Western society now glorify the integrated Teacher structure of science and technology.
This glorifying of the God does not happen directly but rather ‘through Jesus Christ’. Notice that both Jesus and Christ are mentioned. Looking at this cognitively, Jesus describes the human side of incarnation which uses concrete technical thought to save people, and Christ describes the divine side of incarnation which uses abstract technical thought to add details to general Teacher theories. Both of these are required in an integrated manner to translate between general theories in Teacher thought and specific experiences in Mercy thought. We saw this kind of translation happening when looking at the relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will at the beginning of this essay.
Verse 11 finishes, “to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” ‘Whom’ is referring to Jesus Christ. The word ‘glory’ has already been seen. Using the illustration of technology, the modern technological society glorifies the technical thinking of incarnation. Dominion means ‘dominion, exerted power’. Science exerts its power through technology. One does not just have powerful equations, but these powerful equations can be used to construct powerful devices in the real world.
The phrase ‘forever and ever’ is literally ‘to the ages of the ages’. This is not just religious hyperbole but rather cognitively profound. Every system of technical thought is always limited to some specialization and is invariably replaced through some paradigm shift. ‘Forever and ever’ means there will never be a paradigm shift away from the technical thinking of incarnation. This is usually stated as the theological doctrine that Jesus Christ only has to die once. It is true that Jesus-the-man died once-for-all on a physical cross 2000 years ago. But 1 Peter has been talking about a concept of Christ going through a death and resurrection. This happens when Christianity makes a paradigm shift from absolute truth to universal truth. Going further, Hebrews 9 talks about Christ the creator of the universe going through a future once-for-all death-and-resurrection in a cosmic paradigm shift in which control of creation is handed over to created beings. Cognitively speaking, Jesus Christ only has to die once because the ultimate paradigm within technical thought is a paradigm of technical thought. Saying this more carefully, if one understands in technical detail how technical thought functions and how it interacts with the rest of the mind, then every other technical theory will be a subset of the technical understanding of how technical thought works.
This also means that Peter has finished the task of unlocking the keys of heaven as far as the nature of incarnation is concerned. Contributor thought has now become completely unfolded by Perceiver thought. This is emphasized by the word amen, which means ‘so let it be’ and ‘as an emphasis marker, introduces a statement of pivotal importance’. Peter will use the word ‘amen’ once more in 5:11 when referring again to the eternal dominion of God the Father.
A Fiery Ordeal 4:12-14
One would think that the next verse would contain some version of ‘and they lived happily ever after’, but instead the next section describes the struggle involved in applying this fully developed concept of incarnation. Verse 12 describes the initial feeling of shock: “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you.” The term beloved is based upon the verb agape, which tells us that Peter is talking to those who are following an integrated concept of God and incarnation. The word surprised means ‘to receive as a guest’. It is found twice in the epistles of Peter and is based upon a word that means ‘foreign, foreigner, guest’. In 4:4 the culture of frantic authenticity was surprised that the followers of God were not buying in to the consumer society. Here, the followers of incarnation are being instructed not to regard the ‘fiery ordeal’ as a foreigner. In other words, they are not supposed to think that having an adequate concept of incarnation means that the emotional struggle is over. That is because incarnation is not the typical technical theory which avoids Teacher emotion by specializing and eliminates Mercy feelings by remaining objective. Instead, incarnation uses technical thought as an expression of a concept of God in Teacher thought in order to save people within Mercy thought. Thus, emotional struggle is an essential characteristic of following incarnation.
Peter refers to this as ‘the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing’. This may initially give the impression that Peter is describing an outburst of persecution against Christians, but the original Greek suggests something else. The phrase is more literally ‘the in-the-realm-of you fire towards temptation to you coming-into-being. The New Testament uses two words for tempting: temptation and testing. The distinction between these two is discussed in a previous essay. In brief, the purpose of temptation is to make a person fail. However, if a person survives temptation without failing, then a person becomes stronger. In contrast, the purpose of testing is to ensure that a person will succeed. The word used here is temptation. Fiery simply means ‘a burning’. Putting this together, Peter seems to be saying that those who are following incarnation will discover to their surprise that a fire is emerging within themselves to attack this new understanding. This brings to mind the famous line from the comic strip Pogo: ‘We have met the enemy and he is us’.
I think that I know from personal experience what this means. I have been pursuing the theory of mental symmetry for so long that one would think that my mind would enthusiastically embrace the opportunity to actually start living within this theory. Instead, I have found myself trying to postpone this transition. I am not saying that I have started to doubt mental symmetry. On the contrary, the evidence for this theory has become overwhelming and I have not found any alternative explanation that comes even close. In addition, I can see no emotional reason why I would not want to live within mental symmetry. And yet, there is this hesitance as if something within me is trying to sabotage my efforts.
I think that the reason for this is that mental symmetry is too rational, too new, and too emotional. First, everyone around me is trying to protect personal identity from the onslaught of rational thought by maintaining some sense of mystery. That is largely because every rational theory that people have followed so far which has promised paradise has ended up delivering far less. Why should mental symmetry be any different? Second, mental symmetry may explain the evidence well but it is not generally taught in public. Am I really sufficiently confident to submit myself fully to a theory that will divorce me mentally from the rest of society? Third, mental symmetry is so emotional. It is good to have a theory that can explain personal identity and to have a well developed concept of God in Teacher thought. But to actually live within this theory brings emotions so close. Can I really survive such intense feelings? Such questions can be postponed as long as one is developing a theory. But when the emphasis turns from development to application, then these apprehensions will become apparent.
Peter says that one should not regard this “as though some strange thing were happening to you”. As though is a comparative word. Strange thing is simply the adjectival form of the verb used earlier in the verse which means ‘foreign, a foreigner, alien’. Happening to means ‘two things moving side-by-side’. Thus, a more simple translation would be ‘as though an alien were walking alongside you’. One could interpret this in more than one way. One has been following incarnation for so long that one might regard this internal sabotaging as being accompanied by some form of alien thought: ‘Where did that come from? That has nothing to do with me.’ But one could also interpret this in terms of real aliens. When one actually starts to live in an integrated concept of God and incarnation, then the walls between physical, spiritual, and supernatural start to become thin. One starts to sense that one is being accompanied by ‘others’ and that these others are not human. The instinctive response is to pull back from ‘them’—providing another reason to sabotage one’s efforts. But if one probes further, one discovers that ‘they’ are actually following the same integrated concept of God and incarnation from a different perspective. They may be different and unfamiliar but they are not aliens. Actually, they are friends. Going the other way, when one probes within the minds of fellow humans, one realizes that most of them think and behave in a manner which is becoming increasingly ‘alien’. (My general hypothesis is that humans, angels, and spiritual beings all share the same minds but live within different ‘bodies’ within different realms. Thus, they become mentally compatible to the extent that they pursue mental wholeness.)
In my experience, this subconscious sabotaging is like peeling the layers of an onion. Every time one successfully addresses some issue, another issue will rise to take its place. Thus, there will be progress, but it will feel as if one is trying to hack one’s way through a mental jungle.
Verse 13 says that one should view this struggle from the positive perspective of ‘sharing in Christ’s sufferings’: “but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing”. This is typically interpreted as experiencing physical suffering as Jesus did on the cross. But that interpretation is also a way of sabotaging a deeper relationship with incarnation, because it keeps God and Jesus Christ at arm’s length by clinging emotionally to the idea of physical suffering. Thus, it is important to recognize that suffering actually means ‘the capacity to feel strong emotion, like suffering’. Speaking again from personal experience, following mental symmetry has not lead to any actual physical suffering, and it has not resulted in that much emotional discomfort. But it is continually accompanied by the feeling that things could go wrong, and that things might fall apart. The feeling of security is not there.
Notice that this phrase is talking about the sufferings of Christ and not the sufferings of Jesus. One uses abstract technical thought to develop a concept of Christ. A concept of Christ experiences emotional vulnerability when it is exposed to new ideas, strange environments, and novel paradigms. Every time that Perceiver thought unfolds some aspect of incarnation, one’s concept of Christ will experience suffering. Going further, the word translated to the degree that means ‘according to which, in so far as’. Share means ‘to participate (share in), as an associate’. And rejoice has the same root xar- as ‘grace’. It means ‘delight in God’s grace (rejoice)’ and is in the imperative. Putting this together cognitively, one should be happy in Teacher thought to the extent that constructing a concept of incarnation has been an emotional struggle. If this concept of incarnation developed easily and effortlessly, then it would not have sufficient mental stability to survive stress. But the more emotionally intense the struggle to build a concept of incarnation, the more emotional intensity that concept of incarnation will be able to handle. And Teacher thought wants a general theory will survive and not fall apart. Therefore, Teacher thought can be happy and rejoice about the emotional struggles. All of the subconscious sabotaging does not have to be regarded as something alien walking alongside.
Verse 13 finishes by looking forward to the future: “so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation.” The word translated revelation is apocalypse and means ‘an uncovering’. 1:7 and 1:13 both used this word to talk about the future ‘revelation of Jesus Christ’. I suggest that Peter is referring to an impending theoretical return of Jesus (which is described in Matthew 24 as well as 1 Thessalonians 4). Peter describes it as ‘the revelation of his glory’, implying that one will see physical expressions of incarnation but not necessarily see incarnation in bodily form.
The word exultation means ‘getting so glad one jumps in celebration’. Thus, if one can be happy in Teacher thought now with the struggle of mentally applying and extending a concept of incarnation, one will jump for joy in the future when it becomes possible to physically apply and extend a concept of incarnation. (More generally, I suggest that theoretical return of Jesus will be followed by the emergence of what I call spiritual technology—technology that becomes spiritually empowered in some way.) Jumping for joy may be symbolically significant, because air represents Teacher thought. Therefore, jumping for joy means being so filled with Teacher emotion that one temporarily leaves the ground of human existence.
In essence, Peter is describing a form of positive thinking that would actually work. Positive thinking is usually applied by the Contributor person who works within some area of sales or marketing. Contributor thought can use concentration to limit the mind to some technical plan or specialization. The positive thinker will then repeat some slogans within this context, creating the emotional illusion that these slogans are general Teacher theories. This will create an emotional aura of positive Teacher emotions which can be used to manipulate self and others. For instance, Steve Jobs, the cofounder of Apple Computer was infamous for being able to create what others called a reality distortion field. Quoting from Wikipedia, “The reality distortion field was said by Andy Hertzfeld to be Steve Jobs’s ability to convince himself and others to believe almost anything with a mix of charm, charisma, bravado, hyperbole, marketing, appeasement and persistence.”
Now suppose that one actually did develop a concept of incarnation that would never fail, as described in verse 11. Every difficulty could then be viewed as a potential for expanding the domain of this indestructible concept of incarnation. That is the type of attitude which is being described in verse 13. It is a legitimate form of positive thinking. Note that this is still at the level of thinking and not application. As verse 13 points out, ‘the revelation of his glory’ is still in the future. Similarly, the idea of an indestructible incarnation is only an idea at this point. It is a concept of incarnation that has become indestructible. Hebrews 7 will talk about incarnation possessing the power of an indestructible life in reality.
This kind of positive thinking requires an indestructible concept of incarnation, because one is not trying to create a reality distortion field that deceives self and others but rather a reality recognition field that recognizes the eternal principles behind current reality. In addition, this strategy has to be seeded as described in verse 11. One’s conversation must reflect the logos of God, and one must act in the strength of God’s greater plan. Choosing to speak and behave in this manner builds the mental connections that make it possible to create a ‘reality recognition field’. In other words, one cannot simply choose to follow Teacher understanding part of the time when it is convenient while ignoring Teacher thought the rest of the time. That is because a universal Teacher theory must apply to all situations without exception. Therefore, one must choose to talk and behave in the light of a universal Teacher theory in all situations if one wishes to experience the emotional benefits of this legitimate version of positive thinking.
Verse 14 points out that a legitimate version of positive thinking will not lead to better sales and marketing. On the contrary, “If you are reviled in the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.” Reviled means ‘to disgrace (insult), reproach; mock (curse)’. This is exactly the opposite of successful marketing. Name means ‘name’ and is only used twice in the epistles of Peter: here, and two verses later. A name is a verbal label in Teacher thought that describes some person. And in means ‘in the realm of’. Thus, being ‘in the name of Christ’ is cognitively similar to being guided by some slogan in Teacher thought. But being ‘in the name of Christ’ means living within a meta-theory of incarnation that really can apply to all contexts, while following some slogan means using Contributor thought to limit thought to the pseudo-theory of some slogan that is being applied to some specific context. These two may feel temporarily the same but the underlying structure is vastly different.
Looking at this from an etymological perspective, the distinction between these two can be seen in how one reads the word logos. (The word logo is a shortened version of logogram, which comes from logos and gramma, which means ‘written or marked’.) Does one read it as the Greek word which means ‘living word’ or as the English plural of logo? A logo is a kind of slogan, a word or symbol that summarizes some product. A logos goes much deeper because it involves a detailed system of understanding.
The word blessed means ‘become long, large – properly, when God extends His benefits’. This describes a Teacher theory becoming more general. The general principle is that of righteousness. If one wants to become righteous, then one must choose to obey God rather than men; one must follow the TMN of a concept of God in the absence of being motivated by MMNs of human approval. Verse 14 describes this combination. One is following the name of Christ despite being reviled by people. This combination of following a TMN rather than MMNs will extend the realm of this new form of legitimate apostate thinking.
One can see how this works by comparing what is being described here with typical positive thinking. In positive thinking, Teacher thought is the servant of Mercy approval. One follows slogans in Teacher thought in order to gain approval from people in Mercy thought. The ultimate goal is not to follow Teacher thought but rather to influence people more effectively in Mercy thought. Verse 14 describes the opposite. Mercy approval is the servant of Teacher thought. One is accepting disapproval from people in Mercy thought in order to follow more completely the name of Christ in Teacher thought. The ultimate goal is not to influence people but rather to extend the domain of Teacher understanding. (Notice that two related ways of using Teacher thought have emerged: There is an integrated concept of God the Father, and there is also the indestructible name of a concept of incarnation which is being extended to become more universal. In other words, a Teacher theory can be viewed either as a general concept that explains many specific situations, or as some concept or person that survives intact when encountering other concepts or people.)
Verse 14 describes this ‘becoming long and large’ in more detail: ‘because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you’. The word rest means ‘to give or experience rest after the needed task is completed’. This tells us that the emotional benefit does not come out of nowhere but rather is the result of following a process. Spirit tells us that the benefit will be experienced as Platonic forms within Mercy thought. One will see more clearly within one’s mind’s eye how things could be. That is because incarnation translates the general equations of God in Teacher thought into real experiences in Mercy thought. This is ‘a spirit of glory and of God’. Glory indicates that there will be external benefits in Mercy thought, while God means that these Mercy benefits will express and expand a concept of God in Teacher thought.
For instance, I occasionally give seminars on mental symmetry but this does not happen very often. Mental symmetry has developed at a higher level precisely because I have been prevented from becoming a successful seminar speaker. It has become much ‘longer and larger’. I now have a far better developed concept of God in Teacher thought as well as a much deeper idea in Mercy thought of how things could be. None of this would have emerged if I had received the approval of the crowds. (This does not mean that one should never experience approval. 2 Peter will talk about a future time of actually living within the concept of God and incarnation that was developed in 1 Peter.)
Responding Correctly 4:15-19
Verse 15 describes how one should not respond: “Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or one who oversees others’ affairs.” If one interprets this literally, it seems rather strange that Peter would jump directly from fervently following God to being a murderer. But I suggest that this list makes sense if one looks at it cognitively. Murderer means ‘a murderer, committing unjustified, intentional homicide’. Obviously, one should not be a murderer. But why would Peter think it necessary to add this warning? Looking at this from personal experience, the theory of mental symmetry has become a powerful general theory that is capable of killing opposing theories. I could focus my attention upon using mental symmetry to destroy opposing systems. But this would be self-defeating in at least two ways: First, it would contradict the idea of following a Teacher theory of intrinsic goodness. Instead of following a theory of life and wholeness, I would actually be pursuing a theory of death and fragmentation. Second, it would eliminate the implicit mental networks that God is using to guide society. We have seen throughout this epistle that God is working at an implicit level of manipulating mental networks which appear on the surface to be either wrong or evil.
Notice that Peter does not say that one should not be a murderer, but rather that one should not suffer as a murderer. I do not think that Peter is saying that it is fine to physically kill people as long as one does not get caught. But this distinction does make sense cognitively if one views suffering as the ability to experience strong emotion. Applying this to mental symmetry, many of the essays that I have posted dismantle systems and kill underlying mental networks. But I have always tried to place this intellectual dismantling within a general context of building understanding. I have also tried to emphasize the fragments of life and wholeness that exist within any systems or authors that I am examining. And I avoid pushing these essays on people in order to attack them. Instead, I post the essay and allow the words to speak for themselves. That is because I want to make sure that my strong emotion comes from building the understanding and not from attacking the opposition.
The next word is thief, which means ‘a thief who steals by stealth (in secret)’. An intellectual thief is someone who appropriates an idea without making it his own. Suppose that one does have a concept of incarnation that is capable of extending to all areas. One must not focus purely upon extending this paradigm in Teacher thought because that would be intellectual theft. Instead, extending the understanding in Teacher thought must be accompanied by making the concepts part of personal identity in Mercy thought. For instance, each of these essays on a biblical book has come with a personal cost. The deepest emotional struggle has not come from building understanding in Teacher thought but rather from applying this understanding to personal identity in Mercy thought. So far, whenever a new concept has emerged in Teacher thought this has resonated with a personal cost which I have already paid in Mercy thought. The end result is that my emotional suffering comes from personal development rather than from being an intellectual thief.
The third word is evildoer, which combines ‘inwardly foul’ with ‘make, do’. Peter is the only one who uses this word, and this is the third of three times that it appears in the epistles of Peter. The danger here is to regress into positive thinking by making Teacher understanding the servant of childish Mercy identity. One should always submit personal identity to understanding and not the other way around. Having an understanding in Teacher thought does not automatically make a person special. For instance, understanding the law of gravity does not make a person immune from its effects. On the contrary, understanding more makes a person more responsible. Luke 12:48 warns that “From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.” And the context of that verse is waiting for Jesus to return, which is precisely the context of 1 Peter 4.
The final word is troublesome meddler. This word is used only once in the New Testament. The NASB translates it in a footnote as ‘one who oversees others’ affairs’. It combines the word ‘belong to another’ with ‘superintendent, an overseer’. One sees this type of behavior often in the scientist who makes grand statements in one area based upon technical expertise in some other area. For instance, a theoretical physicist is a specialist at solving the mathematical equations of quantum mechanics and field theory. But this mathematical expertise does not automatically make the theoretical physicist an expert in theology and the existence of God.
Looking at this from a personal perspective, it appears that the theory of mental symmetry is capable of acting as a universal meta-theory. But this does not automatically give me the right to tell others what to do or think. Instead, I have found that it is important not to superintend the affairs of others. Instead, I need to view mental symmetry as a path for me to reach mental wholeness and to break through to the spiritual realm. If my primary emotional goal becomes extending the theory of mental symmetry, then I will become emotionally distracted from following the path of personal and societal transformation. Saying this another way, the name of Christ is actually Christ Jesus, and Jesus mean Savior. Constructing a more universal concept of Christ must be combined with following the salvation of Jesus.
Verse 16 describes this mental shift away from following the name of Christ to having the personal name of being a follower of Christ: “But if anyone [suffers as] a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.” The word Christian is only used three times in the New Testament. In Acts 26:28 king Agrippa talks about almost being persuaded to become a Christian. And Acts 11:26 explains that “the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch”. Curiously, Antioch means ‘speedy as a chariot’. This implies that one will be called a follower of Christ if a concept of incarnation makes it possible to progress or develop more quickly as an individual in Mercy thought.
Ashamed means ‘to dishonor, make ashamed’. When one becomes personally identified with a concept of incarnation that is being socially reviled, then it is easy to become apologetic or ashamed. The solution is not to attack others or to run away and hide but rather to demonstrate positive benefits. In the words of Peter, one “is to glorify God in this name”. Glory means to express internal character externally. What is being glorified is ‘the God’ (with the definite article). And this is being done ‘in the realm of’ this name, ‘this’ referring to the name of Christian. This means demonstrating as an individual what it means to follow an integrated concept of God through a growing concept of incarnation. For instance, if others belittle the theory of mental symmetry, I have gradually learned not to slink away or attempt to defend myself. Instead, I try to demonstrate through my character what it means to follow a general theory of the mind in an integrated, intelligent fashion.
That is because the ultimate goal is to be able to live within this new concept of God and incarnation and not just talk about it. Verse 17 describes this goal: “For [it is] time for judgment to begin from the household of God”. The word time here means ‘time as opportunity’ rather than chronological time. Peter has used the word ‘chronological time’ so far in this chapter. This different word for time implies a new concept of sequence. One is no longer thinking in terms of physical clocks and physical actions. Instead, one is thinking in terms of opportunities. Applying this to the return of Christ, Christ will not return at a specific date. Instead Christ will return at the opportune time when the necessary conditions have been met.
Matt. 24:35-36 describe this perspective in the context of Jesus returning: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” What is solid is the ‘Word of God’ in Teacher thought expressed through incarnation. One cannot use the technical abstract thinking of ‘the angels of heaven’ to determine when Jesus will return, and one cannot even use the technical thinking of incarnation to determine this event. Instead, it will be decided by God in Teacher thought. And Teacher thought looks at order-within-complexity. When everything fits together, then the event will happen. Verse 17 is actually in the past tense: ‘It is time for judgment to have begun’. This implies that the requirements have now been met in Teacher thought. This does not mean that Jesus will return right away but rather that God will start optimizing circumstances in order to maximize the impact of this impending return. (That will be discussed in 1 Peter 5.)
Judgment does not mean condemnation. Instead, judgment comes from a verb that means ‘to pick out (choose) by separating’. One is making a decision based upon carefully defined categories within abstract technical thought. This judgment is beginning ‘from the household of the God’. Household means ‘a house, a dwelling’. ‘A household of the God’ describes living personally within an integrated Teacher concept of God. One’s primary goal is not extending the concept of incarnation, but rather building a house for personal identity. This distinction has become clear to me over the years. That is because any theory which a person continues pursuing will turn into a TMN which will act as a mental prison. Whether I like it or not, the theory that I promote will become my prison. I have seen this repeatedly when analyzing people or systems, and I can also see it in myself. Therefore, my goal is to construct the best prison possible. This sort of mindset will lead automatically to judgment, because one is learning through personal experience how to use technical thought to think and decide carefully about emotional Mercy experiences in the light of a concept of God.
The second part of verse 17 continues: “and if [it begins] with us first, what [will be] the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” Do not obey means ‘refuse to be persuaded’. What is being disobeyed is ‘the gospel of the God’. Gospel means ‘good news’. This is the only time that Peter uses the word ‘gospel’. ‘The gospel of the God’ describes the idea that a concept of God in Teacher thought can lead to personal benefits in Mercy thought. Christians talk a lot about ‘sharing the gospel’ but I have found that most Christians are not willing to ‘be persuaded by the gospel of the God’. In other words, they are quite certain that a rational concept of God in Teacher thought will not lead to personal benefits. Instead, they are convinced that they need a God of mystery or a God of religion in order to experience personal benefits from Christianity. When I suggest to such individuals that a rational understanding of God will have personal benefits, they refuse to be persuaded.
The word outcome means ‘consummation (the end-goal, purpose)’. Thus, verse 17 appears to be asking more literally, ‘If first from us, what will be the goal of those who refuse to be persuaded by the good news of the God?’ This does not make sense at first glance. But it does make sense if one examines it from a cognitive perspective. In current society, technical thought begins with studying the physical universe an objective manner and then extends from there to the rest of society. In contrast, the technical understanding of incarnation begins with those who apply a concept of God to personal existence and then extends from there to the rest of society. If one starts with personal transformation, then one will eventually experience good results. But the average person assumes that one can ignore personal identity when following an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought—because that is how the average person follows science and technology. Such individuals will not have the goal of becoming personally transformed—because they refused to be persuaded by the good news of God. Instead, they will pursue other goals, such as intellectual one-upmanship, theoretical research, commercial development, or crowd control. And because this process began with those who are not experiencing bad results because they started with personal transformation, the average person will conclude that there are no bad results.
Using an analogy, suppose that I learn about driving a car by watching professional drivers flawlessly traverse some dangerous course. If I do not know anything about driving, I will conclude that I can drive my vehicle like a professional without experiencing any painful consequences. But if I get behind the wheel of a car without having the skill and experience of a professional driver, then I will probably end up fairly quickly in a crash. This is not a contrived analogy, because there are many examples of inexperienced drivers totaling expensive sports cars, because they thought they could drive like a professional without acquiring the skill of a professional.
Verse 18 expands on this theme: “And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, where will appear the godless man and the sinner?” Righteous means to allow Server actions to be guided by a Teacher understanding of God. In the words of the Bible dictionary, it ‘describes what is in conformity to God’s own being’. Saved means to ‘deliver out of danger and into safety’. And difficulty ‘emphasizes the slight margin by which something comes to pass, i.e. because it is so difficult.’ Looking at this cognitively, mental symmetry suggests that the process of personal transformation can be subdivided into the three stages of constructing a concept of God, following God in righteousness, and then following God through personal rebirth. Verse 18 says that a person who successfully follows the second step of righteousness will still find it barely possible to go through the third step of personal rebirth. Notice again the emphasis on salvation—completing the path of personal transformation. I can confirm from personal experience that this is an accurate assessment. Going through personal rebirth is bloody difficult, and I am using ‘bloody’ as a technically defined adjective to describe MMNs of personal identity being torn apart.
In contrast, godless means ‘failing to honor what is sacred’. This describes a person who does not regard anything in Mercy thought as special from being connected with God in Teacher thought. Sinner means ‘loss from falling short of what God approves’. This describes a mindset which does not think in terms of following some standard of action. In both cases, concrete thought is being untroubled by any moral content from abstract thought. The word appear means ‘to bring to light, to cause to appear’. This is the only time that Peter uses this verb. The emphasis upon light implies the emergence of some Teacher understanding. In other words, Peter appears to be asking: If those who are righteous experience salvation just barely, what type of positive thinking will the amoral individual develop?’ The righteous have shown that there are beneficial personal results to using rational thought to construct and follow a concept of God. How will this be misused by those who have no concept of holiness or righteousness? Where will the Teacher light appear? It could appear anywhere.
Applying this more personally, if the theory of mental symmetry became widely known, then what kind of pop psychology would emerge? This is a scary thought. If advertising and marketing manipulate people so extensively based upon existing psychological knowledge, imagine what they would do with an integrated theory of cognition.
Verse 19 explains that it is better to avoid marketing and focus on staying mentally whole and doing good: “Therefore, those also who suffer according to the will of God shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.” This verse is addressed to ‘those also who suffer according to the will of God’. (Literally ‘the God’). Will means ‘to desire, wish’. This describes people who are being motivated emotionally by a Teacher concept of God to follow a path of emotional intensity. This was described in verse 13, which connected the sufferings of Christ with Teacher joy.
‘Shall commit’ is not accurate. Instead the verb is in the imperative: let them commit. The verb commit means ‘to set close beside (right next to)’. Verse 19 commands ‘commit their souls’. And the soul describes the integrated mind. In other words, one should take the mental wholeness that one has achieved by ‘suffering according to the will of God’ and set this very closely beside ‘a faithful creator’.
This is the only time that creator is used as a noun in the New Testament, and it means ‘one who creates out of nothing’. Faithful means ‘persuaded’. Thus, one should not look to anything or anyone that exists for salvation. Instead, one should be persuaded by the concept of a God who can create out of nothing. For instance, my hope is that following mental symmetry will lead to a theoretical return of Jesus which opens the door to spiritual technology. This does not exist at the moment. God would have to create spiritual technology out of nothing. But my hope is not built upon pure fantasy. Instead, it is based upon a universal concept of God. I am believing that following God subjectively will lead to the same kind of transformation that has resulted from following God objectively. In the same way that science led to technology, I am hoping that mental symmetry will lead to spiritual technology. Thus, I am not believing in nothing but rather being persuaded by a God who creates out of nothing. One is a leap into the absurd while the other is a rational extension from what exists.
This solid basis can be seen in the phrase ‘in doing what is right’. In means ‘in the realm of’ and doing right is the familiar verb ‘doing intrinsic goodness’, this time as a single verb. In other words, one does not wait for Jesus to return by putting on white robes and heading off to some mountaintop in order to pray and wait. Instead, one continues to follow intrinsic goodness in Mercy thought.
This relates to the principle of existence mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12. Righteousness follows a concept of God in Teacher thought even when there are no benefits in Mercy thought. The principle of existence is similar but goes one step further. One behaves in a certain manner because of who one is and because of how things work, even if nothing exists in the real world. One follows intrinsic goodness guided solely by belief in a God who creates out of nothing. I know a little bit what this means from personal experience, and I also have a gut feeling that this is a very powerful spiritual mechanism. It is also rare and valuable.
My best guess is that this principle relates to the spiritual realm. When one does something because of who one is, one is asserting mental networks of identity. And the spiritual realm interacts with the mind through mental networks. Saying this more generally, one becomes righteous by obeying God in Teacher thought rather than humans in Mercy thought. Similarly, one becomes spiritual by being a certain kind of person guided solely by internal mental networks in the absence of any external reasons. Notice that this is not blind faith. Blind faith follows God in the absence of both physical evidence and rational thought. In contrast, the principle of existence may lack physical evidence, but it is very much guided by internal content, including rational thought. For instance, when I apply the principle of existence, this is mentally backed up by my internal world of mental symmetry. However, I am following mental symmetry despite everything that I see in the world around me. (It is possible that some blind faith may also be applying this principle of existence in a partial manner. I do not know for sure.) Going further, when one has become righteous in some area, it is not necessary to continue behaving in an altruistic manner in that area because one now has established a mindset of allowing Teacher understanding to guide Server actions. Similarly, once one becomes spiritual in some area, one can then start experiencing physical benefits, but they will now be experienced as glory rather than as idolatry.
Cognitively speaking, righteousness must be followed before it becomes possible to follow the principle of existence, because righteousness builds the internal character that makes it possible to be truly spiritual, similar to the way that a concept of God in Teacher thought lays the mental foundation for a concept of the Holy Spirit in Mercy thought. Physically speaking, my guess is that one has to go through the spiritual realm to reach the supernatural realm. Thus, becoming cognitively spiritual makes it possible to open a door to the spiritual realm through which one can then access the supernatural. That is my guess based solely upon my internal understanding and not upon any physical experiences of the supernatural. If one tries to achieve a spiritual breakthrough before becoming cognitively transformed, then this will lead to some form of spiritism or mysticism. One may break through to spiritual power, but one will not arrive at a spiritual location that is capable of sustaining or nurturing human existence. Scripturally speaking, the principle of existence relates to the idea of sowing to the spirit mentioned in Galatians 6:7-10. Note that the previous verses (v.3-5) talk about developing and following a personal identity that is independent of other people.
Summarizing, one first becomes mentally righteous and then applies the principle of existence cognitively. This makes it possible to open the door to the spiritual realm in a healthy manner, which then leads to real interaction with the angelic realm. That is currently my best guess.
Peter’s logic is also an appeal to Teacher thought. Teacher thought likes structure and elegance. Teacher thought hates to see an elegant theory applied in an elegant manner. Peter is warning that inappropriate marketing at this point will cause the Teacher understanding of God to be applied in an inelegant and chaotic manner. Thus, one is actually following the principle of existence in order to protect the internal Teacher structure of an integrated concept of God rather than appealing for divine intervention in order to escape the external Teacher structure of the physical universe.
Leading through Example 5:1-5
Peter said in 4:15 that one should not be ‘one who oversees others’ affairs’. 1 Peter 5 describes how one should oversee one’s own affairs. In other words, entrusting one’s soul to a God who creates out of nothing does not mean going home, sitting in the closet, gazing at one’s navel, and contemplating the void in some mystical manner. Instead, it means cooperating with those who are following a similar path. The first section of chapter 5 describes this cooperation.
Verse 1 begins, “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed...” Elder means ‘a mature man having seasoned judgment (experience)’. And these elders are described as being ‘in the realm of you’. Thus, they are not above the others looking down at the others, but rather have followed the path of personal transformation more fully. The Bible dictionary adds that ‘The NT specifies elders are men. (The feminine singular, presbytera, never occurs in the Bible.) The feminine plural, presbyteras, occurs in 1 Tim 5:2. It refers to aged women, i.e. not women with an official church office or title.’ That may be accurate, but it seems strange that Peter would start his epistle by describing the development of female thought and then finish the epistle by excluding all females. Thus, I suggest that this statement should be interpreted in terms of male and female thought. Male thought is better at making a transition from one point to another. Female thought is better at improving some situation. For instance, male thought conquered the Wild West while female thought civilized it. In 1 Peter 5 a major transition is about to happen. Therefore, I suggest that it is appropriate to look to male thought for leadership at this time. Once this transition is over, then female thought will naturally grow in prominence. Thinking in terms of men and women, I know many women who use male thought in a gracious and sensitive manner, and psychological studies have shown that organizations tend to run better when there are some women in leadership. However, if one wishes to maintain a focus upon male thought, then I think that this may be difficult to do if women are given the highest authority.
Looking at this more generally, current science and technology are skewed towards the technical thinking of male thought. Hence, the current struggle is to give equality to women. But this Western struggle for gender equality is happening within a society which assumes that only male technical thought is valid. Spiritual technology would change the nature of the underlying question. Instead of struggling externally to give equal rights to women, there would be an internal struggle to integrate male thought with female thought. That is because the spiritual realm interacts with the mind through mental networks. Mental networks are internal and they involve female thought. Spiritual technology would combine female mental networks with male technical thought, and these would have to be combined internally because mental networks function within the mind. Notice again the meta-strategy of changing the question rather than trying to come up with a better answer to the existing question.
The word exhort is the verb form of a noun that means ‘a legal advocate who makes the right judgment-call because close enough to the situation’. This noun is used to describe the Holy Spirit in John 14-16. Thus, Peter is not imposing authority but rather combining emotional comfort with legal correctness.
Peter describes himself in two ways: First, he is a ‘fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ’. Fellow elder is only found once in the New Testament and combines ‘together with’ with the word just used for elder. Witness means ‘a witness; an eye- or ear-witness’. The ‘sufferings of Christ’ have been discussed in detail. Looking at this literally, Peter the disciple of Jesus saw Jesus physically suffer during his trial and crucifixion, and Peter is now a mature man with wisdom and experience. But there is also a cognitive perspective. Peter was a Perceiver person and the name Peter means rock, which represents solid Perceiver truth. Perceiver thought and Perceiver truth have now experienced the emotional intensity that is involved in constructing a concept of incarnation. Saying this in more detail, Perceiver thought gains confidence in facts as they survived emotional testing. The emotional testing that has happened in the previous chapters has increased Perceiver confidence leading to Perceiver thought that is old and mature. In other words, Peter is not just discussing theology in some abstract manner. Instead, he knows through experience and emotional testing what it means to apply theology in the crucible of life. Going further, Peter describes himself as a fellow-elder. Perceiver thought builds connections by looking for similarities. Perceiver thought is recognizing that others are following incarnation in a similar manner. Peter is not the only elder. Instead, he is a fellow-elder.
Second, Peter describes himself as “a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed”. The word revealed means ‘uncover, revealing what is hidden’. It is the source of the English word apocalypse and this same word in noun form is used by the apostle John in Revelation 1:1 to describe the apocalypse or unveiling of Jesus. The NASB gives the impression that this unveiling will happen at some time in the future, but the Greek precedes the word ‘revealed’ with a verb that means ‘at the very point of acting; ready, about to happen’. This is the only time that this verb is used in 1 Peter. Thus, some sort of unveiling of Christ is on the verge of happening. This unveiling will lead to glory, which means that the internal will in some way become externally apparent. This is consistent with the idea of a theoretical return of Jesus. Incarnation will be revealed in a startling way that has a physical component but this will not involve the physical return of Jesus. Peter describes himself as a partaker of this ‘about to be revealed glory’. Partaker means ‘a joint-participant’ and this version of the noun ‘more directly focuses on the participant himself (herself)’. Thus, Peter is focusing upon himself as a person being qualified to partake in this coming revelation.
Verse 2 describes how a leader should behave: “Shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily”. Peter is probably not choosing the word ‘shepherd’ at random because he also uses the word the ‘flock’ twice in verses 2-3. In the Greek, these two words ‘shepherd’ and ‘flock’ are quite similar. I mentioned earlier in the essay that sheep are social animals. Thus, shepherding the flock implies leading a group of people are driven by MMNs of culture. In 2:25 Peter talked about sheep going astray, focusing upon the tendency for individual sheep to become separated from the group. Here, Peter uses the word ‘flock’, focusing upon the group, and this is ‘the flock of the God’. This implies that people are starting to become emotionally attracted as a group to the TMN of an integrated concept of God. Peter does not describe this group as the flock of the shepherd, but rather as ‘the flock of the God among you’. This suggests that followers are emerging in a grassroots manner.
Why would such a flock emerge at this time? I suggest a possible answer based upon personal experience. When I started to work on mental symmetry I was trying to answer questions that the average person was not asking. But over the years I have found that people are now starting to ask the questions which I have been attempting to answer. Society has now progressed (and regressed) to the point where people are looking for a rational Teacher understanding that can replace the discredited moral absolutes of the past. Thus, I find that people are much more open to mental symmetry today than they were ten years ago. Saying this more generally, a message that does not meet a societal need will tend to be ignored no matter how good the message. In contrast, a message that meets a deep societal need will often be embraced even if the work is shoddy. Thus, if one wants to have a lasting impact, one must do one’s homework ahead of time so that when people start asking questions then one has a fully developed answer. If ‘the flock of the God’ is starting to appear, this suggests that the time (as opportunity) is now ripe for God to intervene in society.
This brings to mind a question that I have often pondered. Developing the theory of mental symmetry took many years of hard work at great personal cost. How does one share this knowledge with the average person who does not even know what it means to have a Teacher understanding? In other words, how does an elder deal with a flock of sheep?
The word oversight means to ‘look at with real (caring) interest’. When one becomes an expert, the tendency is to ignore beginners as unimportant. Peter is saying that one should pay attention to the flock, even though they are functioning at a social level. Looking at this personally, most of the books that I have analyzed have been suggested to me by others and not chosen by myself. Looking back, I can see that God has providentially used others to guide me to analyze the right book at the right time. Thus, I have found that it is worthwhile to look at others with real interest. Going further, I have worked with mental symmetry for so long that I have largely forgotten what it means to experience this material as an outsider. Therefore, I find that it is helpful to pay attention to the comments of beginners, because they often cause me to think about areas that I would naturally overlook.
The word translated under compulsion means ‘of necessity, i.e. by compulsion because required (obligatory)’. Voluntarily means ‘what is of free-will’. The Perceiver person finds it easy to be driven by duty. If something has to be done, then it will be done out of duty. If one has been following the path of transformation for a while, one will naturally feel a sense of duty to those who are starting on this path. Part of this duty comes from a feeling of ownership. If people are following a path that I have blazed, then I am responsible for taking care of them. But verse 2 described these people as ‘the flock of God’, and not as the flock of the shepherd. One may also feel a sense of duty if one is not fully convinced that following God will lead to personal benefits. This mindset was addressed in verse 1 which talked about being a partaker of the glory that is about to be revealed.
In order to freely help others, one must move beyond a sense of duty. Free will is cognitively significant. That is because the mental network that motivates some behavior will take ownership of that behavior. Therefore, if I do something out of a sense of duty, then I am not being guided by MMNs of personal identity but rather by some other set of mental networks. I have mentioned that the path of transformation can be divided into the three stages of forming a concept of God, following God in righteousness, and going through rebirth. Becoming truly reborn means behaving out of free will: I am choosing to do something because of who I am, and because of what I want. A person who is driven by duty has not become fully reborn.
Verse 2 continues by describing what should motivate personal identity: “according to [the will of] God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness”. Peter does not say ‘under God’, or ‘in obedience to God’, but rather ‘according to God’. God is a universal being in Teacher thought who expresses his character through general laws. These general laws can be followed in many different specific ways. Thus, one can be an individual who chooses while at the same time choosing ‘according to God’.
The adverb sordid gain is used once in the New Testament (and twice as an adjective) and means ‘from eagerness for base gain’. A flock of people will naturally be driven by the ‘base gain’ of immature MMNs. ‘Eagerness for base gain’ implies that the shepherd is descending to the emotional level of the flock. There will be a temptation to do this if one finds oneself surrounded by a flock of followers after one has been following God despite being reviled by others.
Instead, one should be motivated by eagerness, which combines ‘before’ with ‘passion’ and means ‘passion shown in advance, i.e. pre-inclined, thoroughly willing’. I have learned the distinction between ‘sordid gain’ and ‘eagerness’ from playing violin. Suppose that one is performing in front of a group of people. Mercy thought can gain its motivation in one of two ways: First, one can focus upon MMNs of approval and social status: ‘What will they think? I hope they applaud. I hope they listen to me and not someone else.’ These are all examples of ‘sordid gain’. Second, one can focus upon MMNs of intrinsic goodness: ‘This is beautiful music. I love to play well. I want to share this beauty with the audience’. That describes ‘eagerness’ in which one gains one’s excitement from the intrinsic goodness within the experiences themselves. Notice that one is not shutting off Mercy thought but rather finding an alternate motivation for Mercy thought.
Verse 3 describes the interaction between leaders and followers: “Nor yet as lording it over the allotments, but becoming examples to the flock.” Lording it over means to ‘exercise decisive control (downward) as an owner with full jurisdiction’. The word allotments means ‘to cast a lot’. This is an unusual juxtaposition of terms, but I think I understand what Peter saying. When one is working with abstract theory and a concept of incarnation, then Mercy thought will become filled with ideal Platonic forms of the spirit. When one descends from theory to live in concrete reality, one will encounter specific people rather than Platonic forms. The type of specific person that one encounters will be largely a matter of chance, but every specific person or group will fall short in various ways of ideal Platonic forms. One will be tempted to look down on these inadequate, specific people and tell them how they should behave. After all, one will feel that someone who has been following God in an intelligent manner for a long time has the right to tell new followers how to behave: ‘I am the expert who knows about perfection. They are just imperfect beginners.’ These beginners may be imperfect, but they also live in the real world, and the real world is messy. The theoretical expert needs to learn from these beginners what it means to live in the real world.
The word example is used once in the epistles of Peter and means ‘a model forged by repetition’. And becoming means ‘to come into being’. This implies that a theoretical expert will have to learn through practice how to live in the real world. Instead of imposing Platonic forms upon others, one allows Platonic forms to guide one’s own actions, and as these actions become repeated, this will build Server confidence and one will become an example for others to follow. These examples are ‘to the flock’. Looking at this cognitively, if the flock is being attracted to a TMN of God, then they will naturally also be attracted to behavior that expresses a TMN of God. Notice that one is not abandoning the concept of ideal perfection or ignoring the imperfections of the flock. Instead, one is influencing others at the level of example rather than by exerting control.
Verse 4 provides the motivation for behaving in this higher manner: “And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading wreath of glory.” The word chief shepherd combines ‘to rule, to begin’ with ‘shepherd’ and is used once in the New Testament. The word appears comes from ‘light’ and means ‘illumine, make manifest (visible)’. Light represents Teacher understanding. This kind of appearing suggests something becoming visible because it is being illuminated by the light of Teacher understanding. Chief shepherd implies that this will involve a new way of guiding social groups. This is consistent with the idea of a theoretical return of Jesus opening up new ways of guiding groups of people at the level of mental networks.
The promised reward is also consistent with this idea. Receive means ‘receive what has belonged to myself but has been lost, or else promised but kept back’. The motivation has been to break through to a reward rather than to receive the approval of people. ‘Receive’ describes receiving this reward. This reward is a wreath, ‘awarded to a victor in the ancient athletic games’. In other words, there is a reward for finishing the path. It is a wreath, which implies that it will involve the living realm of mental networks, and it is a wreath of glory, which means that internal character will become visible.
Finally, it is unfading. The word unfading is only found once in the New Testament and means ‘composed of amaranth (a flower, so called because it never withers or fades, and when plucked off revives if moistened with water; hence, it is a symbol of perpetuity and immortality’. Peter used a similar word in 1:4 when talking about an inheritance that ‘will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you’. In 1:4 this inheritance was described as in the future while in chapter 5 the reward is imminent. Both the adjective in 1:4 and the adjective in 5:4 have the same meaning ‘unfading’, and both are used only once in the New Testament. However, the adjective in 5:4 refers to the flower that is unfading while 1:4 just describes the attribute of unfading. This implies that the unfading will be evident in some sort of visible, beautiful, living manner. This type of unfading is different than the convential concept of male invincibility as portrayed by ‘the right stuff’. It is not the invincibility of being made of some indestructible material, but rather a female kind of immortality that is always capable of reviving itself.
I know that the standard interpretation is to collapse all of these predictions into a single return of Jesus. But a more careful reading of Scripture has led me to conclude that a partial or theoretical return of Jesus will precede a more complete physical return later on.
Verse 5 explicitly states that there will be new followers: “You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders”. Likewise means ‘likewise, in like manner’. This means that followers are following a pattern and not just submitting to authority. The word translated younger men means ‘new (new on the scene); recently revealed or what was not there before’. Thus, this does not refer to men rather than women, but rather to anyone who is new upon the scene. These are instructed to be ‘subject to your elders’. Subject combines ‘under’ with ‘arrange’, which describes being under a person in Teacher thought. Those who are under in Teacher thought add specifics to the generalities of those who are above them. In other words, if one is new on the scene, one submits to the general understanding of those who have been following God for a long time and one then adds details in a manner that is consistent with the attitude described in previous verses.
The next phrase looks at personal interaction: “and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another.” The word clothe yourself is only found once in the New Testament and means ‘to put on oneself (as a garment)’. Clothing represents the ‘fabric’ of personal interaction. ‘Clothing oneself’ implies that people are choosing to create a social fabric guided by free will and internal character. Humility combines ‘low, humble’ with ‘moderation as regulated by inner perspective’. This humility is supposed to be reciprocal, going both ways.
True humility is only possible if one is following something that is independent of personal opinion. If truth is based upon personal status, then someone must exert personal status in order to establish truth, and exerting personal status is the opposite of being low or humble. But if truth is independent of personal opinion, then one will be humble in order to ensure that personal status does not get in the way of discovering truth. This humility is supposed to be an external expression of internal character. If one is internally submitted to a concept of God in Teacher thought, then this will express itself externally as humble behavior.
Verse 5 finishes by connecting humble behavior with help from God: “for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble”. God is literally ‘the God’, which indicates an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought. Pride combines ‘beyond, over’ with ‘shine forth’, implying that one is lifting oneself up too far in Teacher thought. Opposed combines ‘against’ with ‘arrange, order’ and means to ‘reject the entire make-up of something, i.e. its whole arrangement’. In other words, God is not just setting himself against such a person, but instead is opposing the general concept of people in Mercy thought inflating their generality in Teacher thought. Putting this another way, will Teacher thought be the servant of Mercy thought or will Mercy thought to submit itself to Teacher thought? God in Teacher thought is opposed to any Teacher structure that is based in Mercy status. Notice that this also describes the mindset of absolute truth, which builds a Teacher understanding upon Perceiver facts that are based in Mercy status. (God is not opposed to Mercy thought. 4:13 talked about Mercy experiences leading to greater Teacher understanding. But God is opposed to thinking that is based in Mercy status.)
Looking now at the other way, humble means ‘lowly, humble’, and is a simpler version of the compound word ‘humility’ that was used earlier in the verse. Looking at this cognitively, if one submits Mercy identity to Teacher understanding, then one will naturally receive help from Teacher thought. Any mental network that is triggered will attempt to impose its structure upon the situation. Therefore, submitting to the TMN of a concept of God will naturally create a Teacher drive to impose the character of God upon that situation and remove any exceptions to the rule. That is why one constructs a Teacher understanding of God by pursuing intrinsic goodness. This ensures that the resulting concept of God will promote intrinsic goodness when it turns into a TMN. As far as I know, only a concept of ‘the God’ is compatible with intrinsic goodness. Nothing else appears to fit together totally in Teacher thought.
Submitting to Providence 5:6-7
This attitude is summarized in the next verse: “Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God” (v.6). Humble is the verb form of the same word that was used in the previous verse, which means ‘lowly, humble’. But it is in the imperative passive, which means ‘be humbled’. ‘Humble yourselves’ gives the impression that this is something which one is choosing to do. In contrast, ‘be humbled’ is something that is being done to one. God is humbling people and people are being instructed to accept this.
This humbling is ‘under the mighty hand of the God’. Mighty is used once as an adjective in the New Testament, and comes from a noun that means ‘dominion, exerted power’. This noun was used in 4:11 in the phrase “to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever”, and almost the same phrase will be repeated in 5:11. The hands are used to perform detailed movement. Thus, the mighty hand of God implies that God is working at a detailed level.
Putting this together, God is working providentially at a detailed level in order to set things up for the upcoming transition. Like the typical battle plan, it is very important for people not to ruin this plan by anticipating. Therefore, God will put people and groups down in order to ensure that they do not start before it is time. I know what this feels like from personal experience. I have often had doors open a crack in order to have them shut in my face. Each of these opportunities has been a learning experience, and I get the impression that God is happy for me to learn. But I also get the distinct impression that God is shutting down these opportunities in order to ensure that mental symmetry does not get widely known before the proper time. One could get offended at this personal injustice, but I have developed a healthy respect for the mighty hand of God. Thus, when divine providence shuts the door, then I respond ‘Yes Sir!’ (I sometimes grumble a bit first.)
Verse 6 emphasizes that this humbling is not the end of the story: “that He may exalt you at the proper time”. Exalt means ‘to lift or raise up, to exalt, uplift’. And the word for time here is ‘time as opportunity’. In other words, God really is putting things together in order to set up the proper opportunity, and when everything fits together the right way, then God the Father will make the next transition. The way that God is functioning in these verses is indicative of Teacher thought. Teacher thought thinks in terms of generality. Teacher thought comes up with a general theory by taking some specific element and raising it up so that it is more general than other elements. Using an analogy, God takes some commoner off the streets and promotes that commoner to be the monarch. In verse 6, God is demoting certain people for a while in order to promote them at the appropriate opportunity. Speaking from personal experience, God seems to be happy to allow me to continue working as long as I do so in relative obscurity.
Could someone derail God’s plan by refusing to humble themselves? That brings us back to the question of divine sovereignty discussed at the beginning of this essay. My understanding is that it is possible for humans to postpone or minimize God’s plans but it is not possible to derail them altogether. For instance, I think that it was God’s plan for the Jews and Greeks to discover science in Alexandria before the time of Christ. (This thesis is developed in previous essays.) Obviously, this did not happen, which tells us that it is possible to significantly delay the plan of God. Science did eventually emerge in Renaissance Europe, but human society had to go through significant levels of physical suffering in order to set up this opportunity. And the Jews had to get kicked out of their country. (Also, the Greek civilization was taken over by the Romans.) In other words, if some individual or group refuses to submit to the hand of God, then this may postpone the plan of God, but it will also lead to major suffering for both the rebels and for society in general. Therefore, one of the reasons that I respond to the humbling of God by saying ‘Yes Sir!’ is that I value my skin.
Using an analogy, I live in Canada, a few miles from the American border. Pierre Trudeau, the former Canadian Prime Minister who was the father of the current Prime Minister, said about the United States: “Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.” Unfortunately, the current President of the United States twitches (twitters?) and grunts incessantly, and Canadians have learned that he admires dictators far more than he does close allies and friends. God does not twitch or grunt, and God opposes dictators, but when God moves then it is somewhat like sleeping with an elephant. It is wiser to say ‘Yes, Sir!’ and ‘No, Sir!’. Acknowledging the sovereignty of God in this practical manner goes far beyond holding to a doctrine of the sovereignty of God while acting as if God does not exist, or capitalizing pronouns that refer to God while belittling one’s mental concept of God.
Verse 7 adds a personal note: “Casting all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you”. Anxiety is used once in Peter’s epistles and means ‘a part, separated from the whole; (figuratively) worry (anxiety), dividing and fracturing a person’s being into parts’. This is the opposite of peace, which means ‘wholeness’. Notice that both of these words refer to Teacher thought. Peace describes order-within-complexity while anxiety is an exception to the general rule.
Casting is used twice in the New Testament and it combines ‘upon’ with ‘to throw, cast’. And all means ‘each part of a totality’. Putting this together cognitively, air represents Teacher thought. ‘Casting upon’ is an unusual word because one is throwing something through the air in order to give it to someone else. This implies using Teacher thought. Teacher thought can also be seen in the word ‘anxiety’ because one is viewing personal problems from the Teacher perspective of a lack of wholeness. A lack of wholeness becomes most apparent when one examines each part of the totality, because any part that is fragmented will then become obvious within the context of all the other parts that are working together.
Saying this more simply, miracles are typically viewed as exceptions to the general laws of physics. Similarly, most prayers ask God for personal exceptions to the general rule: ‘Can you do this just for me?’ Teacher thought hates such a request because Teacher thought hates exceptions to the general rule. This explains why science—which uses Teacher thought—hates the idea of miracles. But verse 7 is viewing personal problems from a Teacher perspective: ‘This situation is an exception to the rule. Here are all the pieces. I am throwing them to you in Teacher thought so that you can put them together.’
When one addresses Teacher thought in a way that is compatible with Teacher thought, then one will get a positive emotional response: “because He cares for you”. ‘Care for you’ gives the impression that God is shows emotional concern for someone as an individual within Mercy thought. But the original Greek says something slightly different. Care means ‘to care about (be concerned with), especially paying attention (giving thought) to’. So there is an emotional interest. But for actually ‘denotes that around which an act or state revolves; about, concerning, as touching’. Thus, the emotional interest is for me as a general context within Teacher thought rather than as a specific object or experience in Mercy thought.
For instance, I fix computers. People often come to me and say, ‘My computer is not working’. In other words, the computer is making me feel bad in Mercy thought. In order to fix the problem I have to approach it from a Teacher perspective of parts working together in an integrated manner. So I will usually respond, ‘Can you be more specific? What exactly is not working?’ Using the language of Peter, I am trying to rephrase their request in terms of ‘anxiety’. And in order to solve the problem they have to ‘cast the problem upon me’ by giving me freedom to use Teacher thought to diagnose and solve the problem.
A Roaring Lion 5:8-11
Verse 8 is quite familiar, but it too is typically viewed from a Mercy perspective, and a slightly different meaning emerges if one uses Teacher thought: “Be of sober [spirit], be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
Sober means ‘to be sober (not drunk), not intoxicated; (figuratively) free from illusion’. The figurative meaning in this definition is consistent with the way that we have been interpreting drunkenness symbolically. Thinking clearly will be especially difficult if God starts manipulating human society, because it will start to feel as if society is going insane. Idiots will be raised up and made leaders, often through an improbable set of circumstances. Rational thinking will be ignored for no logical reason. For instance, yesterday the European Parliament passed legislation regarding the Internet. This legislation contains two articles (11 and 13) that may have a massive negative impact upon the freedom of the web. These two articles passed because some Swedish legislators accidentally pressed the wrong buttons.
Why would God lift up idiots and put down sanity? Because God manipulates history at the level of mental networks. This means causing people to reveal their true natures as well as propelling groups of people in desired directions by triggering feelings of adoration and revulsion. Those who are trying to follow God in an intelligent manner will find it easy to ‘get drunk’ by becoming overwhelmed by the strong societal emotions that God is providentially stirring up.
Continuing with verse 8, the word translated be on the alert means ‘to be awake, to watch’. In other words, do not fall asleep mentally. Do not respond passively to the emotions of society. Think clearly; stay awake.
The next phrase mentions ‘Your adversary, the devil’. The word adversary ‘is a technical legal term used in antiquity of an adversary in a courtroom’. Devil means ‘to slander, accuse, defame’. Given the circumstances of society, it will be easy to slip into slander: ‘Those idiots! How can they be so stupid? How dare they! They need to be put in their place!’ However, if one does so one will lose the battle within God’s court of law. That is because one will become guided by Mercy feelings of good and evil rather than by Teacher understanding. One will descend from being an intelligent follower of God to being part of the flocks that God is manipulating through social pressure.
The devil “prowls around like a roaring lion”. The word prowls around combines ‘comprehensively around’ with ‘walk’ to mean ‘conduct my life, live’. In other words, when one responds with slander one is actually adopting a way of life. One is not just making a decision to slander but rather becoming part of an entire system of slander. Roaring is used once in the New Testament and means ‘roar, howl, as a beast’. Saying this simply, responding with slander reduces a person to the level of a beast and this beast is responding verbally at a gut level. That is because God is manipulating society by having people respond at a gut level.
This lion is “seeking someone to devour”. Seeking means ‘to search, getting to the bottom of a matter.’ And devour actually means ‘to drink down’. Liquid represents Mercy experiences. Putting this all together, if one succumbs to these gut-level responses, then one will find oneself going down a rabbit hole in which one becomes immersed within a Mercy environment of slander. (Sorry about the mixed metaphors.) Saying this another way, one will start looking for conspiracies. Such conspiracies may well exist, but one must not head down those rabbit holes, because they will swallow a person up, immerse that person within a mindset of slander, and reduce social interaction to the beast level of roaring. One will then find oneself swallowed up by a lifestyle of rage against the system.
Verse 9 describes how one should respond: “Whom resist, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brotherhood in the world.” Resist means ‘take a complete stand against, i.e. a 180 degree, contrary position’. In other words, one needs to respond at a Teacher level by holding on to a totally different way of thinking rather than react at a Mercy level by responding with outrage at specific situations and people. The ultimate goal is to change how people think rather than win specific battles and score specific points.
One can see this principle being violated by American evangelicals. They are focusing upon winning specific social and legal battles, and have made a pact with a devil in order to do so, not realizing that they are becoming swallowed up by a roaring lion. (Donald Trump functions primarily at the level of slander, and devil means slander. Therefore, Donald Trump is a devil. In contrast, Justin Trudeau in Canada illustrates the intolerance that results from following an overgeneralized Teacher theory of pure tolerance. And yes, that is a cognitive disconnect.)
Firm means ‘stable (not changeable), standing fast without buckling or giving way’. And faith means to ‘be persuaded’. In other words, hold on to rational thought; hang on to solid facts. This sounds easy, but it is hard to do in today’s post-truth era of ‘fake news’. For instance, I think that it is appropriate to point out the mindset that is being used by leaders such as Donald Trump, Justin Trudeau, or Vladimir Putin. But one should not focus upon the details and respond with outrage. Instead, one should take a strong stand against the form of thinking that is being used by such individuals.
Knowing means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. This refers to empirical evidence. Thus, one does not ignore one’s senses and turn one’s back upon the physical world. Instead, one needs to use rational Perceiver thought to look at the evidence instead of being overwhelmed by the Mercy emotions of the individual situations. What type of physical evidence should one look for? ‘The same sufferings throughout the world’. Suffering is the familiar word that means ‘the capacity to feel strong emotion, like suffering’. In means ‘in the realm of’, and the word for world is cosmos, which refers to the natural world system. In other words, look at all the emotional experiences and use Perceiver and Server thought to find similarities. Mental symmetry uses this kind of analysis, because it studies the mental networks of identity and society from a factual perspective, looking for common connections. Thus, one is not trying to suppress feelings of outrage, but rather attempting to understand them and place them within a concept of God.
Finishing verse 9, accomplish means ‘to complete, accomplish’. Brotherhood means ‘brotherhood’ and is based upon a word that means ‘from the same womb’. In other words, many people are becoming cognitively reborn ‘from the same womb’ and these people are corporately accomplishing a task. The TCK, or Third Culture Kid, provides a partial illustration of what this means. TCKs come from many different cultures, but they all share the common lifestyle of growing up in a country that is different than their passport country. This results in a third culture or a meta-culture based in the common experience of what it means to live between cultures. Similarly, a ‘brotherhood’ will emerge between many people of many different backgrounds who share the common experience of being reborn to a new way of thinking that is guided by Teacher understanding.
Verse 10 adds that God will take this new meta-group of people and shape them into something that reflects his character: “After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.” The NASB begins the sentence by focusing upon the suffering. The Greek starts by talking about ‘the God of all grace’. All means ‘each part of a totality’. Thus, the God of all grace describes a God who is bigger than my group, larger than my church, and broader than my ethnic group or nationality. Instead, one needs to recognize that God is working in many different groups in many different ways to come up with an integrated, complete solution. I am not suggesting that ‘all roads lead to heaven’, because that attitude comes from a concept of God based in Teacher overgeneralization. Instead, I am suggesting that many groups have different parts of the puzzle, and if one wants to gather all of the puzzle pieces, then one must learn from many groups, including those with which one would not normally interact.
This is brought out by the word called, which means ‘call, summon, invite’. Being called does not mean that one will automatically be chosen or accepted. But it does mean that one is being given an opportunity. This calling is ‘to His eternal glory in Christ’. Cognitively speaking, this means forming a concept of incarnation in abstract thought in order to generate lasting, external results. The current university system provides a partial illustration of what this means. Almost all universities worldwide now teach the same abstract technical thinking of math and science. Abstract technical thought is the basis for a concept of Christ. Why do all universities teach the same math and science? Because applying math and science leads to the lasting glory of technology. Math and science are now being questioned by a post-scientific world. That is because scientific thought specializes and ignores the subjective. Therefore, the glory of science is also fragmented and inhuman.
However, if one extended abstract technical thought to include an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought as well as subjective identity in Mercy thought, then one would create a concept of Christ that would truly lead to lasting glory, because the resulting technology would be both integrated and human. 1 Peter has described how this extension happens mentally. My hypothesis is that the theoretical return of Jesus will make this extension happen physically, making it possible for technology to expand into spiritual technology. Science can only be extended into the subjective if scientific thought can survive emotional testing. That is why 1 Peter has emphasized suffering—the capacity to feel emotion. Similarly, verse 10 says “After you have suffered for a little while”.
Verse 10 finishes by describing the steps that God will take: “perfect, confirm, strengthen [and] establish you”. Perfect means ‘exactly fit (adjust) to be in good working order’. This describes abstract technical thought. Using the example of a car, concrete technical thought uses a car to drive to some location in Mercy thought, based upon principles of cause-and-effect. Abstract technical thought will view the same car as a collection of precisely defined parts which work together to generate Teacher order-within-complexity. Concrete technical thought is like the driver of a car. Abstract technical thought is like the mechanic of a car. A mechanic will ‘adjust the car to be in good working order’.
Confirm means ‘set fast (fix); give support to secure (firmly establish)’. Technical thought is controlled by Contributor thought, and Contributor combines Perceiver and Server. Perceiver thought builds connections that ‘give support to secure’. Thus, ‘confirming’ means building solid Perceiver connections for Contributor thought. Using the example of a car, abstract technical thought will adjust the car to be in working order, but this adjustment will only last if the parts of the car are solidly connected together. The more solid the Perceiver connections, the more stress the car can undergo without falling apart.
Strength is used once in the New Testament and comes from a noun that means ‘vigor, strength’. It is interesting that ‘strong’ does not appear in the New Testament, but ‘without strength’, which adds the prefix ‘not’ to the word ‘strong’, can be found 26 times. That is because the path of Christian transformation goes beyond natural human strength by giving the grace and power of God to those who are not strong. Strength relates to Server thought. Thus, ‘strengthen’ means forming solid Server sequences for Contributor thought. Using the example of a car, strengthening the parts of a car makes the car able to move faster, further, and longer.
Finally, establish means ‘to lay the foundation of’. Using the example of a car, a car drives upon solid ground. In order to use a car, one must lay the foundation of a network of roads which have all been laid with a solid foundation.
Notice that all of these traits enable Mercy thought but do not directly involve Mercy thought. Using the example of a car, ‘perfecting’ provides a working car, but personal Mercy feelings are needed to decide where to drive this car. ‘Confirming’ a car makes it possible to drive this car through rough terrain, but it does not pre-determine the Mercy experiences through which one drives this car. ‘Strengthening’ a car makes it possible to drive the car longer and further, but Mercy thought must still be used to decide where one will drive the car. Finally, ‘establishing’ a car creates a network of roads along which one can drive a car, but Mercy thought is still needed to decide which road one will take. This relates to the interaction between divine sovereignty and human free will discussed at the beginning of this essay. Using the illustration of a car, God is developing the mind of each person into a solid capable vehicle, and God is also creating an environment within which people can use their minds. But people still have both the freedom and responsibility to use Mercy thought to decide where they will go.
Verse 11 summarizes: “To Him [be] dominion forever and ever. Amen.” This is almost identical to 4:11, which said “to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” 4:11 referred to Jesus Christ, while 5:11 refers to God the Father. Both use the word dominion, which means ‘dominion, exerted power’. But only 4:11 mentions glory. In addition, the personal reference is different. When referring to Jesus Christ, the verb ‘be’ is explicitly included, while only a relative pronoun is used. When referring to God, the pronoun is explicitly included, while the verb ‘be’ is implicit. Looking at this cognitively, a concept of God and a concept of incarnation share the same general theory in Teacher thought. Hence, both have dominion, a word which describes a general theory ruling over some realm. But they treat this theory in a different manner. God the Father uses Teacher emotion to focus upon the general theory in a more personal manner, while incarnation uses technical thought to focus upon the existence that the general theory makes possible. Finally, glory belongs to incarnation because incarnation extends from Teacher thought to the human realm of Mercy thought which glorifies Teacher understanding. In contrast, God in Teacher thought is glorified by other forms of thought and existence which apply the general theory. In both cases, this is a stable system that will survive intact through paradigm shifts.
Partners of Perceiver Thought 5:12-14
The last 3 verses may appear at first glance to be merely Peter saying goodbye, but these verses contain some interesting cognitive symbolism. Verse 12 begins “Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (as I consider him)”. Looking at this literally, Silvanus helped Peter to write the letter. Looking at this cognitively, Silvanus means ‘sylvan’, or in simpler words, ‘wood, forest’. A tree is a large, solid, living structure which does not move. It acquires its energy from light through photosynthesis. This is like a specialization or social group which grows and develops, energized by the TMN of some paradigm. A specialization does not move but rather expands and grows while providing shelter for other mental networks. If Peter is writing ‘through Silvanus’, this implies that technical specializations enable Perceiver thought to build connections. One must go through a period of technical specializations before Perceiver thought becomes capable of assembling a general theory of God. I know from personal experience that this is true. The only reason that I can use Perceiver thought to create a meta-theory is because many technical specializations exist that can be analyzed and interconnected. Saying this symbolically, I know that the average technical specialist cannot see the forest for the trees, but trees must exist if Perceiver thought is to look at the big picture and point out the forest.
This new perspective taken by Perceiver thought is implied by the phrase ‘our faithful brother (as I consider him)’. The word consider is the root of the English word logic and means to ‘reason to a logical conclusion’. This is the only time that this word is used in Peter’s epistles. Going further, this verb is based in the Greek word logos, which we have interpreted as the TMN of some system of rational thought. Peter says that he is ‘logically concluding’ that Silvanus is a faithful brother. Faithful comes from the word faith which means ‘persuaded’. The word brother is similar to the word ‘brotherhood’ that was used in verse 9. Putting this together, it will probably not be obvious that the various technical specializations which exist are part of the brotherhood that God is putting together. But if one uses the logical reasoning of Peter a Perceiver person, one will realize that they are actually being persuaded in the direction of recognizing and building an integrated concept of God. Applying this to mental symmetry, I do not know of anyone else who regards science and technology as a partial expression of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. (I looked on the Internet and found nothing. This is a profound omission.) I was led to this conclusion by using Perceiver logic: I compared the biblical description of incarnation with how the mind constructs a concept of incarnation and with how the mind functions when thinking scientifically. I then realized that these three are cognitively the same. Therefore, I now ‘regard Silvanus as a faithful brother’. I am not suggesting that all scientists are Christians. Instead, I am suggesting that Christianity can be analyzed as applying scientific thought to personal identity in submission to a concept of God. A scientist who applies scientific thought in a specialized, objective manner may save the world but he himself will not be saved.
Verse 12 continues: “I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it!” The first phrase is more literally ‘through few I have written’. This is an accurate description of 1 Peter, because Peter has put in written form a very concise summary of what it means to use Perceiver thought to use the keys of heaven. The clues are there but they will only become apparent to someone who uses Perceiver thought to extend Contributor incarnation. I am fairly certain that neither Peter nor Silvanus realized the full implications of what they were writing. Instead, I suggest that it was God’s initial plan for science to emerge before the time of Christ. This would have led to a number of technical specializations by the time of Christ, making it possible for a real Peter to use Perceiver thought to expand a concept of incarnation. When this did not happen, then Jesus the incarnation had to give the keys of heaven to Perceiver thought in symbolic form and then guide Peter to ‘write briefly’ what it meant to actually use Perceiver thought to unlock heaven.
This unlocking of heaven is implied by the phrase ‘the true grace of God’. True means ‘true, as it accords with fact (reality)… literally, what can’t be hidden’. Peter is trying to describe how one actually receives grace from God. Christians talk excessively about God’s grace but this is often an empty description that temporarily warms the heart but ultimately means nothing. That is what happens when Perceiver thought has not unlocked heaven. There is a lot of religious hot air and not much substance.
Peter adds two verbs: Exhorting means to ‘make a call from being close-up and personal’ and it ‘has legal overtones’. Thus, this is not a matter of emotionally prodding someone. Instead, it combines the personal care of mental networks with the legal thinking of technical thought. Logic is being combined with feeling. Testifying is a compound word that is only used once in the New Testament. It combines ‘fitting’ with ‘to witness’ and means to ‘witness... in a fitting, suitable way’. Again one sees the emotional and factual being combined. A witness experiences something personally in Mercy thought. A ‘fitting witness’ describes these experiences factually and appropriately.
Peter finishes with the command: ‘Stand firm in it!’ The verb stand, which means ‘to stand’ is in the imperative. In other words, knowing Perceiver facts is not enough. Instead, one must use these Perceiver facts as a basis for personal identity in Mercy thought. This is also a combination of personal and factual, because one must place one’s person within the facts.
Verse 13 is strange: “She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and [so does] my son, Mark.” Theologians have debated what Peter means. Is he referring cryptically to the church in Rome? This could describe what Peter himself was trying to say, but the cognitive interpretation is curious. The Greek sentence starts with the verb greet, which means ‘to welcome, greet’. This is basically a version of ‘hello’. The pronoun she, in the singular, is explicitly added. Babylon is mentioned 12 times in the New Testament. Five of these times are in Revelation 14-18 which talk about the fall of Babylon. Babylon is discussed in the essay on Revelation. In brief, Babylon was built astride the Euphrates River which separates the East from the West. Looking at this symbolically, Babylon describes a society that juxtaposes Eastern mysticism with Western rationalism. This kind of juxtaposition will naturally lead to a whore of Babylon, as described in Revelation 17. A whore sells personal identity in order to gain peripheral wealth. Similarly, the typical path to success in modern society is to sell one’s soul in order to gain peripheral power, fame, and wealth. ‘She in Babylon’ would refer to the subjective side of the split.
Chosen together with (you is implied) is a compound word used only once in the New Testament that combines ‘with’ and ‘chosen’. ‘Chosen’ was used four times in 1 Peter 1-2: Scattered people were chosen by God in 1:1, Christ the living stone was chosen by God in 2:4 and 2:6, and 2:9 talked about a chosen race. In each case, God is choosing something as a starting point for building further.
Putting this together, those who sell their souls in order to manipulate society make heavy use of psychological principles. ‘She who is in Babylon greets’ suggests that those who manipulate society will start to find this new concept of incarnation interesting. Interest will spread from the group who is following God to society at large, as implied by 4:17. Peter emphasizes that one should not respond with rejection but rather by regarding ‘she who is Babylon’ as ‘chosen together with’. There are two reasons for this: First, notice the direction. Babylon is doing the greeting. This is not a case of marketing incarnation but rather a case of responding to inquiries. In other words, God is doing the lifting up, and God is bigger than my group. Second, the new concept of God and incarnation is now sufficiently robust and complete to be able to handle the childish and idolatrous MMNs of Babylon.
What usually happens now is that whenever evangelicalism comes into contact with secular society, evangelicals become corrupted by secular society. Saying this more bluntly, the supposed bride of Christ turns into another whore of Babylon. That is because evangelicalism follows absolute truth that is based in MMNs of personal status and lacks the TMN of a general understanding in Teacher thought. This is quite different than a concept of God and incarnation based in the TMN of a rational understanding. My best guess regarding the theoretical return of Jesus and spiritual technology is that God will initially offer this to everyone. This gift will save those who follow God in integrity while leading to the self-destruction of those who reject God. In other words, the gift will be potent enough to carry within it its own judgment. In essence, I am attempting to answer the question that was posed in in 4:18: “If it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner?” Saying this more clearly, If Jesus is about to return and institute a form of spiritually empowered existence that requires personal integrity, then it would not be wise for someone who claims to follow Jesus to actively support a president who is not just lacking in personal integrity but devoid of any personal integrity.
It is also interesting to apply this kind of interpretation to ‘and my son, Mark’. Most websites relate the name Mark to Mars the god of war. One website says that it means a large hammer or war-hammer—which is also related to war. Speaking literally, Mark was the spiritual son of Peter. But looking at this symbolically implies that war is the son of Perceiver thought. Unfortunately, there is truth to this statement, because Perceiver thought that emerges from Mercy experiences will naturally believe that Truth needs to be defended at all costs while Error needs to be wiped out. In addition, the warrior hero shows courage, honor, and duty, all attributes that are valued by Perceiver thought. When one follows the path of personal transformation to the extent of being reborn, then these warlike traits can re-emerge in a healthy form: one can show courage and honor in a positive way by embodying truth rather than in a negative manner by slaying the enemy.
Verse 14 is consistent with this interpretation of verse 13: “Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace be to you all who are in Christ.” Greet is the same verb that was used in verse 13. ‘She in Babylon’ usually greets with a kiss of eros, a word for erotic love that is not used in the New Testament. In contrast, Peter instructs to greet one another with a kiss of agape. Thus, one places the greeting from Babylon within a context of greeting one another with the moral love of agape.
In a similar vein, ‘Peace be to you all who are in Christ’ provides an antidote to the warlike focus of ‘my son Mark’. War kills, destroys, fragments, and dismembers. Peace means ‘to join, tie together into a whole – properly, wholeness’. War comes naturally to minds that are built upon childish and tribal MMNs—regardless of how much one talks about peace. In contrast, peace comes naturally to those who are in Christ, because a concept of incarnation adds technical details to the unity of an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought. This combination generates a peace that rules. As it says in Colossians 3:15: “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts”.
Conclusion
In Matthew 16, Peter made a cognitive leap from Jesus to Christ, recognizing that the historical Jesus was the Christ or ‘anointed one’. Jesus told Peter that this idea did not come from human thought but rather had been revealed to him by God in heaven. And Jesus then gave the keys of heaven to Peter. This is typically quoted by Protestants as an obscure theological doctrine and by Catholics as a divine mandate for religious hegemony, but it has deep cognitive significance.
Perceiver thought naturally thinks in terms of absolute truth. A Perceiver fact is regarded as ‘true’ if it comes from the right personal source in Mercy thought. This turns the Perceiver person into a conservative who preserves ‘truth’. However, if Perceiver thought moves from absolute truth to universal truth, then Perceiver thought can expand the technical thinking of Contributor thought. Using religious language Peter is recognizing that ‘Jesus is the Christ’. Cognitively speaking, this means acknowledging the cause-and-effect of concrete technical thought and then connecting this with the precise meanings of abstract technical thought. Acknowledging the cause-and-effect of Jesus requires going beyond statictruth, while developing the abstract thinking of Christ requires going beyond absolute truth.
Perceiver thought connects these two by eliminating hypocrisy. Hypocrisy means saying one thing while doing another. Abstract technical thought comes up with precise definitions of words. Concrete technical thought follows connections of cause-and-effect. What one says using abstract technical thought is not naturally the same as what one does using concrete technical thought. When what I say lines up with what I do, then hypocrisy is being eliminated—and the two sides of incarnation start to become connected within my mind. It appears that Using Perceiver thought to connect concrete technical thought with abstract technical thought can be described in religious language as Peter recognizing that Jesus is the Christ.
When this connection is made, then Contributor salvation can go through death-and-resurrection. In Matthew 16, Jesus started to talk about his death-and-resurrection as soon as Peter confessed that Jesus was the Christ. Cognitively speaking, a concept of incarnation goes through death-and-resurrection by leaving the concrete realm of concrete technical thought, traveling through the abstract realm of abstract technical thought, and then descending back in resurrected form to concrete technical thought. One could think of this as an airplane leaving the ground, flying through the air, and then descending back to land. Perceiver thought plays a major helping role in this process by building connections that expand and unfold a concept of Christ.
We have interpreted the epistle of 1 Peter in the light of Perceiver thought expanding and unfolding a concept of Christ. In the same way that the historical Peter’s recognition that the historical Jesus was the Christ enabled the historical Jesus to go through physical death and resurrection, so the steps that Perceiver thought takes to expand a concept of Jesus make it possible for a concept of ‘Jesus in your heart’ to become expanded into a universal concept of Christ which can then descend back down to earth.
1 Peter started with the development of scientific thought and it ends with an integrated concept of God and incarnation. I suggest that 1 Peter will be followed by the theoretical return of Jesus. John 14:23 appears to be describing this return: “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 is only used twice in the New Testament, and it means ‘an abiding dwelling-place (i.e. not transitory)’. The other occurrence is in John 14:2 which talks about Jesus making dwelling places for people in heaven. Notice that this abiding is a result of ‘keeping my word’. Keeping means ‘guard (watch), keep intact’, and what is being kept is logos. 1 Peter developed an integrated concept of God and incarnation. During the theoretical return of Jesus, the real God and incarnation will in some way inhabit what was cognitively developed. John 14 also talks about the coming of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did come to some extent on the historical day of Pentecost. But I suggest that the Holy Spirit will reveal himself in a much more extensive manner through spiritual technology after the theoretical return of Jesus.
This is not the end for Perceiver thought. Instead, 2 Peter describes the steps that Perceiver thought can take after the theoretical return of Jesus.
The following is a list of the concepts that have been discussed in 1 Peter. Notice how these concepts all bring new facets to technical thought and incarnation.
1:2 Developing rational thought based upon knowledge that survives emotional testing
1:7 Learning through failing in order to save the soul.
1:10 Understanding absolute truth and adding sequence.
1:13 Combining actions with understanding.
1:17 Recognizing the incompleteness of objective science.
1:20 Transcending materialism.
1:23 Being born again to a Teacher-based concept of God.
2:1 Transforming intuitive thought.
2:4 Building Teacher structure with solid personal MMNs.
2:6 Placing technical thought within a larger context.
2:9 Reformulating Christendom.
2:13 Creating new mental networks of Christianity.
2:21 Viewing incarnation as an example to follow.
3:1 Developing high-level female thought.
3:7 Integrating male and female thought.
3:10 Expanding a concept of incarnation by pursuing mental wholeness.
3:13 Developing a new form of technical thought based in incarnation.
3:19 Applying incarnation to the Platonic forms of the spirit.
4:1 Leaving materialism with its frantic authenticity.
4:4 Going beyond the consumer society.
4:7 Preparing for a societal paradigm shift.
4:10 Developing individual gifts within a context of righteousness.
4:12 Growing Teacher understanding through self-doubt.
4:15 Expanding understanding with integrity.
4:17 Avoiding marketing in order to preserve the message and pursue personal salvation.
5:1 Leading newcomers through example in order to gain a long-term reward.
5:6 Submitting to divine providence rather than conspiracy theories.
5:10 Achieving full functionality through God in Teacher thought.
5:12 Interacting with enemies in a positive manner.