I have frequently mentioned in my posts that this site does not promote any idea of any known religion or cult. Nor I deny or vilify practising any of them.

I do not promote the idea that I want to create a bridge between those religions or the religion per se and modern science. I also do not have any idea such as religion is good for psychology or should live side by side next to or with science and modern technology and religion is for comfort of soul and science for the comfort of body.

I do not say, "well, what is wrong with believing in god as a source of hope and at the same time to be modern?" and such things that frequently have been repeated by different kinds of preachers mostly to gain power and wealth and also in many occasions as manifestation of honest and righteous people.

I want to say that Messiah is a phenomenon of nature and part of its inherent texture and when it happens it is consistent with science and religion without differentiating any contradiction between these two.

I use some borrowed words from the universe of discourse of science such as my frequent usage of "hole" that after a discussion of semiconductors I have introduced it. It stops at that point. It is just an analogy and not any symbolism. I have no knowledge of those cults who talk about holes and such things.

I have no word of wisdom, no insightful deliverance, no club, no spa, nothing to sell. I have no school. I am the school not the owner of any school.

Actually I have not much knowledge beyond what I am writing here. There is either knowledge or being Messiah. Real knowledge of any discipline makes you a professional of that discipline.

Messiah Psychoanalyst is now a philosophy on its own right.


In English language, whether as a mother tongue not mixed with any formal education or as those which still is being taught as the native language grammar, literature, drama, and writing, colloquialism and so on to native English speaking student as general education or specialised expertise in English language man means both a male and human (mankind) in general. I frequently use man in this meaning. When I mean a male human I modify it as so.

I know from the vast studies that have been done that a correct usage of language better conveys meaning and semantic than temporal conventions.

Language is a product of historical stacking of human linguistic activities and moving its stones and bricks is not easy to be accomplished by innovations.

No comments: