LP Philosophy – no rocket science – Theory –

“It is more fun to talk with someone who doesn’t use long, difficult words but rather short, easy words like “What about lunch?”” Winnie The Pooh

Another of the foundation principles of the LP is the “no rocket science” foundation. This foundation, or statement of principle, basically says that all LP materials should be easy to access, easy to read, and provide clear and concise explanations. In other words, no big words, no complicated sentences, no twisted grammatical structures, and no unnecessary complexity. In other words, NO ROCKET SCIENCE.

The reason for this is two fold. On the one hand I personally do not believe that there is anything under the sun that requires complicated explanations. I base this opinion on experience. In my books (and especially in the Book of Light series), I have taken on the task of explaining, unpacking, and elucidating some pretty complex spiritual topics. I have dealt with deep cosmology, deep theology, and even deep theoretical physics, but all in a way that your average high school graduate can understand. In my writing there is no rocket science. I can take even the most complicated and deep spiritual topics and unravel them in a way that is clear, concise, and understandable. Of course, sometimes that takes a little work. I just don’t publish the first paragraph that comes out of my mouth. Like a sculptor who walks around his sculpture painstakingly chipping away rock to reveal a form within, I spend a lot of time with my paragraphs and articles and books.  I examine the content, ask myself what is being said, look for ways to explain it better, and chip and tinker until the words express a meaning with precision, clarity, and force. Ever the goal of my writing is clear and easy communication. If you have to struggle and sweat just to figure out what I am trying to say, then either

1. I am not doing my job,
2. I’m a shitty writer,
3. I’m being lazy,
4. I’m intentionally trying to make it difficult or
5. I’m letting my ego get in the way.

Which brings me to the other reason I avoid rocket science, and that is ego. You see, the thing is, I am an academic by training and I have spent close to twenty years reading the work of other academics and being frustrated by their seeming inability to write good English. Academics, it seems, are particularily skilled at taking simple concepts and convoluting them to the point of total obsfucation. It can get really bad, to the point where in some cases only a handful of people in the world are able to understand what a particular PhD is trying to say. When it gets close to that point my question is always, “why bother.” “If you are writing something that nobody can understand, or that takes sisyphean effort just to untangle, why exactly are you writing, and who exactly are you writing for?”

It is a good question to ask.

I mean, when you write hyper complex, multisyllabic, grammatically contorted prose, you’re not writing for others and your goal is not communication because if it was you wouldn’t write like that. When I write, for example, I write for others and I’m doing that because my goal is reaching you. That’s why a writer writes after all, to communicate and reach others, so when the writer is not writing in a way that communicates and reaches, the question becomes, why are they writing.

The answer that I get when I ask that question is simple. Usually when you see writing like that it is because the author is writing for themselves and usually that means they are writing to prop up a damaged bodily ego.

The message is clear, isn’t it?

I mean, writing hyper complicated stuff that only a few people can understand is one of the best ways that we have invented for saying “I’m smarter than you.”

And I don’t think there is an excuse. In my writing I’ve dealt with the most complicated philosophical topics and I have done so in a way that avoids the EPMO and symbolic overload of the egoist. After all, my goal is not to convince you how smart or cool I am, it’s to communicate and I simply can’t do that while I’m engaged in efforts to be better than others.

Still, and like I said above, when you see EPMO and symbolic overload, when you see hypercomplicated prose, it’s not always about the ego. Sometimes the writer is just being lazy, or maybe they just haven’t realized the purpose of putting pen to paper and publishing (i.e. C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N). If you want my opinion however usually, and especially when it comes to spiritual and philosophical writing, it’s about ego. And since we’re on my opinion, I would have to say, that egoic spiritual communication is a very bad sign. It might be ok to let your ego go when you are talking about theoretical physics, or chemistry, or psychology, but it is unacceptable when you start talking about God and Spirit and Creation. Authentic spirituality of the kind that puts you in contact with your own power and divinity is simply incompatible with inflated bodily ego. The bottom line is, if you think you’re better than others, or smarter than others, or more worthy than others, and if you think it’s ok to tell people that, then no matter how deep or wide or sophisticated you think your understanding might be, you clearly don’t understand.

And if you’re a consumer of spiritual information, then be aware–inflated bodily ego and spirituality go together like maple syrup and dog shit. A puckered face and expressions of disgust are the only appropriate responses.