Blog

Comments: Christopher Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

May 07, 2019, 05:30:07 AM by Kerry

Commenting on Christopher Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU).

Chris is reportedly among the smartest people on the planet (verified by several standards). I started reading his book Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe and quickly became bogged down in confusion. Normally I don't blame an author (my partial dyslexia often gets in the way of comprehension), however, I do recognize incomprehensible sentences.* When teaching a college student with such sentences I'd often comment, "Please write this so that a sixth-grader can understand it."

The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee confirms my experience: They have banned Chris' article for being too "controversial." **

Many reviewers state that his book is one of the most significant books ever; even more reviewers state that it’s incomprehensible. It brings to the front of my mind how difficult it is to cause communication to take place about a new (for most) thought.***

Christopher mirrors my own attachment to my written words. He, like myself, cannot confer with another about how to compose a sentence that contains a brand new thought, one that is being created (from nothing) in real-time. I.e. How does one request composition advice about the addiction to withholding significant thoughts from someone of significance with someone unaware of, or in denial, about their own addiction? [Most people are addicted to deception, to withholding significant thoughts from partners and family members; evidenced by the fact that the majority of teens con each other into deceiving both sets of parents so as to have sex.].

Chris began from not-knowing; he had to create a language to describe his realization, his creation. Werner Erhard, the creator of est (Erhard Seminars Training) which spun off into Landmark Education's Forum), was asked why he didn’t publish the 60-hr est Training.** Paraphrased here, [Nothing I have to say is of value to anyone's mind—because it’s difficult to get past a mind (that defends its reality) to the all-knowing self; ". . . if ever I would write a book it would be about communication."]  I'm somewhat validated by the fact, that as of 2019, Werner has not written a book; I take it to mean that it's extremely difficult.

What comes to mind about Christopher’s publication is that he has not formulated an intention for his theory to be understood or known. Like me, he has become stuck trying to communicate thoughts. Like a pastor, with a facility empty most of each day, with predictable attendance and tything statistics, and several parishioners involved in infidelities****, a pastor who can’t bring him/her self to ask a communication-skills coach for support, so too is Christopher ego-bound to not ask for support communicating to the masses.


* L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology, accurately points out at the beginning of many of his books, [When you go past a word you don't know it clouds the mind from further comprehensions.] —typically one can't accurately recall what they just read.

** ". . .  the work's central thesis is that reality is a self-processing, self-referential language, embodying a dual aspect monism and consisting of "infocognition", or information that resides in "syntactic operators" within reality.

*** The vast majority of est graduates (more than 200,000) still report (four + decades later) that the "est Training" was the most powerful educational experience of their life.

**** What is it about my leadership-communication skills, how I communicate with parishioners, that doesn't inspire fidelity or generosity?

Last edited 10/31/19