The Pageless Book

Several different and competing views concerning the nature of the Divine seem irreconcilable. The dichotomy that I want to tackle in this article is of the intimate relationship with the Divine and the claim that the Divine is ultimately beyond human knowledge and understanding. How can we be intimate with something so vast and alien as God? The Divine is to our logical minds as a mainframe computer is to a dog’s mind. We simply cannot grasp its full measure.

At least, that is one way of seeing things. It also happens to be the way I’ve presented the Divine throughout my articles thus far. Will I continue to argue that God is unknowable? Of course, but the real question is, do I also believe that we can be intimate with something so far beyond our intellectual capabilities? Yes.

It may seem impossible to some, but I believe that we as humans are intimate with the strange and unknowable all the time. Stargazers are intimate with glimmering points of light in the night sky, and call them by name. Sailors feel intimate with the sea, and feel her call. Travelers, not content merely to read about other places, seek out these places for personal new experiences. It is the unknowable quality of these things that drive them to want a relationship with them. It is that unknowable quality that keeps the conversation going.

In Christianity, particularly Protestantism, followers are encouraged to have a personal relationship with Jesus. We have given Jesus Christ a personality, a voice, and a face; this is not an unknowable God, but a very intimate person with whom you can break bread and share wine. The Bible contains his words, with which you can learn more about whom he was, and what he was like. We make the Divine personal in this way, so to seem knowable. Isn’t that preferable to an unknown and distant God?

The problem is that this is a man-made image of God; Jesus Christ is the golden calf of Christianity. What you have isn’t a personal relationship with God, but instead you have a personal relationship with an idea of what God might be like. You think you know God, so you stop asking questions. It’s like falling in love with the idea of love. We are assuming that object of your affection is not merely an idea, but a real person despite how little you know of that person. How do you build a personal relationship with someone we don’t know? Through interaction.

How do we build a personal relationship with God? Interaction, of course. Just because you cannot know the nature of God does not mean you cannot commune with God. How can we interact or communicate with God? Through prayer and meditation, but even more important, through living your life fully aware of your circumstances and the consequences of your actions.

The Divine speaks though your life, in my experience. The Gated Emptiness pointed out to me you gain a deeper an understanding of the Divine with the more attention you pay to living your life in the best manner possible. Your relationships will be richer, your successes more fulfilling, and your failures will become new opportunities.

Try it yourself. It isn’t easy, but it can be done. Living perfectly may be impossible; by being more aware of the life you are living, you may learn to enjoy it more, regardless of any hardships. That is how you become intimate with the Divine.

Top Photo by Kenneth Freeman. Middle Photo by Gisela Giardino. Final Photo by Katie Tegtmeyer. Originally Posted October 22nd, 2007

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: God, Inspiration, Life, Meditation, Prayer, Reason

Photo Above by Brian Gautreau. Photo Below by Hojusaram. Final Photo by Gutter.

During the summer months and once per month during the rest of the year, my minister takes a break from the pulpit and allow members of our congregation, through the Lay Worship Committee, to conduct a service in her stead. Now, I’ve been a member of this church for all of nine or so months. For a scant three of those months, I’ve been a member of the Lay Worship Committee. Yesterday, I conducted my first service, in which I delivered my first sermon.

Of course, for someone who has aspirations of becoming a minister himself at some point in the future, this is all a logical progression of events. However, there is one thing that readers of this blog wouldn’t know about me unless they have met me in person - I am very much an introvert. Despite that I received a number of compliments from fellow church members that I looked in control and self confident at the pulpit, I was a nervous wreck by the end of the service. So I’d like to offer a sincere apology to everyone who approached me after the service - that blank look on my face was shock, and I really do appreciate your feedback. The impression I got from the congregation was that the service was a success. There were a few flub-ups on my behalf, but all-in-all, everything went smoothly.

For the reading please of my online spiritual family, and everyone in the UU blogosphere, I’d like to share my sermon, presented June 29th, 2008.

The Independence of Thought

What would life be like without any of those who dared to question the monolithic institutions of their day? Can anyone here tell me what they think life would be like without men and women who thought for themselves? Anyone? [Audience Participation] Well, I think it’s obvious from the answers everyone has given and your presence in a church with a history of great thinkers, that we all know a thing or two about rebellion against the status quo. However, there is one thing that wasn’t mentioned about a life without men and women who dare to think for themselves; noone would ever have to be offended. For all the good that questioning authority and challenging injustices does, it has this annoying tendency to offend.

I like to think of myself as a open minded individual, yet recently I found myself in the position to be the one offended by someone else’s idea of progress. Last week, a decision came down from the Supreme Court about the death penalty which I still have a hard time accepting. I won’t go into details about the ruling, except to say it is one of the more controversial rulings made in recent years, with good reason. Intellectually, I understand the rationality behind the ruling; emotionally, I’m disgusted. I could very well go with my emotional reaction - and that is so much easier than actually considering all sides of the argument. However, if I didn’t give all sides consideration, I could no longer honestly call myself open minded.

We should remind ourselves, from time to time, that thinking for yourself is in no way easy. The men and women who lived and died fighting the injustices, superstitions, and preconceptions of their day, were terrified every step of the way. Those who have chiseled their way through walls of oppression with their bare hands, did so not knowing whether their efforts had any effect. We each know in the back of our minds that the struggle is still far from over, yet it is so easy not to question, not to think, and allow ourselves to be led.

Emerson had said, in his essay on Intellect, “God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please, — you can never have both. Between these, as a pendulum, man oscillates. He in whom the love of repose predominates will accept the first creed, the first philosophy, the first political party he meets, — most likely his father’s. He gets rest, commodity, and reputation; but he shuts the door of truth. He in whom the love of truth predominates will keep himself aloof from all moorings, and afloat. He will abstain from dogmatism, and recognize all the opposite negations, between which, as walls, his being is swung. He submits to the inconvenience of suspense and imperfect opinion, but he is a candidate for truth, as the other is not, and respects the highest law of his being.” I couldn’t agree with Emerson more.

Questions and Doubt. Curiosity and Rebellion. For many, these represent the very opposite of what it means to have faith. Yet, it is the seeds of doubt that flower into new sciences. It is the rebellion against the status-quo that brings greater justice and freedom to all people. It is our curiosity which makes the world seem to be filled with wonder, and it is our questions which refine our understanding of the truth. “Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is one element of faith,” as the theologian Paul Tillich had said.

The independence of thought from outside influences does not diminish faith in the Truth we find, but rather it redefines our relationship with our faith. Blind faith - faith outside the confines of reason, not subjected to the distilling qualities of doubt - is fickle. When someone speaks about losing faith, they are talking about no longer being able to find security in an untested ideal or idea. That feeling of security that blind faith instills can flit away at a moments notice and will only return when no longer questioned.

However, that is not the faith of this religion. We are encouraged to question and doubt, here. In this house, we are free to be curious, to rebel against antiquated traditions, to play hide-and-seek with God, and to think for ourselves. That faith is unshakeable. It is tested in the laboratories of our lives, and found good and true time and time again. And although our faith is diverse and sometimes at odds with fellow Unitarian Universalists, we use our differences only to further refine that which we find to be true.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Faith, Freedom, Questions, Reason, Thought

Photo Above by Rodrigo Achá. Photo Below by Hobvias Sudoneighm. Final Photo by Martin Kingsley.

In the science fiction movie “I, Robot” Will Smith plays the part of Detective Spooner who is paranoid of artificial intelligence and robotics. His reason for distrusting AI is very telling. Both the Detective and a young girl had been in a major car accident, trapping them in cars that were taking on water. The emergency rescue robots evaluated the situation and decided that the Detective had a slightly better chance of surviving, so they disregarded his demands that the child be saved first and saved his life instead. By the time the rescue robots turned their attention to the girl, she was already dead. In Detective Spooner’s mind, this was a serious flaw in the robot’s programming - they were too logical to be trusted to make moral decisions.

Morality is a particular process of human reasoning that dictates what the best course of action would be for humanity both as a whole and as an individual. Sometimes, such as in the example made by this movie, morality requires that we sacrifice ourselves for the greater good of all humanity. Most of the time, it is what we don’t do that defines our morality. However, to assume this means that we would be able to define what is moral and immoral in any given circumstance invites the formulation of an absolute morality without any choice involved.

Ultimately, it is choice which makes morality valuable. When choice is removed from the equation, morality ceases to be a noble characteristic. If choice in moral decision is stripped away, human emotion concerning morality no longer has meaning. Morality becomes a mathematical equation to be used and potentially abused by the best and worst of humanity in equal measure. It becomes a tool, and morality should never be reduced to being merely a tool.

As pointed out before, morality is a function of human reasoning - should this not mean that morality must be logical? No. It is not merely logic, if only because our emotions and personal experience form an integral part of our human reasoning. There is this dangerous and faulty notion that logic is synonymous with reason, and that morality can be broken down into a few phrases that require no interpretation. Trying to boil morality down to a set of absolutes, no matter how eloquent in their simplicity, removes the human element which defines morality. Even the Golden rule - “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” - requires a large dose of thought and common sense.

Detective Spooner understood this, even though he didn’t know how to properly express it. He knew that it would only be a matter of time before the artificial intelligence found a logical interpretation of the morality coded into it’s system that was inherently immoral. In the movie, that interpretation lead the AI to believe that in order to protect humanity from itself, all choice must be taken away. The robots, which had become such an important part of human life, turned on the humans who had made them and threatened to place all of society under their tyrannical rule.

While we don’t face such a drastic turn of events outside our works of fiction, those who ascribe to an absolute version of morality frequently make poor decisions that affect us all. Morality is not separate from the human experience; assuming that all moral decisions, can be reduced to binary thinking is not only laziness, but also dangerous to us all. We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of moral absolutes. So when I tell you that morality is a function of human reasoning, do not assume that I am telling you how to think or what to think - instead hear me as telling you to think and come to your own conclusions.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Artificial Intelligence, Humanity, Morality, Reason, Will Smith

Photo Above by Hickory Hardscrabble. Photo Below by Jason Meredith.

“Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.”
- Albert Einstein, 1879-1955.

It is commonly accepted that morality is intrinsic to religion and spirituality. The first thing that most people think in regards to other religions is the list of rules and restrictions concerning conduct for members of that religion. While some of these rules are common sense, such as “thou shall not kill”, other rules, such as keeping the Sabbath or abstaining from pork, seem frivolous. These rules are theoretically the basis for the morality taught by any given religion. Is it just an assumption that leads us to associate religious mores with morality? Are we wrong to think that morality and spirituality are mutually inclusive?

I’m not so sure. My immediate reaction would be to say that morality is a construct of society, rather than the mandate of the Divine. I find the majority of the thou-shall-nots associated with religions are meaningless and, in some cases, detrimental. However, when I really think about the subject of morality in regards to religion, part of me cannot help but wonder if I might be over simplifying.

I think part of my indecision lies in the spiritual nature of simply doing the right thing. While rationally I know that my idea of right and wrong was formed by the example of my parents and, to a lesser extent, the stories and traditions of our society, the experience of the connection and appreciation of another human being is deeply spiritual to me. It is that appreciation, not the laws written in any given holy text, which drives me to do the right thing and strive to be a “good person.” I don’t even know how I would go about defining the term “good person” in an objective manner, making it hard for me to speak of morality in any useful way.

The most universal moral teaching that is found in almost every religion, “The Golden Rule,” may provide a clue as to the deeper relationship between religion and morality. The Golden Rule simply states that each person should treat others in the same manner they would want to be treated. In the simplicity of this universal teaching, we find the one thing that all moral teachings attempt to protect; every member of society. Morality is an attempt to keep society functioning and to protect every member of that society equally. Humanity is a social creature by nature, so it stands to reason that we would each be adapted to a social life and have inherent rewards for acting in a way that benefits society. One of these inherent rewards could very well be a feeling of spiritual connection.

Perhaps religion, a social construct and vehicle for spiritual experience, is associated with morality because morality is a social construct which can sometimes lead to spiritual experiences. This doesn’t mean that morality is the sole domain of religion, or that everyone who is religious is moral. It does explain how the two could become so entangled that we might believe that morality to be an exclusive function of religion, even though it isn’t. I am yet to completely make up my mind, however, as to the role that spirituality (as oppose to religion) plays in morality. I would like to hear other opinions regarding this subject. Please, if you have any comments about the ideas I’m presenting in this article, I’d like to hear from you.
Originally Published October 16, 2007

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Humanity, Morality, Questions, Reason, Spirituality

Photo Above by Steve Garry. Photo Below by Braden Kowitz.

Is it so strange to want to befriend those who disagree with and challenge my beliefs rigorously? I have no real good reason why, but I like atheists. I like how they think, how they look at the world, their honesty, and straight-forwardness. The first thing I think about when I hear that someone is an atheist is the enjoyment I will have debating with that person about religion and spirituality.

Many atheists might assume that someone like myself would want to debate as a means of converting them to my way of thinking. However, I’m not interested so much in changing their mind as I am in challenging their mind and being challenged in return. If either of us learn something in the process, then so much the better. It is this contest of the minds that ultimately pleases me - not winning or losing.

So, as a result of my healthy obsession with atheists, I often find myself writing about non-theistic thinking, browsing the atheist blogosphere, and chuckling at humorous jabs made about religion. I embrace their criticism, even though I don’t always agree with it, and try to keep the lines of communication open. Unfortunately, not everyone sees attempts of fellowship between their camps desirable.

That actually saddens me a great deal. I don’t think we need more harsh rhetoric between the religious and the non-religious - it betrays an insecurity on the part of both. Regardless of what an individual believes, if they take themselves too seriously, they come off as being fools or, worse still, tyrants. I don’t think I should have to suffer the mind of a tyrant, nor should anyone.

In contrast, it makes me very happy to see websites such as Friendly Atheist.com and Friendly Christian.com share banter and refer to each other’s articles on a regular basis. I want to see more of this, yet I’m not always entirely sure how to initiate it on my own site. I have the feeling that I might come off a little too eccentric to be taken seriously… although, to be honest, that hasn’t stopped me before.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Atheism, Debate, Humor, Reason, Religion

Photo Above by Ed Schipul. Photo Below by Symphoney Symphoney. Final Photo by Roberto Arias.

I consider myself a mystic. Also, I consider myself a rather rational person who doesn’t subscribe to superstitions. However, it does not surprise me in the least that many people lump mysticism in with superstition. Perhaps you, dear reader, are one of them. Honestly, I’d rather you be critical of mysticism, and religious experience in general, than be a oblivious believer.

Mystics claim to seek, and some to have found, a greater truth than that which we can touch, see, and hear. The content of this greater truth and how it is conveyed vary from culture to culture. However, the insistence upon literal interpretation of the figurative by the culture in which the mystic resides remains constant. It is society, not the mystics themselves, who spin superstition from wisdom, absolutes from poetry, and dogma from good ideas.

I recently asked Paul Sunstone, a fellow blogger and frequent visitor to the Religious Forums, for his thoughts on mysticism without superstition, and he responded:

So far as I know, mysticism can be without any superstition and superstition is not implicit in it. The mystical experience can be described as “an end to subject/object perception” and there is nothing in someone’s experience of an end to subject/object perception that necessarily creates or promotes superstitions.

Having said that, however, I should be careful to point out that I suspect there are some sources of superstition closely associated with mysticism. In my opinion, the first and most common of those is the tendency of people who have had a mystical experience to borrow language and concepts from religion in order to describe their experience. So, for instance, someone living in a culture that routinely ascribes mystical experiences to Dionysus might be heavily inclined to ascribe their own experience to Dionysus. Or someone living in a Christian culture might ascribe their experience to God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, or even Satan. Or someone living in second century Rome, when the cult of Isis was gaining popularity, might ascribe their experience to Isis. And so on and so forth.

The mystical experience is beyond all categories and labels. It is only after the actual experience itself that someone might begin labeling and conceptualizing it. If they begin labeling and conceptualizing it immediately, within seconds of the experience, then they have a very strong tendency to borrow “memes” from their culture - especially their religious culture - with which to define, describe or explain it.

While I liked his explanation and could not find anything to disagree with, I quickly realized that what he was saying needed to be expanded upon. Paul’s definition of mysticism as being an end to the subjective/objective duality within an individual’s world view hints at possible avenues for discussion. Most people tend to think of things in rather black and white terms; if something is true once, then it is true until something else contradicts that truth.

For them, there exists a creature of a mythic proportions which remains unto this day the greatest superstition to ever to cloud human judgment - Objective Reality. Experiences are by their very nature subjective. If there was not a subject to the experience, it would not have been experienced. Quantum Physics, Psychology, Sociology, and Neurology have only begun to prove what mystics have long believed - true objective reality does not exist. Superstition, on the other hand, is what happens when we fail to recognize the subjectivity within our own observations.

Another distinction between mysticism and superstition is their motivating emotions. The root emotional cause of superstition is fear of the unknown. By contrast, mysticism gleefully bears a child like curiosity of the unknown, and is motivated primarily by love of truth. How can anyone not love truth?

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Mysticism, Myth, Reality, Reason, Spirituality, Superstition

Above Photo by Starbeard. Below Photo by Mamjodh. Final Photo by Virginie.

Today, I have planned a grand experiment! I’m going to start my first blogging meme. Sure, I’ve participated in blogging memes before, but never have I tried to be the cause of one. The theme of this meme? Choose ten people whom you would confer Sainthood on and what that person would be the patron saint of. As with all memes, you can be as serious or as humorous as you please. I personally plan to do a little of both. Here are my list of ten, in no particular order…

Eliphas Levi, Patron Saint of Occultism
If you are going to discuss the history of occultism in any serious manner, this man’s name is bound to come up. While he is not the first occultist, his contributions to occultism are numerous and historical. It was Levi who first married Qabalah, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Rosicrucianism, and Alchemy into the single system of symbolism on which the Golden Dawn would later base their teachings.

Thomas Jefferson, Patron Saint of Democracy
Much of the thanks that people of all democratic nations is owed to this man, who played a pivotal role in crafting Democracy as we know it today. Although many of his views, such as the separation of Church and State, remain controversial, the character of the American political system exhibits the unmistakable mark of his genius.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, Patron Saint Spirituality

The words of this famous Unitarian minster still inspire his readers to look deep within themselves for spiritual sustenance. His writings are so influential that they are still read, quoted, and debated by Unitarian Universalists today. If I were to choose one person I wished to emulate as a minster, he would be my choice.

H.P. Lovecraft, Patron Saint of Horror
Everything is better with tentacles. Ancient sleeping demon threatening to enslave humanity? Needs tentacles. Bazaar extra dimensional aliens bent on world domination? Still needs tentacles. Angel food cake with strawberries and whipped cream? Tentacles; lots and lots of tentacles. And for this, we can thank the author H.P. Lovecraft.

Mahatma Gandhi, Patron Saint of Peace
Another man who I wish to emulate, Mahatma Gandhi changed the nature of protest and social change. The idea of non-violent protest was is so revolutionary, that it is hard to measure the impact that this man has had on our history. Would Dr. Martin Luther King have ended segregation without Gandhi as an inspiration? I’m not so sure. Would religious intolerance be a larger issue without his teachings? Of that, I am sure.

Albert Einstein, Patron Saint of Reason
For a young man who was bad at algebra, Albert Einstein more than over came this obstacle, becoming the most famous scientist in history. It is important, however, to realize that his fame was not just due to what he did within the confines of the scientific world, but also what he said and wrote during is life time. Einstein is one of my favorite people to quote when it comes to spirituality and religion, not because he was a rational theist, but because his words cut to the truth of any subject on which he cared to comment.

Timothy Leary, Patron Saint of Radical Change
Yet another giant of forward thinking, Leary is often dismissed due to his advocacy psychedelic drug use and radical ideas. I cannot, however, imagine my list of saints without him. His catch phrase, “Think For Yourself & Question Authority” is my personal mantra. For me, this man embodies the potential for radical social change.

Shel Sliverstein, Patron Saint of Humor
When I was seven, I received my first pair of glasses. Along with my glasses, I was given a copy of “Where The Sidewalk Ends.” I still have that book. It has played a large part in the development of my sense of humor, writing style, and common sense that I couldn’t imagine my life without it. Such a small thing can sometimes be the root of large changes.

Kurt Cobain, Patron Saint of Teenage Rebellion
What can I say? I’m a proud member of Generation X. Kurt Cobain embodied so much of what it means to me to be a teenager; the anger, anxiety, and angst. While many would say that his effect on American Culture is greatly exaggerated, I tend to disagree; the changes that his music have made are still being felt today.

Gary Gygax, Patron Saint of Games
Dungeons & Dragons have very much been on my mind since Gary Gygax’s death earlier this month. As I have said before about the game, I don’t know who I would be without D&D in my life. As such, if I had my choice for the Patron Saint of Games, Mr. Gygax would be it.

And now I’m going to tag Julian, Chalicechick, Dianne Sylvan, Bill Cecchini, Ms. Kitty, Tobeme, Hafidha Sofia, My Wife, Evan, Ms. Theologian, Elizabeth, and Shelby. I figure if half the people on this list choose to participate in this meme, it will be well on its way to becoming popular. Please tag three others at the end of your post. Keep it going strong!

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: History, Humanity, Humor, Inspiration, Meme, Occult, Reason, Religion, Spirituality

“Reason is our soul’s left hand, faith her right;
By these we reach divinity.”
- John Donne, 1572 - 1631.

Above Photo by Old Sarge. Photo Below by Zorilla.

Whether the religion in question venerates one god or one hundred gods, believes that their gods are a part of creation or apart from creation, all religions share one trait; the worship of the Divine. While that single similarity seems obvious, it is also the most over looked. It also happens to be the most important.

The moment a seeker starts questioning one aspect of the religion in which she was born, the tendency is to question all aspects of that religion, including the teachings, rituals, and practices. This usually results one of two extreme reactions - either the adoption of a radically different religion to spite the religion of their parents or the rejection of the Divine in all forms resulting in atheism.

To avoid such drastic changes in belief and maintain the emotionally satisfying and fulfilling connection to the Divine, many religious men and women cling to the teachings of their given faith. They reject anything that contradicts the literal interpretation of their religion to avoid having to question and endanger their faith. They forgo reason to satisfy their spiritual hunger.

The ideal situation is to be able openly to question the teachings and practices of any given religion, and yet to feel no loss for that with the Divine. In western society, we’ve been convinced that ideal is all but unattainable and unrealistic. Western society has been informed incorrectly. We merely need to recognize that spiritual and reason are not opposites, but rather two different ways of understanding. Spirituality is meant for understanding one’s self, while reason is meant for understanding the world beyond one’s self.

From this perspective, how each individual religion defines the Divine is irrelevant as we believe that the Divine is beyond definition. One or many, a part of or apart from, involved or observing - all of the definitions that we apply to the Divine are merely for the convenience of our limited human intellect. It is our deeper emotions to which the Divine appeals; the logic of definitions are meaningless.

Once we have moved away from trying to define, contain, and restrict our spirituality to our intellect, several amazing things happen. We find that we are free to worship the Divine in the way that most satisfies that spiritual hunger. As a culture, we begin to see all religions as different means of devotion to the same source. One more barrier that divides us against one another will have been torn down, and one less issue will be distracting us from the larger problems we face.
Originally Posted September 25, 2007.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Atheism, Faith, God, Reason, Religion, Spirituality

Above Photo by Dino Olivieri. Photo Below by The Wandering Angel.

Meditation is act of making your “self” small, so that the Truth might rise to the surface. We each already have Truth; it is an instinctive part of human composition. Truth is built into every cell of your body, every motion, moment and memory. However, this “self” pushes that Truth down, obscuring our view and hindering our reach.

It isn’t the original intent of the self to obscure or hinder the Truth. We are each endowed with an ego to aid in our survival. In order to ensure our well being, we must each care about that being that is ourselves. The sense of self, or ego, is a system of ideas and emotions that collectively serve to protect our individual persons from harm. It also works in concert with our ability to reason to further help secure our safety. Because our ego works so closely with our ability to reason, we can sometimes become confused between the self and the logic it uses to keep us safe. The philosophical conclusion “I think, therefore I am” is evidence of this confusion.

We each come to the determination that “I think, therefore I am” at a very young age, which is then reinforced by the society in which we are born. It isn’t by any means incorrect nor can it be called true; this concept is merely useful. This immature idea is a stepping stone to a greater understanding, yet achieving that understanding is not essential to our survival. So we hesitate to exert ourselves in the search for Truth.

Our existence is not dependent upon our thought, but instead is dependent upon our perception. We each become so tied up in our own inner dialogue that we forget what is happening outside ourselves. As each layer of ego becomes cemented in our consciousness, it becomes harder to separate our perceptions from our sense of self. Everything becomes more subjective, no matter how much logic is applied to those perceptions. Our hearing is muted by the constant drone of dialogue, eyes dimmed by the theater behind our eyes, and skin numbed by the wild cold waters of our emotions.

Meditation helps quiet the chatter, end the film, and warm the body so we may pay attention to what is real. It makes our sense of self increasingly small, shrinking around us as we compare it to what we perceive. Slowly, consciousness comes to realize that what is perceived is just as much apart of it as the self. The self becomes like clothing that one dons to keep warm; necessary but not an integral part of a human being. With the self now under the control, Truth becomes obvious. In some cultures this state is called Heaven or Nirvana. This is what Jesus meant when he said that the Kingdom of his father was within.

Make the self small. Shrink it with heavy doses of humility and patience. Write yourself reminders that your “self” is entirely unimportant without the Truth which it conceals. Wrestle loose its blinds from your eyes so you may be free. The eye perceives, therefore both perceived and perceiver exists.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Inspiration, Meditation, Reason, Spirituality

Above Photo by Marcin Wichary. Photo Below by CBS Fan.

Recently, I had found this blog “90 Day Jane,” about a young woman who claimed that she would kill herself in 90 days. She wasn’t deathly ill or depressed - she was claiming to do this because life has no intrinsic meaning. She also claimed to be an atheist. Don’t bother to look for her blog, however… the whole thing was a hoax (excuse me, I meant “art project”) from the start and has been taken down. You can read more about it here.

There’s a lists of reasons longer than my arm as to why I’m disturbed by this recent non-event. First of all, there is the blatant abuse of suicide threats as means of entertainment. Having been suicidal before in my own life, I cannot begin to express how angry this makes me feel. There is also the matter of reinforcing the association between atheism and nihilism. While it may be true that most nihilists are also atheists, the reverse is not true. What most puzzles me, though, is that this even occurred to someone as being a good idea. Chuck Palahniuk and Hunter S. Thompson couldn’t ask for a better example of nihilism.

Why do I think that? Lets pretend for a moment that 90 Day Jane was really going to off herself in grand fashion on her own blog. She claims that her reason for doing this is to demonstrate the meaninglessness of existence. By advertising and making this public, she ironically gives meaning to her own existence - to serve as an example of nihilism. If someone can make their own meaning, that very act proves nihilism to be false. However, if this act becomes a mockery of itself it would serve only as twisted proof (however delusional) of the meaninglessness of existence. This is soundly accomplished through Jane’s half-hearted confession. This ordeal has all the offensiveness of a Nine Inch Nails video but none of the creativity.

It could be argued that I’m over reacting, and I very well may be. But I ask you, what else can you think of that is more of an affront to the principles of Unitarian Universalism? While I am tolerant and open minded, nihilism is not a philosophy that I can accept as being viable to live under or put into practice. It isn’t that I am afraid of the metaphorical abyss of nihilism; I’ve tread that edge before myself. No, I’ve just realized that it isn’t practical or useful. Never has it been said that reality had to be practical or useful, but our understanding of reality should be.

The only time I can think of when nihilism was acceptable is in the movie The Big Lebowski. Something about avowed nihilists beaten up by middle-aged bowlers strikes me as hilarious. If only nihilism was that easy to be rid of…

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Anger, Atheism, Death, Nihilism, Philosophy, Reason, Unitarian Universalism