lopsided perception

I know, and have known, of very few who are interested in the truth or another’s concept of the truth. Most, and this is a very large ‘most’, are only interested in hearing or reading what to one degree or another already agrees with or substantiates what they have already come to ‘know’ as the ‘truth’. There may be some reason to their own conceptions, but they on their own DO NOT establish what an accurate model of what true reality is. At most they present a limited, more often than not lopsided perception, which may work within a limited context, but are not universal and enduring. As long as the limited context is the extent of one’s experience they seem fine, but growing beyond arbitrary limits renders ‘lop-sided perceptions’ invalid and an inhibitor to greater experience understanding deeper truth and reality.

 There are points in the exercise of ones thinking process’ where and when a conscious decision is made to entertain some idea(s) which do not fit within the box of one’s own mental construction. A choice to expand the categories of thought and potential knowledge of reality. To many this is not a desirable proposition. It often means complete reassessment of what has been accepted as the normal bases of reality. Such reassessment could throw one’s whole life into a perceived shambles, disrupting the usual flow of life and affecting relationships well into the future. But to resist such reexamination when one actually “knows” (not believes, but ‘knows’) of reality existing beyond accepted limits renders a psychotic state, with destructive potentials to not only the one ‘knowing’ but other’s as well. The pressure of one’s peers, family and friends, so uninitiated into this newer, broader expanded understanding, becomes a retardant to the natural, and some may understand, divinely commenced evolution of human consciousness.

Thinking is work. That is a ‘dirty word’ to many, maybe most. But as I define work, I am not describing the laborious meaningless toil of the modern workers experience, but the creative investigation and search for knowledge hitherto unknown. A state of living to learn, to realize more than what is one’s present experience. The general accepted understanding of life seems to be to learn by means of forms of higher education in one’s early years and then settle into professions and occupations growing out of this education, and experience ongoing learning as one’s work experience requires. That is good, but only to a limited extent. The experience of life is more than the limits we as a culture impose, as it were, to fit within the cogs and wheels of industry and society. We have limited what is the human potential by limiting what is the proper and natural use of the minds we are. We are physical beings, but more than that, we are mental, thinking beings … some would say spiritual, and this I do not argue against, but whether purely mental or spiritual (I actually regard them as the same) we as the human race have forgotten and made a preference to focus on the physical, if not totally – nearly in total neglect of what is our greater human reality. To think is to be human, and thinking is the more than what it means to sustain our physical being.

out of kilter

Guns do not kill people … People kill people. Banning guns, or restricting legitimate gun ownership IS NOT the solution to the problem of what has become rampant mass murder, mayhem and violence in our shopping malls and schools. To ban guns or restrict gun ownership (whether hand guns or automatic weapons) is only an attempt to avoid the actual problem of the human potential to manifest a depraved mental state … IE to fail to grow and mature with psychological and mental stability necessary within the context of a mass culture, and diverse concepts which must be considered and allowed equal and sometimes preferential recognition. Gun control, as is commonly proposed, is essentially equivalent to applying a Band-Aid when heart surgery is called for.

The thinking process of the human being can become skewed, perverted and generally out of kilter with the necessary requisites of living in a world with other humans. There may be many varying possibilities as to the “why” of this state, physical, purely mental (lack of learning to think rationally), or any combination thereof. But attempting to solve one aspect, found to be destructive to lives and property, without facing the deeper, real human problem, is only equivalent to keeping our heads buried in the sand and living in denial, essentially, there are things about ourselves we would rather not admit as being “out of kilter”.

Restricted Thinking

We are afraid of thinking. We, and this is a broad, generalized “we” I am describing. But “we”, and I also specify a religiously pre-disposed “we”, although they may deny it and claim “religion” has nothing to do with it. But “we” have inclined ourselves not to trust our own minds, and I am addressing the “Christian” community from which I had been so intimately involved. We exempt our own ability to critique and discern thoughts that continually flow through our working minds, fearing that as a mere human we are so morally and ethically corrupt, as a result of original sin inherited from Adam and Eve, that we are perpetually and in the minds of many only subject to the “Devil’s” devises or our own depravation.

Yet it was Jesus Christ himself who equated the mind of God, with his own, and by extension our minds.

We are afraid to consider that as Jesus Christ was in the world, and God through him, that God is in the world through us, and the same mind that was Christ’s is ours. IE when you think … God thinks. When you discern and discriminate, it is God that is in you.

Some of my non-Christian friends may (or may not) see the correlation which exists. This really is not a “Christian – non-Christian” issue. It is a human issue, and religion (or the word ‘God’) has nothing to do with it. I, and a few others I have associations with, from within the religious “Christian” community have our own (and varying) reservations concerning a great deal of sacred Christian verbiage. And I add, it is not only “Christian” verbiage, most other world religions share the same communication limitations. And I, and I’m sure others, have come to realize that secular scientific mind sets may also fall subject to the tendency to restrict language and thought.

Yet these all contain the seeds, and possibly the rooted structures, of the developing human condition, the ability to think, to discern, to discriminate, and to act as individual human beings, yet connected and manifesting a greater mind, some call “God”, some … something else … and others … nothing at all. Yet, it is all the same thing. As human beings, we, and this is more than a ‘religious’ we, it is an all-inclusive “we”, all share the potential of what is the evolution (sorry … a dirty word to some) of what is human … divine … God.

In Defense of the Straight White Man

I realize that in attempting to write on this subject that there is the potential of failing to include all the necessary data upon which the premise is based and thus alienating a large segment unnecessarily. But to do nothing rather perpetuates an allusion of agreement with a progressive political correctness, now, at least in my own perception, having evolved beyond the actual reality of fact. This is not to say that this evolution is not to be expected, and to a certain way of thinking not desirable, but that the pendulum of change has swung to its extreme and is beyond the level of acceptable tolerance, and possibly stuck, and in need of a prying loose and push back towards its natural center of gravity. This in no way is a justification of an imbalanced swing in the opposite direction, but some means of breaking the swing as the center is approached needs implemented, without losing the gains realized, and/or without reverting back to the opposite intolerable condition once accepted as the norm. This also in no way fails to recognize the progress still to be realized in so many areas of social concern, but only deals with the fact that in accepting an arbitrary pro-active status, in making gains for one segment, and in some regards, multiple segments of a given polity, a resultant disintegration of freedoms and status is incurred, by other, hitherto dominant segments, to a far less than natural or acceptable state of being.

It has now become necessary for me, as a human being, being what I am, for whatever reason, to defend my state of being. I am what I am. Whether another finds my attitudes acceptable, or politically correct, to suit their own ideas, is their concern and as they choose to make it, a problem. I, as they, must live life in one’s own reality of circumstance, without imposing undue restraint, hardship or sense of guilt upon any other for any reason whatsoever. “Any reason” being defined as religious, spiritual, ethnic, racial, sexual orientation, gender, political affiliation and/or other as may be construed.

I am a straight white man. If this is a problem to you … it is “your” problem. I am sexually “straight” … meaning … I am attracted to women. I take pleasure in their company and find a woman desirable. I can’t get my mind around what it is to be “gay” or homosexual. This does not make me “homophobic”, and I personally am convinced that the term “homophobic” is a relatively new word creation to meet the political needs of the LBGT community as they have finished strides in gaining acceptance within the larger culture. This is not in any way a justification of real atrocities and injustices endured by LBGT’s over years and centuries, but a recognition that the introduction of a concept as real to our values system does not justify another form of discrimination and intolerance.

I am “white” … I was born a Caucasian. My heritage is Western European. I grew up in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Many of the values originally instilled in me are those of the educational system dominant at the time, specifically, late fifties and the sixties, or socially liberal, though not necessarily compatible to those of my parents, at least, as best I could observe. This being the case, looking back and considering my own personal experience, my parents were not totally unjustified in their own partialities. Some may choose to state this more aggressively negatively, I must grant the benefit of the doubt and possibility that their own experience was instrumental in molding their own perceptions.

I am a man. No gender question here … I am what I am, and I like what I am. All the positive and perceived negative attributes that accompany the sex, I have. This does not mean that I am not concerned with becoming more sensitive to the needs and desires of women, and in particular the woman I live in relationship with… this is my concern, but, it is a concern to be worked on between myself and the lady I am in relation too. The rest of you can f*** off.

That sounds very “Straight White Man”, doesn’t it? … So be it.

Copout

It would be so easy for me to get into a “religious” debate, which would have NO positive outcome in terms of my relations with family (which is currently estranged), yet there are issues which I believe transcend the temporal association of the familial.  Should it be ‘me’ to address these things, or should I leave it to some other, hereto unknown, I have NO absolute knowledge, I can only follow my convictions, hoping there will be or are others recognizing the logic, truth and wisdom.

The Bible, in my own estimation, contains elements of truth, half-truths and error. I once had an extremely intellectual Pastor who (after reading one of his plethora of reading material) tried to limit this truth-half-truth-error equation to the book of Ecclesiastes, but this ultimately put me on a course of greater critical exploration into Biblical assumptions. It remains to be stated I stayed within the Fundamentalist Evangelical fold and even for a while reverted to an Orthodox Reformed fellowship for a significant period. This is not to say I accepted all, or most, or much of their institutional dogma, but I did allow hierarchal authorities sufficient time and opportunity to attempt to convince me of their positions. Ultimately upon exiting ecclesiastic environs, I would be deemed a ‘heretic’ at best (which by their standards I do not deny).

But I have come to realize, regardless of numbers or popularity, their standards (as Biblical as they may be, and in many cases as a result of Biblical assumption) are NOT absolute, and reliance on one or another perceived Biblical line of reasoning only produces one or another attempt to “copout” of what is proclaimed to be an absolute adherence to the complete inerrancy and infallibility of the Biblical canon.

Now it must be stated, and this will be used as an argument proving my unscriptural and unspiritual thinking, that I do not recognize the “Bible” as the inerrant, infallible “Word” of God. It does contain “truth”, “half-truths” and “errors”. And more often than not, it is the religious (and quite specifically “Orthodox”) approach and thinking which establishes these errors. A general “rule of thumb” or “benchmark” of Orthodox thinking (Roman Catholic-Protestant-Eastern Orthodox) is that all human reasoning must stand up to the test of Biblical critique, all dependent upon one or another limited interpretations as accepted by the denomination, elders or established hierarchy.

Now, claiming a Biblical absolute of inerrancy, infallibility and unchanging nature, a popular way to circumvent “Old Testament” Levitical Law is to limit the ‘law’ or ‘command’ as pertaining to the original Hebrews, who received it under Moses as they were led out of Egypt toward the ‘promised land’, Or as stated “were given to Jewish people. And unless you are Jewish that would not pertain to you”.  This is a fundamental error of interpretation and understanding of the purpose of what is a ‘law’, or what is the nature of “law” if in fact the “inerrancy, infallibility and unchanging nature” of the Bible is to be accepted. I do state that I do not accept this absolute quality as espoused. Law does change. Even that which is proposed as “Gods law”.

There is a significant amount of debate within the Orthodox religious community as to the progressive nature of revelation in the history of the Hebrew/Jewish scriptures, and culminating in the appearance of Jesus Christ. I cannot argue against this as progressive revelation and development of thought is a universal reality in the area of philosophy and thought. Simply attributing one path of understanding to a “divine” character does not invalidate it, but only approaches the same reality in terms and images suited to a particular frame of thinking or mind. This is not an endorsement of that framework, but understanding within a particular community, insecurities with the limits of human intellectual ability outweigh any trust in personal and collective knowledge. This is not a wholly unfounded mind-set, but does have a tendency to become arbitrarily binding, IE a “retarded” state of intellectual development and resultant emotional immaturity likely ensues.

As law’s evolve, within the context of an enlightened community, (religious or not), greater inclusion and acceptance occur. This does not preclude abuses of individual liberties, but these are perpetrated by the less enlightened, or religiously intolerant, those predisposed not to accept the changing evolving nature of all reality. There have always been, and I believe, will always be the segment (and at times, a particularly large segment) of the populace who for whatever reason cannot or refuse to see the reality of the world changing around them. These could be antiquated religious reasons, lack of education or a stubborn clinging to some preferred ignorance. All these are ignorance of one sort or another.

Laws evolve to meet the changing climate of society. The sluggishness of this process creates the angle of stress. If too much force or resistance be exerted from either direction, the function of law fails. Whether thought of as divine in nature or a process of logic, the ‘law’ sets the reference points of our relations to each other. These, in themselves, are not absolute, but evolving as the human mind and community are able to adapt. This does not suppose that all peoples or regions are capable of adapting equally, but recognizes that progress, with any sort of stability, not deteriorating into violence and mayhem, comes slower than most enlightened would hope, and quicker than all predisposed are prepared to accept.

the drab reality of the American Middle West

“… the drab reality of the American Middle West … the social tyrannies and cultural emptiness …the conventions of village life … hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness … total conformity …thinking and feeling with the crowd.” (Perceptions of Sinclair Lewis on Mid-Western America) … And these are the positive attributes. Yet each may be amplified, and are, only to render a more diminished reality of life. Ignorance abounds, and may be perceived as elevated in its social estimation. Intelligence, education and real ‘acquired’ or sought after knowledge, suspect, if not actually disdained.  

 

But I know for a fact it is not only the Mid-West. Such attitudes pervade across the entirety of the country, but, I must say, seem to be all the more so at this juncture, at least, more openly so. “God, Guns and Automobiles” such is the mantra of what America has become. A pragmatism which asserts a self will and intention and damn the far reaching consequences. If it works, if only in the short term, and for the temporary benefit of the few involved, let’s ‘do it’. Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead tomorrow will take care of itself.  It’s our ‘Manifest Destiny’, as if anyone really knows what that is all about. 

 

I have found there are 'Theists' (those who in one form or another assert the reality of some 'god' or deity), Atheists (those who at least verbally deny any such entity existing above and beyond themselves), and Mammonists (those who ascribe to one or another deity, or not, but in actuality deify the gain to be sought for in what ever monetary rewards are available). More often than not, the theists are in actuality mammonists, as they account financial success or  accomplishment as being the evidence of theistic approval and reward. The atheists, may equally be in reality mammonists, as they too are equally susceptible to the economic pressures and realities which concern all realizing a material existence, and must live in accordance with a common set of values as all must do. As such, common ideals are adopted, whether theistic in origin or otherwise. The dominant religious being the most convenient, though not necessarily adhered to by either the theist or the non-theist, but a foundation for arbitration existing to make the system of relations tenable, but not without sufficient negotiation.  

 

As the general nature of culture becomes more distant and less involved with the history which led to its own evolution and dimensions, ignorance prevails and a spiraling disintegration ensues. In such a system I find my reality, and in such I must allow myself to become involved. It is not the reality of the 'Internet', where I may pick and choose my friends and acquaintances, but the reality of flesh and blood, and human beings of less than perfect character and aspirations, of failures and those trying to find redemption, some meaning and value to their own existence, and for what it's worth I join them and seek my own. 

religion and spirituality

I separate the concepts of “religion” or “being religious” from that of the “spiritual” or “spirituality”. To me religion is the attempts of humankind to construct a vehicle or some sort of device in order to acquiesce that which is contrived to be the divine. All too often these being the manipulations of the “few” to manage or control those less confident in their own relationship to whatever it may be which they conceive as divinity, and there not being any fool proof absolute of what constitutes divinity and the lack of acknowledged absolutes being taught, has left the general state of the human condition regarding the subject virtually void. There is an “anything goes” sort of approach to things religious and spiritual. He who is most persistent and often the loudest and dominant is perceived as being the most “together” in their knowledge and relationship to divinity, assuming that there is such an entity. And these, by virtue of their own imaginations, often reinforced by historic, generally acknowledged scripture to which a culture looks to and relies on, create their own ideal of what is spiritual and that faith which is most beneficial in relating the divine in the context of their community. These are the demagogues and manipulators of the minds of humanity, preying on the ignorance of the majority and ultimately retarding the natural evolution of consciousness, and all that which is the human species.

 Spirituality or existence as a spiritual being on the other hand is a totally different thing. It is not tied to or dependent upon any contrivance of religious notion, although may contribute to some religious development. Being is the only qualification associated with such existence. One may call one’s self by any number of religious ideologies, or even deny such or any divinity, they are really irrelevant. The closest we, as human beings, may understand this “spirituality” is in the fact of our awareness of being or “consciousness”. This is a state I believe all can acknowledge, although I must admit an ignorance to the fact that states of unconsciousness do exist, which in the longer run must be included and may shed an even greater illumination upon our understanding of what is our nature as humans, as beings and possibly as the divine. I admit I seek answers to questions which as a human being may never be realized, yet I do so as endowed with an unquenchable desire to come all the closer to the “truth”, not knowing what that may entail or whether such even exists or even whether having found it I would desire it. These are irrelevancies.

 Although I perceive demagogues dominating the religious environment, denomination or sect not being relevant but rather different shades of varying colors, it should not be assumed that I consider the originators of various religious platforms as such. These I find, for the most part, to have been well meaning initiators of doctrine and dogma transcending the once commonly held orthodoxy. Yet this does not preclude the fact that imaginative charlatans have in the past and continue to pervert commonly held religious notions to their own advantage. The primary problem is that as doctrine and dogma have been elevated and sanctified, they are championed by second and third generation adherents as being their actual experience, when in fact they are the hand me down religious thinking of predecessors, long gone and far removed from the actual fact, and what is promoted is not in actual fact firsthand experience. The doctrine of the experience has lost its meaning and effectiveness. It is effectively to be relegated to the realm of legend. Only firsthand actual experience is of value as being the closest thing to objective truth. And yet even this is not without possible criticism, as the state of human perception is anything but absolute and untainted by subjective preference. The reality being pure objectivity does not exist, at least, not as may be comprehended by human sense and reason.

 Recognizing and stating all this does not make for sufficient reason not to continue seeking, for only by seeking is it possible to grow that much closer to that which “IS”. The fault as it exists is not in the seeking, but rather (1) in the ambition of those who would exploit to their advantage what is newly realized, and (2) with the vast numbers (if not actually the majority) who find it too inconvenient and too much effort to actually use their minds to do the mental work requisite to consider and analyze what it is they are mentally consuming and allowing to influence them.

 Being of different opinions regarding truth and what may (or may not) constitute a thing is not the issue, but rather the unwillingness to set aside one’s own ideas in order to more fully appreciate those of another. This does not mean adopting another’s views and ideas, but having the mental and psychological fortitude to see an issue as perceived from the vantage of another with differing perspective, and then if and as needed evaluate and critique such, stepping back into ones original position. Such, means taking a risk that one’s own values and world view may be affected and altered in the process. Many find this a fearful thing. These are those who without due process of thought adopt into religious and political ideologies of the status quo. I have found, by accident of experience, that I am not one of these. By accident of experience I do not mean that I set out to be such, but rather through life’s experiences found this is me, the way I am. Too be sure, mistakes have been made, but life has a way of getting one back on track or correcting direction, if one is of a mind to pay attention and not give up. This also does not mean that life is resolved in a manner which would please others, but rather I am established to be more focused on what it is that constitutes me as a human being. Is there an end to it? I rather think not, but cannot say with absolute certainty.