So what constitutes “wisdom”?

So what constitutes “wisdom”?

I have friends and contacts who comprise the spectrum of political and religious thought. Most having their own ideas of what it is that forms reality. Yet, despite the many varied differences, something exists which allows for a mutual ground of being. We may not agree what this ground of being is, but, none can deny it exists. The fact that we simply are, and are associates of each other, demonstrates this factuality.

It is possible for each of us to create (however that may be conceived) our individual realities, and presumably content ourselves to confine ourselves to live in these individual creations (or as understood, foundations). Yet, as we choose to extend ourselves, to others not so disposed to our personal conception of reality, to befriend others for whatever reason, some common grounds become established, allowing for their and our exiting ‘personal’ notions and entrance into ‘common’ accepted wisdom, permitting communications otherwise foreign to one party or the other.

A friend wrote me the other day asking “Your thoughts on Jacob's pillar (Gen 28:18) and the Altar that common day Christians kneel to, the need for ritual and the strength derived from such a selflesh act?” He further commented concerning his “… Freudian slip of the finger”.

I responded to him “Okay, Jacob’s pillar was set up immediately after and in reaction to the dream had concerning “Jacob’s Ladder”. I do believe the dream was informative of spiritual realities occurring in us, primarily of a psychological nature, but not to discount the reality of deeper life, beyond the psyche. I do believe we experience the reality of deeper dimensions, spoken of as spiritual, but not literally, as understood by contemporary, religions (and particularly Contemporary Christianity).

“The “pillar” was a monument dedicated to the remembrance of the dream event. “Does consecration (applying oil on the thing to be consecrated) have any “special” significance?” … Probably not, but to the one consecrating the object … yes. And this is what I believe is represented in “Jacob’s Ladder”. There are varying levels of spiritual depth, knowledge and understanding. We all find ourselves someplace on this ladder, OR moving up and down as may be the situation.

As far as kneeling and praying before an altar. It depends who you are and the depth of one’s own spiritual life. For me, personally, it would be a waste of time. For another (possibly less secure) in their own life, it may be very significant. But I cannot judge another’s preference, at least not openly, though I may hold private reservations.”

We ALL find ourselves in a constant state of climbing and descending that ‘ladder’. Our “religious” particulars, in most cases, where one is truly attempting to come to grips with their known reality and expand their own perception as they understand and deem necessary, have little to do with the state of their position on this “ladder”, or better explained “spiritual maturity”.

It is along this ladder, as we meet and open your heart to the lives of others experiencing their own journey in life that “wisdom” reveals itself. It is not always the same in every situation, but is contingent upon the state of the parties in question. It is not a “Law” or “Command” to be adhered to with unquestioning obedience, but is truly living, making accommodation to the place each liaison occurs according as to what each may give and receive.

Too many, because I used a “Biblical” reference explaining this, they automatically assume this is some “religious” conception. That IS NOT the case but is rather of a more “psychological” nature. Too religionists it would appear “relativistic”, and to an extent, that may be true. But the problem with religionists, particularly those dogmatically entrenched, is that they expect their religious resources to be absolutely literal all of the time, and there again as they and those they reference interpret a particular set of resources. It IS NOT that simple and opposites may be justified concerning the same resources. This is primarily a desire and attempt to do the least (in this case critical research) and get the most “bang” for their parsimonious “buck”. In a word “Laziness”. A sense that it has all been done before, and all the research of “divines” of the past 20 centuries has covered it all. It never occurs that what was taught by one ancient sage (Jesus Christ) was once teachings unbounded by any particular religious origin. If it cannot be interpreted through a set of “rose colored glasses” as determined by them, it is invalid.

Non-religionists, some decidedly critical of anything appearing remotely of a religious origin, without question write off otherwise valid principles and truths as being specific to a particular religion and thus of no possible universal understanding. These fall prey to the same fault as the religionists only 180 ⁰ in the opposite direction. Because it has some religious understanding it is invalidated.

The truth remains, regardless of the religious nature or non-religious nature and origin of a particular. It may not hold value to us at a particular moment on our personal voyage, at another it might, or might not. But that is not valid reason to dismiss its legitimacy in another’s life, or to expect to understand it, or to be understood as we attempt to convey our own minds. Wisdom is the ability to ‘not dispel’ but to integrate these seeming opposites. To find a platform that both, or All, may coexist. Not necessarily without contention or confrontation, but in harmony, allowing for dissonance, a necessary tension where the greater, grander may evolve and emerge. And then, do it over again. Socially, culturally, humanly growing and becoming what it is, the full potential of the human.

Or we could just say “The hell with it all.” Though I have grown increasingly cynical over the years, I have not quite reached that point. And though I admit that would be the easy way, I cannot convince myself that that is “the way it is”. So I suppose I’ll just keep going up and down that ladder until I figure it out.
 

accusations

I am on popular “Social Media” accused of “sexism’, being a misogynist or rapist. As I have used other ‘catchwords’, popular with so-called liberals, such as ‘homophobic’, and supporting my positions with logic unopposed by any in an attempt to debate or prove my reasoning in error, I am now condemned by those, considering it better to hide behind digital placards hawking whatever belief they deem preferable. I do not condemn another’s preference, but I do seriously dispute one’s presumed right to intimidate others into ‘accepting as preferable’ or ‘acceptable’ life conditions without being able to express these positions and preferences in an open forum reasonably and logically. Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative, issues are usually more than “black and white”, with considerable grey area which needs (at first) reasonable toleration, and as considered in greater depth and detail, discernment and discrimination.

In the 60’s a debate between conservative William F. Buckley and liberal Gore Vidal demonstrated the effects of allowing uncontrolled emotionalism to shatter the positive effects of what may otherwise have been sound logic. Vidal referred to Buckley as the closest thing he knew of reflecting Fascist Nazi values, Buckley became visibly emotionally affected, and called Vidal a “queer” and rose from his seat threatening to “beat the shit out of Vidal” (my own words). They later apologized to each other, but it was at that time that Vidal knew he had won the debate. You see, it has been scientifically proven that as soon as debate or argument is reduced to emotionalism and/or mudslinging, a person’s IQ is reduced by approximately 20 points. I have my own theories as to why this is, but will not go into them here.

I could see the emotions rising in the party(s) taking issue with me. I admit, I took advantage of this. There are many issues where I might be considered classically conservative. There are many more I am anything but at home among conservatives and would be thus deemed a ‘liberal’. In either case, I attempt to support my positions logically, allowing my emotions to serve as a guide as to whether logic and reason are justified. You see without an inner (emotional) feeling or assertive prompting, ANYTHING can be reasoned, made logical and thus justified. But it is reason and logic which is the means of communicating that which is to be ‘justified’. Liberals or Conservatives, unable to do this, (or resort to shallow political rhetoric) are in my estimation “phonies”, pseudo … whatever’s, but certainly not worthy to represent and communicate what might otherwise be valid … whatever.

 

N*****s and white trash

When I first came to Terre Haute, Indiana, back in January 2010, an associate at the Lighthouse Mission, a transport from the East himself, told me that what I would find in Terre Haute was (and I quote) “ N*****s and white trash”. Now I was offended by his statement at the time, and I certainly think his statement was an overstatement and only reflected a very limited perception, but having lived in the area, and leaving and returning, I cannot help but consider there is some justification for such a perceivable bigoted statement. I am not saying that there is a blanket generalized truth expressed in his statement, but depending on one’s status and living situation the quality of persons having to be related to may be of a lower nature or character than desirable. To state it plainly, though the “N” word (to my own estimation) has nothing to do with race or such discriminatory factors, it does hold significance as to the quality of lack of character (moral and ethical) of persons, of European, Asian or African descent. This is a situation I have found to exist in the South as well as the North, or on the streets among the homeless or amid the more privileged. The one seeming constant would appear to be the prevalence of a lesser state of “class” exhibited by those content in their lack of education and knowledge, and satisfied to remain in a stifled state of learning and understanding. This condition transcends economic and other cultural standards, and is thus not limited by apparent elevated states, it is truly egalitarian, though subject to one’s own desire and effort to overcome one’s current condition.

There was a time, before experiencing life in a lesser economic situation, I would not have recognized the necessity for taking measures to ensure the protection of my person and property. But, as a matter of being plunged into living below standards once enjoyed and making associations with persons of lesser ethical/moral character, and witnessing acts, both express and covert against innocent parties, as well as amongst themselves, means of self-defense and protection have become of greater importance, as legal police protection is in no way sufficient to monitor potential violators and provide security.

As one is able to live in a situation which distances themselves from these lower levels of life and ignorance the effects of reduced experience do seem to diminish, but that is no guarantee of never suffering the disturbance of negative intrusions into one’s life. Being the more materially compensated would seem to make one a target of those less fortunate and of diminished morals, but the up side is that regular police patrols and the obvious out-of-place nature of potential criminal elements draws attention, thus affording greater security, adding to the criminals difficulty. Yet in more depressed areas, where want and ignorance pervade and prosper, and life seemingly offering no escape to experience reality beyond present deprivation, a breeding ground for muggers and thieves and virtually every kind of drug and alcoholic escape exists, all compounding the other.

I cannot contend that there is any one, or multiple, answer to these realities. I can only attest, they exist. And, regardless of the “whys” for their existence, persons forced into life situations placing them in close proximity to be affected have little or no choice but to consider and implement whatever means of self-protection may be necessary to secure their own life situations. I realize that this necessity affords a certain opportunity for abuse and misapplication of the defensive measures, but as things do exist as they are that would seem to be the cost and risk of living in a less than perfect world. A world where disrespect for others and the right of others has little (or NO) meaning to violating parties.

I am not one to think increased police protection is the answer, not unless the community as a whole is willing to sacrifice (on a progressively increasing scale) substantial liberties we have come to accept and understand as “self-evident” and “inalienable”. I do not relish the idea of living in a “police state”. Neither do I like the idea of having to live in fear of my home being invaded and/or my person nor the one’s I love being violated, or even killed. So, as a matter of the way things are (things I cannot immediately affect), I accept my right and responsibility to secure myself and those dependent upon my protection, Whatever means that may entail as I recognize the threat.

 

 

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.