Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. - Engraved on Statue of Liberty"

At some point in our relatively recent American history, this line as engraved on the Statue of Liberty, has been reduced to just so much more “Yankee Bullshit” associated with the “American myth”. At least, that is what an apparent great number of current Americans want us to accept, White, Black and even Hispanic.

Granted, as observed by many conservatives, the United States does have a lot of problems which would be more easily dealt with by closing our borders or sticking our heads in the sand or slipping into whatever state of denial best suits the need of the time, But ‘whatever the case’ this is only a temporary measure, allowing current authority to pass off the responsibility to the next generation or administration as is the case.

What so many of us ‘Americans’ have forgotten, or selectively made a personal ‘right’, is that our nation was founded on certain ideals. Ideals which are difficult to live up to, yet we have all or mostly all received the benefit of.

“American” has been reduced to ‘what benefits the current resident citizens of the United States of America”, to which we recruit and send our ‘patriot’ son’s and daughter’s to enforce around the world, with little and mostly NO concern as to the realities underlying our political and military interests. We are “American”, we can kick ass, we are the best and can and will bomb whoever ‘back to the stone age’ if you don’t buckle under and submit to ‘our’ will … “We’ve got the drones that can do it to you, from the security of our bunkers 12,000 miles away … fuckin’ gooks, chinks, brown skinned ragheads … camel fuckers … “ And in the tradition of American capitalism, we will sell our services to the highest bidder, or if you prefer, sell you the means to accomplish your task on your own. Of course you understand, we may come back at a future time and date and reverse what has previously been established to suit our, or our allies, needs and desires as it is deemed most to our benefit at that time. Of course we will make every effort to create an image, to our liking and appearance, which presents us in the most favorable light, all the while appearing to be sacrificing our self-interests as we best determine is in your interest. Yet always remember, our plans are well thought out, with our ultimate interests are our primary objective.

American ideals, as currently expressed in our International policies, enforced by our military, are essentially the extension of the early nineteenth century doctrine of Manifest Destiny. This in actuality growing out of our colonial period where establishing ourselves in the ‘New World’ was demarcated as entering the new Promised Land to become a “City set on a hill”, a nation dedicated to ‘God’ and defined by Biblical principles. The problem always narrowing down to “What defined whose Biblical principles?”

The fact being the United States of America was a conglomeration of philosophies, partly Christian (with no distinct adherence to any organized religion) and Enlightenment ideals, some Deistic and some of no particular religious affiliation. As such, we are not a distinctly ‘Christian’ nation. As a nation, defined by the Constitution, we are not distinctly joined to any specific economic or political ideology.  Corporate Capitalism as it currently dominates is only a matter of the failure of “we the people” to take the responsibility to actually govern ourselves rather than turning it over to so called experts in the law and any setting themselves up as most capable to do our thinking for us.

No doubt, this is a great responsibility. It means work … learning and thinking. It is much easier to pass off the responsibility to another as our ‘so called’ representative. And that may be necessary, to a degree. But how many of us are willing to make the effort to hold these ‘representatives’ accountable, and not just on a whim, but educate ourselves as to the issues? I fear in truth it is very few.

When words like ’socialist’. ‘Fascist’ or ‘freedom’ are used, how much do we know beyond the common rhetoric, which uses catch phrases to elicit an emotional response from us?

What does being an American mean to you? Should we tear down the Statue of Liberty because its ideals no longer fit into what is currently espoused by so called ‘patriots’?

 

 

 

Ex. 34:7

This is the second part of an on-going conversation between a friend and myself:

"Exodus 34:7 what do you think about genetic predisposition (I've also heard referred to as generational curses) and addiction? P.S. the fact that you referred to yourself as a part of a Christian circle reinforces my feeling of security in my exploration of my faith outside of conventional religious regimens. I know it was unintended. (I can't believe I've been attending such a fettered congregation as the church of Christ …), feeling stifled."

… “... genetic predisposition… generational curses … addiction”, I believe, from experience primarily, and the guidance of Scripture, are very real infirmities of the flesh, though not so easily defined as many religious Christians may wish to categorize them. I think the primary problem “we” Christians face is our attempts to make the Bible the “know it all” about virtually everything. It is a guide book, relating the experiences of ancient Saints as they experienced life and understood God in their particular environment, and within the limits of their own knowledge. Knowledge of the world and all it concerns has been expanded beyond that recorded in the Bible. I have found there are elements of truth in Scripture to be adopted and adapted as we (the current generation(s) of Christians) need. Not everything in the Bible is as absolute as many in Fundamentalist communities would profess. The tendency is to either deny or outright reject whatever appears to be contrary to recorded Biblical norms. I believe, and live, as understanding my relationship to “God” or whatever is “divine” is just as valid, real and perceptible, as any recorded in Scripture. “God”, as God may be, IS everything to me as he has ever been to any who have come before. He is also the same to you … and to ALL who seek him, though all are undoubtedly at different places and levels of understanding. To this I believe “religion” (Primarily Christian Evangelical Fundamentalism) has been more of a hindrance than a godsend.

I have no doubt, when it comes to contemporary understanding of the power and state of the human mind, we (as a whole) live in ignorance. I believe some have begun to tap into the resources of the mind, but few have actually come close to a full comprehension of what this means to be human. There have been sages, such as Jesus Christ, who have existed, and made strides to communicate this in their generations, but more often than not these teachings and truths become tainted and corrupted as they become the possession of disciples less able to comprehend and communicate what they are unable to grasp IE they adapt the teaching to fit into whatever categories they are able to understand. As time progressed, the state of “Christian” knowledge became less related to the actual knowledge, understanding and teachings of Christ and more in keeping and accommodation with what could be adapted and incorporated with a worldlier world view. Currently many are trying to reintroduce these concepts of reality in our own generation, but usually not in association with the “Church” as it has evolved over the past 2 millennia. A more open reading of Scripture (including the Bible and others) will draw the connections with relative ease.

It is in conjunction with these that I have come to a deeper, more spiritually based understanding of the human infirmity which includes contemporary medical and scientific knowledge. I do not wish to elevate the scientific and medical perceptions as complete, or perfect, but they are broader than originally conceived two thousand years ago. The same holds true to virtually all areas of knowledge concerning the universe.

Ex. 34:7 essentially restates the idea of “I will visit…” Here again, it is written within the context of a particular knowledge and understanding. Some of that knowledge and understanding is to be regained, but the idea of “God”, as I see it here and many other places, is defined for the purpose of communicating within a context of rampant ignorance. The word “God” as conceived and defined Biblically (and particularly religiously as varying groups of Christians do) may well be irrelevant. I am not saying that “God” is not, IE he does not exist, God is dead, etc., But the religious language as it has evolved and been used contains virtually NO meaning in a contemporary society, and the concepts promulgated by the ‘supposed’ Church have diverged from what Jesus Christ intended, and are meaningless. It may be that Christian religious concepts need to be defined better and broader. It may be that a whole new language needs to be realized. Regardless of the direction, current knowledge (scientific, medical, spiritual and whatever can be established “real”), must be incorporated. Anything less is not a true knowledge of “God”.

The human mind is an amazing entity. I am not referring to the brain (though it too is related), but “mind” …. That which is the channel of thought … where feelings are assessed and will determines function. This “thing” related physically to the brain, though existing beyond, is subject to the limitations we impose, the impediments subjected too, hereditary, environmental and as physically as associated to the brain. It is also the creator, inventor, imagination transcending the material. It is our connection relating us to a universe we seem in a perpetual state of ignorance of. Yet, through it, we strive to know, to go beyond what is now and ultimately toward a state of full knowledge of mind … “…until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,  to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,…”

Here, you can probably see where I diverge from Contemporary Christianity, but I can say that there are elements within the Church which have also reached a state of dissatisfaction with the status quo and are eager for something greater to evolve, to which they can attach themselves too. The one big hindrance is the domination of a “fundamentalist” attitude, which functions as the school yard bully. This is something I take little concern for, I have no vested interest in position or the trappings of Christian ministry. I can say what I believe, and not worry about the bullies. Except if there ever was a potential avenue to ministry within the Contemporary Church, I can kiss it good bye. But, believing in “something” greater than myself, other miracles have occurred, and are not out of the question.

Hey, you may not know it, but I had been a member of the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) for 8 years (1992-2000). It is about the most conservative Reformed Christian denomination existing. A lot can be learned there, but I did eventually have to take a stand and move on.

Sins of the Fathers

This links to a Washington Post article and video regarding children living homeless.

http://wapo.st/1ha3kTQ

My friend’s inquiry:

Regarding Sins of the "Father" Instead of pointing fingers, help find a solution. The entitlement mentality IE. Choosing social security and welfare as a career path, should not condemn a child to the same fate. I empathize with those who have fallen to hard times. I also recognize there is a mentality that takes any and every advantage. A child deserves every opportunity that we as an "advanced" society can give them. We as a whole are failing these children. These children do not want anything more than love and a secure present. Their future is in their own hands. We however should have an obligation to help release them from the hobbles they are fettered with. It's not who's to blame, it's why we are inefficient and ineffective when we are needed.

My initial response:

This may take a little while, as I have struggled with the ideas for some time myself, and cannot claim any complete solution. But, do have some definite ideas as to what our responsibility may be, much as related to scripture, and some more a matter of experience. If it’s alright, and I suspect it is as we are engaged in an ongoing conversation, I will make this in installments, but I want you to know it is not neglected. I simply have to set aside times to address the issue adequately. So expect more in the next few days.

----------------

My reply:

Ex 34:7 and others regarding 'visiting the iniquities of the fathers unto the third and fourth generations' was, at one time very troubling to me. But that was before I understood more of how the human mind and environmental (parental and family) conditions influenced each other.

We, in the Christian community, tend to relate 'God' as the responsible agent for virtually all human conditions, without consideration for the natural cause and effects, as they exist, whether as instituted by His divine person or as a fact of natural condition. IE 'God' is the one to blame, He is obviously 'unfair'. This is a logical conclusion, not too difficult to espouse, but that is based on a very limited understanding of how human relations affect each other, and particularly as relates from generation to generation.

When the Bible states (as pertaining to God speaking) “I will visit”, the contemporary accepted notion is that “God causes”, and that can be rationalized, though I believe errantly. The Bible is not a book to explain all the details of conditions as pertains to humans and God, but uses the “God” reference to explain attributes of spiritual, psychological and often material truths in environs of ignorance and inadequate means of understanding truths and reality beyond the limits of those being addressed. I know this would automatically relegate me to the realms of unbelief (as contemporarily defined by Fundamentalists) but I don’t really worry about that, as this is relatively simple by comparison to some the deeper I get into it, and if it is truth … why should I worry.

Jesus said at the time of his being anointed with expensive perfume in preparation for his execution and burial, as he was confronted about the cost and the fact that it could have been spent to relieve the “poor”, “…the poor you always have with you…” Of course he was emphasizing the fact that his presence was of a limited duration, but I believe he was equally underscoring the fact that eliminating poverty is not a matter of focusing on it, or providing some temporary relief … Or that as scrutinized in greater detail poverty could be eliminated, but poverty is an actual condition to be expected as all economic systems being humanly devised invariably are deficient in considering the class of persons, for whatever reasons, predisposed to reject or neglect the necessities of life required to maintain their existence within the commonly accepted system. This is not a Capitalist or Socialist problem, but rather a human nature problem. Unfortunately where this obstinate attitude begins or surfaces, the progeny of the transgressor suffer. Eventually, these descendants must come to their own thinking and either accept their “fate” (I don’t like that word) or make a break in their congenital thinking inherited through exposure to parental influence. This is a situation which holds true regarding many areas of thought picked up through parental relations. We must all accept responsibility for our own thoughts and associated actions and responses in the world.

Now, having stated what I have, that does not excuse us from making our every effort to provide a better life foundation for all caught in such disadvantaged marginalized situations. As Jesus observed the multitudes being “without a shepherd” or gathering the little children to himself. Yet, I do not believe this attitude of Christ is one that can be mandated or made part of the “Christian” code. It must be one divinely instilled … though I do not reject the necessity of ongoing, affirmative, and pro-active education, the acceptance of responsibility regarding ministry to the needs of others is an individual one, and being “guilted” into ministerial service is a religious farce.

I also think it is unrealistic to believe that we, as an enlightened” society will ever completely solve the problem of poverty, or homelessness. We can do what we can as individuals, and influence as many as we can, but I do not believe a corporate effort (as a corporation is currently defined) can be created to accomplish the task. A corporation is made up of individuals, and no matter how “well defined” a purpose may be, there will always be exceptions which require an individual’s attention and make accommodation for the needs of all such individuals not fitting into the ‘corporate’ definition. Thus I realize my responsibility is to be who I am to all I can be and influence to a greater life than they currently understand. A corporate system may be supportive, but is not itself the heart of ministry.

There are a number of problems concerning the little girl and such living in homeless shelters. First, what are parental rights and responsibilities? There are cases where I think the state should step in and place a child in foster care. But that is not an absolute, each case is different. Second, a child’s desire to improve, must be faced with their need to divorce from acquired parental attitudes and influence. Third, though a desire to relocate to another state may be understandable, it does not address the acquired and/or innate human deficiency. The fact that humans are deficient (or ‘sinful’) is not a popular concept in modern culture. But, I have learned over the years from experience … we are. The cause or nature of this deficiency are too complicated to even try to clearly decipher. I do believe we humans can progress and improve our cultural social situation, but also believe we are continually faced with an often disproportionate number, of a mind to reject whatever system is established, or “a mentality that takes any and every advantage”… giving little or nothing in return. These deserve nothing, but is it my place to make that judgment? When is “hope” extinguished? When do I give up on another human being? … I don’t know.

 

 

 

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.