Thursday, March 03, 2005

metaphors & filters

i just discovered yesterday while googlin that this here lil blog has been quoted in an article on atheism at about.com (link)
he even managed to call me Ignorant Cat. heehee.
i've only read parts of the article & plan on spending some good time with it & other articles he's posted. i'm going to have to respond, of course, especially since he assumes things about me that are not true & has a very different definition of what the term "god" is defined as (confusing the term with deity) and apparently does not understand that atheism is as much of an absolutist, arrogant belief as any belief in deity might be.
i sense that academics is at fault here. once again the western mind & aristotelian logic rear their limited heads. they're great tools, but don't mistake them for the truth! they are only but one small aspect.
he also states that believing the sky is blue does not qualify as a belief system because it is not attached to any other beliefs (?). well, hate to tell you, but the sky is not blue. you mistake the illusion for the reality. the sky is everything BUT blue!
i know that my response is going to be EXTREMELY lengthy. such a subject deserves more than a shallow understanding.
it's interesting that i have been presented with this opportunity when i was asking existence, asking life (could existence itself be god? is existence a deity?)for a better understanding of atheism & what it truly is. see how life provides when one asks? sure it can be coincidence, but that does not matter, all of that is just a mindgame. all that really matters is that at the proper time, when i am ready to accept & am receptive, a chance for learning has presented itself.
it is interesting to me that the author of the article did not leave so much as a comment on my blog, yet he was so ready to use it as fodder for his own desires & goals. he was not the least bit interested in actually understanding what i said or what i meant by it. if he would have been, should not he have asked me a question or two? instead, he distills his own meaning from it & uses it in an inflammatory way in which he proves my point. he says that i do not understand that religions divide while doing exactly that himself.
i sense an old mind. one that is more interested in history & mistakes. one that is busier defining rather than experiencing.
nothing is absolute. not even this statement.
the main thing is that i am not even interested in being RIGHT. i am more interested in learning, in expanding my understanding. there is no EGO involved in what i have to say or how i understand.I'm not interested in proving myself, of being academically correct. that is all folly. if only those who believe themselves to be so enlightened & correct would recognize the mental & psychological violence that they perpetuate by having to feed their own rightness by attempting to convert others to their way of seeing things & their definitions of reality. it's so adolescent. it's so shallow of an understanding, and it is blatantly disrespectful and arrogant.

i should leave it at that for now or else i'll go on & on & i'd rather compose my thoughts about this. i promise that it's gonna be a thorough one.

thanks to Echo for saying hello. check out her wonderful writing on her blog, which i checked out yesterday. echo,we should share a singlemalt & insightful conversation sometime!
email me!

peace to all of ya...
oh...almost forgot, a new song is currently being processed on my myspace page. should be up for listening by tomorrow (friday)

6 comments:

  1. Scholars are all about suspicion criticism and unfeterred questioning. There is no consideration of poverty, chastity, and obedience in terms of the spiritual arts. the spiritual arts have nothing to do with religion and religions dependence upon these arts is hidden, denied and repressed. The extent of the deaf crisis, dumb disaster, blind dilema and mute conflict is typical of the world-view devoid of this essential art. The growth and developement of this type of world-view is the existential child of the Cartesian conundrum, chasing it's tail in the death throes of it's own recognition of nothingness; having no ears to hear and learn from ultimate sentience.

    ReplyDelete
  2. both of you make me smile. like a buddha, of course. ;^)

    ReplyDelete
  3. And having no body to appear from eternal synergy, no eyes to see from absolute entity and no mouth of infinite source.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And having no body to appear from eternal synergy, no eyes to see from absolute entity and no mouth of infinite source.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And having no body to appear from eternal synergy, no eyes to see from absolute entity and no mouth of infinite source.

    ReplyDelete