Monday, May 02, 2005

symbiotic frolic

"Before I get into the thick of it, I just want to say..
GO SEE THE HITCHHIKER"S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY!
beautifully done & they better make a movie for each of the five books!

now, on to the good stuff...

At Friday morning breakfast, there was talk about I heart Huckabees as I'd loaned it to S. to watch & she thought it was even better than the high hopes that she'd had for it. Our discussion went in the direction of shared realities vs. personally created ones, perception & the definition of religion.

Now, I get into a bit of trouble when it comes to that one because I go further & include much much more in my definition of religion. Here's MY basic definition: Religion is any belief system that relies on rules or guidelines in order to direct action and at the same time includes an element of faith in the unknown.
Understandably, this definition upsets many people because then just about everything, even science is included.

If there is an unknown in the equation, there is an element of faith that at some point that unknown will be known - hence it is religion, it is based on abstraction and the hope that which is being sought can be known.

There will inevitably be those on the side of science that say that science is mutable & adapts it's "laws" and theories as increasing experimentation occurs. They do not see that what they are discovering is only an artifact of human perception and human created systems of understanding & technology. None of their experimients mean anything in terms of being universal unless perceivers other than humans or human influenced creations come up with the same results.
They also tend to not see the evolving form which religion uses to spread itself.
All it takes is a small excursion into the history of religions & myths - and in these days, it's not hard to find esoteric and strange takes on just about any religious tradition.

I don't really care if anyone thinks I am wrong & that their academic version of the definition of religion is correct (which i understand as religion being a belief system based on dogma) and that i'm just loonie..
I myself believe that there are quite a few "religions" out there (especially in the strange realm of the "new religions") that are not necessarily "dogmatic" but still have basic loose guiding principles or philosophies.

The discussion pretty much turned to a lighter topic when S. said that she believes in nothing (and i intuit that in this discussion she means this in the western existentialist respect - absence, abyss - & NOT in the eastern mystical sense - no-thing, no nouns, all being, all verbs) whereupon I said that even that "belief" has it's own guiding principles because it is defined - she actually states it as fact -which removes it from the existential realm & into the realm of abstraction, of the mind, of defining it- and is therefore also a type of "religion" to which she kinda chuckled & said "Now we go around in a circle".

Which in a way is exactly the point.

It's all circular arguments & made up abstraction, there is no such thing as an absolute truth, at least not one which we can be rationally aware of in human incarnation.
This whole thing was started by me saying something that is the exact opposite of what is accepted as correct & proper.
That I am currently believing that religion should ABSOLUTELY NOT be a private matter.
I attempted to explain why but since it was first thing in the morning & i had yet to eat, I wasn't very eloquent. I was rather testy actually.
Afterwards, though, I started to get the thoughts flowing & wrote down a few things.
In a way, this is aimed mostly at finding a proper language that would
be understood by S., who is an actor. Here is what i wrote, with a few edits & additions:

. . .. ... ..... ........ ............. ..................... ..................................

A play, theater, a drama is being created; a story unfolding, coming
into being moment to moment. Each of the actors in this play must focus,
communicating with one another & coming together as a unity in order to
create this vision, this momentary reality together which they wish to
share with others, as well as amongst themselves.

Each of these actors has their own method, or non-method.
Maybe it came from outside of themselves, from training, from schooling, from a previous actor who was an inspiration or from a teacher's example.

It is also possible that it could simply be a natural phenomenon of the individual,
an innate ability to transform the self into the being which is being called upon for the created consensus reality.
It more than likely is a mixture of both, bringing even more complexity and adding to the depth.
In one sense it matters not, yet in another it matters immensely. It depends on whether or not there is any intention of "quality" involved. There is also the element of aesthetic choice. It depends on the intention of the collective.

This drama, this play, is like a pot of soup.Each actor adds a spice, their own flavor to the soup. This necessitates a dialogue, whether spoken or felt, among the actors.
It is very easy to make a soup that is not pleasant to the palate, or which cannot be ingested at all.
It could even make one ill! Too much salt, a rotten vegetable or meat, something too sweet...
...any of these things and more can disturb the balance of the soup, of the collective creation, altering the overall flavor & experience.

Because of this, it is important for each individual to understand the
responsibility in choosing which ingredient they bring to the whole,
to the consensus reality, to the soup, so to speak.

In this way also, what we choose to believe about the world, or personal "religion", determines how the consensus reality will manifest.
Not only are we responsible for our own being, our own life & the way in which it manifests, but as all of our beliefs color & determine our actions & how we relate with the "outer" world, they directly effect those around us.

I am NOT writing about imposing some particular way, some defined beliefs that will work or should work for everyone. This would only lead to disaster & draconian idiocy & repression. It is not even an evolutionarily viable way of looking at it. It would be utterly absurd to even attempt to create a world where everyone believes the same thing (and this is what the aim of the so-called Illuminati or New World Order is).

What I am proposing is a simple recognition of the interconnection, the symbiosis through which reality asserts itself.
When one thinks of evolution, they should DROP COMPLETELY the idea of survival of the fittest.It is survival of the FIT - those beings which are capable of creating symbiotic relationships with their surroundings.
If they do not, they will NOT survive, as the community of life around them will NOT support them.
Take a moment & REALLY THINK ABOUT THIS.

HOW DO CIVILIZED HUMANS RELATE TO THE WORLD?
(a wonderful starting point for this question is "The Story of B" by Daniel Quinn)

We have surpassed the time of Malthusian scarecity. It is no longer true, it is a MYTH used as a control structure, so that the entire world can be exploited for the temporary abstract gain of a very few people who feel an absolutely insane urge to fulfill their unenlightened egos. the fact that they actually call themselves "Illuminated" is downright hilarious! (and super freaky scary!)

We all are interconnected, as stated many times before, like the waves of an ocean (that metaphor works all too well).
the ripples we each send out effect all of the other waves. remember this.

Be aware, be thoughtful & remember that the person that you would rather have nothing to do with is just another aspect of YOU.
It is not that person which you have such a difficult time with, but rather the feelings which you create inside of yourself in response to your perception of how that person should be in juxtaposition to who they have been in the past.

Are you so sure that you've got all of the answers?

Are you so sure that you are the one that has it all "right"?

Maybe you are one of the many who consider ourselves rather clueless and simply searching possibilities.

I can be none of the above & all of the above. I wrestle with it just like the rest of you. As awareness increases, I notice a lessening of time lapse between
situation & realization. I've been pondering the notion that awareness comes when that realization reaches the realm of being instantaneous, being totally in the PRESENT.
somehow, that way of being still eludes me.

yet still I walk the middle path.

namaste

enough for today. "

No comments:

Post a Comment