So on Monday, I read this and then responding later that day, I had this trouble:
This was tremendous. I spent an hour this morning responding to it and ended up laying out my own complete understanding of sync--basically as close to my working philosophy of life as I could get. I even had a number of links. Then I accidentally hit "log off" when I was scrolling up to reread this great post. . . Great work guys. Why no love for Lloyd Dobbler? He is now. "I can't figure it all out tonight sir, so I'm just going to hang with your daughter."
So, a number of things have come together over my weekend. Everything has conspired in my life to try and recreate this deleted response in a more concise, poetic, and almost philosophical way.
This long winded and rambling response that I deleted mentioned Charlie Brown, the idea of not being special, the idea of Christ Consciousness and the "evolutionary" purpose of life, The Akira cult hoping for the explosion of Tetsuo, an attempt to return to the garden, the duty of the father, the scientific idea of parallel worlds, Mark Everett and his father who invented this theory, myths that reflect our modern science, changing our myths, and the German word "Jein" which both means yes & no.
It was great. Really! And then I deleted it.
Afterward, I wasn't as frustrated as I could have been. I began listening to a couple of shows from one of my favorite radio programs: Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett. She's foxy!
And her voice is super sexy! Anyway the first show I listened to interviewed "The Happiest Man In The World". It featured this great quote by Einstein:
“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe,’ a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
The show is great. Perfect timing too, because it addresses the questions I have. Here are some as put forth by the guest, Matthieu Ricard in his book The Quantum And The Lotus:
"Is there a solid reality behind appearances? What is the origin of the world of phenomena, the world that we see as 'real' all around us? What is the relationship between the animate and the inanimate, between the subject and the object? Do time, space, and the laws of nature really exist? Buddhist philosophers have been studying these questions for the last 2,500 years."
To continue, SOF offers a chapter from this book on their webpage: "The Universe in a Grain of Sand"
The Interdependence and Nonseparability of Phenomena
The concept of interdependence lies at the heart of the Buddhist vision of the nature of reality, and has immense implications in Buddhism regarding how we should live our lives. This concept of interdependence is strikingly similar to the concept of nonseparability in quantum physics. Both concepts lead us to ask a question that is both simple and fundamental: Can a "thing," or a "phenomenon," exist autonomously? If not, in what way and to what degree are the universe's phenomena interconnected? If things do not exist per se, what conclusions must be drawn about life?
Here are more questions the book addresses:
Did the universe have a beginning? Or is our universe one in a series of infinite universes with no end and no beginning? Is the concept of a beginning of time fundamentally flawed? Might our perception of time in fact be an illusion, a phenomenon created in our brains that has no ultimate reality? Is the stunning fine-tuning of the universe, which has produced just the right conditions for life to evolve, a sign that a “principle of creation” is at work in our world? If such a principle of creation undergirds the workings of the universe, what does that tell us about whether or not there is a divine Creator? How does the radical interpretation of reality offered by quantum physics conform to and yet differ from the Buddhist conception of reality? What is consciousness and how did it evolve? Can consciousness exist apart from a brain generating it?
So let's flip the coin and look at what I've been consumed with--The Destruction of The NaturalWorld. How do we square that?
Take this piece in The Progressive by Naomi Klein that I was reading on this morning:
So what was Sarah Palin telling us about capitalism-as-usual before she was so rudely interrupted by the meltdown? Let's first recall that before she came along, the U.S. public, at long last, was starting to come to grips with the urgency of the climate crisis, with the fact that our economic activity is at war with the planet, that radical change is needed immediately. We were actually having that conversation: Polar bears were on the cover of Newsweek magazine. And then in walked Sarah Palin. The core of her message was this: Those environmentalists, those liberals, those do-gooders are all wrong. You don't have to change anything. You don’t have to rethink anything. Keep driving your gas-guzzling car, keep going to Wal-Mart and shop all you want. The reason for that is a magical place called Alaska. Just come up here and take all you want. "Americans," she said at the Republican National Convention, "we need to produce more of our own oil and gas. Take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska, we’ve got lots of both."
And the crowd at the convention responded by chanting and chanting: "Drill, baby, drill."
Watching that scene on television, with that weird creepy mixture of sex and oil and jingoism, I remember thinking: "Wow, the RNC has turned into a rally in favor of screwing Planet Earth." Literally.
But what Palin was saying is what is built into the very DNA of capitalism: the idea that the world has no limits. She was saying that there is no such thing as consequences, or real-world deficits. Because there will always be another frontier, another Alaska, another bubble. Just move on and discover it. Tomorrow will never come.
I was also reading this though too about this gal:
Every month, a group of Ayn Rand enthusiasts get together at the Midtown Restaurant, on Fifty-fifth Street, for a discussion of Objectivism—the philosophy, expressed in Rand’s novels, that celebrates the selfish individual over the collective, and argues that laissez-faire capitalism is the only just social system.
"Falling fertility may be making poor people’s lives better, but it cannot save the Earth. That lies in our own hands."
Again though, is any of this real? And where is this going, right? I'm mean what is the point?
Exactly!!!
Last night, I read this in the tub. Really this is some of the most incredible writing that I've read in a long time. There is no design, we are here because this was the path in which the water flowed most easily. The same result can be derived from our health care system which can then inferred about life and evolution? Yeah it's complex, but designed?
Our country, enterprise, and life is completely defined by the development of the car according to the author of the piece, Rich Cohen. It really is an amazing study of America and its development through the lens of our literal "driving force".
Read this quote from the first daredevil race car driver as an indictment of where our world is headed:
"This damn thing may kill me but the records will show I was going like hell when it did."~Barney Oldfield
The Ethan Allen Highway, known on maps as Route 7, which starts in Canada, fifty miles below Québec, at the confluence of Hudson Bay and the St. Lawrence Seaway, wanders southin the distracted way ...
I love how the piece ends too:
I could end here, with Curran in his suit, behind the desk in his father’s office, a living man closed in the tomb of a pharaoh, but I prefer to end with a vision I witnessed a few days earlier, as I was leaving the Buick dealership in Wilton. Turning out of the lot, I was passed by a truck carrying, on its flatbed, a prototype of GM’s electric car, the Volt, which many believe will save the industry. It was painted marbled green and covered with stickers and writing. Though it will not reach the market until 2010, it was being shown around dealerships, where it might offer hope—a life raft on the horizon. Passing above the used Malibus and Cobalts and Aveos, some blue, some gray, all dirty, the Volt looked like a young Buddha, the boy-child reincarnation of an ancient lama soul, raised on outstretched hands above the troubles of this world.
So? Before bed last night, I was corresponding with a young, sweet girl about "life". She has only questions and no answers(she's 21), and that's pretty much right and it. But anyway, I came up with a better, more concise response to the initial blog post that began this whole deal as well a response to this girl's questions. It is not an answer, but maybe a path? And it makes sense to me right now.
Know that everything you do is one continuous mistake and absolutely perfect. You are where you are, but you have the power to stay, or go, or just be. "Do what thou wilt", but know that you aren't the only person in this world, and thus without charity, it’s worthless. The medium is the message.
a desire to do something, esp. something wrong or unwise : he resisted the temptation to call Celia at the office | we almost gave in to temptation.
• a thing or course of action that attracts or tempts someone : the temptations of life in New York.
• ( the Temptation) the tempting of Jesus by the Devil (see Matt. 4).[see Faust, see Pinocchio & Lampwick]
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French temptacion, from Latin temptatio(n-), from temptare ‘handle, test, try.’
THE RIGHT WORD [The Wrong Deed]
When we are under the influence of a powerful attraction, particularly to something that is wrong or unwise, we aretempted.
Enticeimplies that a crafty or skillful person has attracted us by offering a reward or pleasure (: she was enticed into joining the group by a personal plea from its handsome leader), while inveiglesuggests that we are enticed through the use of deception or cajolery ( | inveigled into supporting the plan).
If someoneluresus, it suggests that we have been tempted or influenced for fraudulent or destructive purposes or attracted to something harmful or evil (: lured by gang members).
Alluremay also suggest that we have been deliberately tempted against our will, but the connotations here are often sexual (: allured by her dark green eyes).
Seducecarries heavy sexual connotations (: seduced by an older woman), although it can simply mean prompted to action against our will ( | seduced by a clever sales pitch).
Whilebeguileat one time referred exclusively to the use of deception to lead someone astray, nowadays it can also refer to the use of subtle devices to engage someone's attention (: a local festival designed to beguile the tourists).
Entice
ORIGIN Middle English (also in the sense [incite, provoke] ; formerly also as intice): from Old French enticier, probably from a base meaning‘set on fire,’based on an alteration of Latin titio ‘firebrand.’
inveigle
ORIGIN late 15th cent.(in the sense [beguile, deceive] ; formerly also as enveigle): from Anglo-Norman French envegler, alteration of Old French aveugler ‘to blind,’from aveugle ‘blind.’
lures
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French luere, of Germanic origin; probably related to German Luder ‘bait.’
Allure
ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense [tempt, entice] ): from Old French aleurier ‘attract,’from a- (from Latin ad ‘to’ ) + luere ‘a lure’ (originally a falconry term).
Seduce
ORIGIN late 15th cent.(originally in the sense [persuade (someone) to abandon their duty] ): from Latin seducere, from se- ‘away, apart’+ ducere ‘to lead.’
beguile
ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [deceive, deprive of by fraud] ): from be- [thoroughly] + obsolete guile [to deceive] (see guile ).
deceive
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French deceivre, from Latin decipere ‘catch, ensnare, cheat.’
guile
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French, probably from Old Norse; compare with wile .
wile
ORIGIN Middle English : perhaps from an Old Norse word related to vél ‘craft.’
(in the Bible) a Hebrew minor prophet. He was called by God to preach in Nineveh, but disobeyed and attempted to escape by sea; in a storm he was thrown overboard as a bringer of bad luck and swallowed by a great fish, only to be saved and finally succeed in his mission.
• a book of the Bible telling of Jonah
Jonah (Hebrew: יוֹנָה,ModernYonaTiberianjon'ɔh,"dove"; Arabic: يونس, Yunus or يونان, Yunaan; Latin: Ionas) is the name given in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh/Old Testament) to a prophet of the northern kingdom of Israel in about the 8th century BC, the central character in the Book of Jonah famous for being swallowed by a fish. The Biblical story of Jonah is repeated in the Qur'an.
Jonah is also the central character in the Book of Jonah. Ordered by God to go to the city of Nineveh to prophesy against it "for their great wickedness is come up before me" [1] Jonah seeks instead to flee from "the presence of the Lord" by going to Jaffa and sailing to Tarshish. A huge storm arises and the sailors, realizing this is no ordinary storm, cast lots and learn that Jonah is to blame. Jonah admits this and states that if he is thrown overboard the storm will cease. The sailors try to get the ship to the shore but in failing feel forced to throw him overboard, at which point the sea calms. Jonah is miraculously saved by being swallowed by a large fish specially prepared by God where he spent three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17). In chapter two, while in the great fish, Jonah prays to God in his affliction and commits to thanksgiving and to paying what he has vowed. God commands the fish to vomit Jonah out.
God again orders Jonah to visit Nineveh and to prophecy to its inhabitants. This time he goes and enters the city crying, "In forty days Nineveh shall be overthrown." The people of Nineveh believe his word and proclaim a fast. The king of Nineveh puts on sackcloth and sits in ashes, making a proclamation to decree fasting, sackcloth, prayer, and repentance. God sees their works and spares the city at that time [2].
Displeased by this, Jonah refers to his earlier flight to Tarshish while asserting that, since God is merciful, it was inevitable that God would turn from the threatened calamities. He then leaves the city and makes himself a shelter, waiting to see whether or not the city will be destroyed.
God causes a plant (in Hebrew a kikayon) to grow over Jonah's shelter to give him some shade from the sun. Later, God causes a worm to bite the plant's root and it withers. Jonah, now being exposed to the full force of the sun, becomes faint and desires that God take him out of the world.
But God says to him,
Are you really so very angry about the little plant? (or "The good is what you are angry at!" - according to a traditional Jewish translation)[citation needed]
You were upset about this little plant, something for which you have not worked nor did you do anything to make it grow. It grew up overnight and died the next day. Should I not be even more concerned about Nineveh, this enormous city? There are more than one hundred twenty thousand people in it who do not know right from wrong, as well as many animals! (Jonah 4:9-11NET)
Ishmael
(in the Bible) a son of Abraham, by his wife Sarah's maid, Hagar, driven away with his mother after the birth of Sarah's son Isaac (Gen. 16:12). Ishmael (or Ismail) is also important in Islamic belief as the traditional ancestor of Muhammad and of the Arab peoples.
Islamic traditions consider Ishmael as the ancestor of northern Arab people[1], while Jewish traditions are split between those who consider Ishmael their ancestor and those, like Maimonides, who believe that the northern Arabs are descended from the sons of Keturah, whom Abraham married after Sarah's death.[3]
Judaism has generally viewed Ishmael as wicked though repentant.[1] Judaism maintains that Isaac (the father of the Jewish people) rather than Ishmael was the true heir of Abraham.[4] The New Testament contains few references to Ishmael. In some Christian biblical interpretations, Ishmael is used to symbolize the older—now rejected—Judaic tradition; Isaac symbolizes the new tradition of Christianity.[1] Islamic tradition, however, has a very positive view of Ishmael, giving him a larger and more significant role. The Qur'an views him as an Islamic prophet. According to the contextual interpretation[citation needed] of some early Islamic theologians (whose view prevailed later), Ishmael was the actual son that Abraham was called on to sacrifice, as opposed to Isaac.[1][5]
Cognates of HebrewYishma'el existed in various ancient Semitic cultures.[1] For example, it is known that the name was used in early Babylonian and in Minæan.[2] It is translated literally as "God has hearkened", suggesting that "a child so named was regarded as the fulfillment of a divine promise."[1]
Abe's Axe is a symbol. Like the firey wand of Hermes, it is the conduit for bringing into action manifestations from the creative imagination. He is not killing vampires so much as freeing living dead men. The great emancipator would like to bring you into the 4th dimension of consciousness. He is going to have to kill you to do this, though. Or, actually, just annihilate your ego to transport you. In this instance, his axe is the craft. A craft is both a transport and a skill. The magician's wand is both. A pen can be mightier than the sword. What's your craft? Use your symbol well. . .
This is in the end the only kind of courage that is required of us: the courage to face the strangest, most unusual, most inexplicable experience that can meet us.
~Rainer Maria Rilke
and where we thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god;
Joseph Campbell
Good morning Mr Magpie
One for sorrow, Two for joy, Three for a girl, Four for a boy, Five for silver, Six for gold, And seven for a secret never to be told.
