 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Rants and articles submitted by and for ex-Christians
This is a small portion of the book that I have been working on about Christianity. Even this small portion is not what I want it to be nor is it "cleaned and polished" as some of my book already is. I share this unfinished portion now because of the need to have people think and understand the foundations of the major world religions and WHY they are harmful to the mind and consciousness of humanity.
Any feedback on this would be appreciated. Thanks!
John Blatt
*************************************************
It is common knowledge that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil lies at the very foundation of the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Regardless of the various interpretations there is no dispute – that at this Tree the whole of these religions are founded. Yet there is one extremely important fact that is repeatedly overlooked in the understanding of this doctrine within the teachings of these religions, especially within Christianity. These Old Testament scriptures (see above) unquestionably - yet subtly - proclaims that unrestricted knowledge was to be withheld from mankind and the only "true" knowledge is that which is confined to what God authorizes.
From a non-religious perspective it seems clear that, according to the Old Testament, God created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and placed it in the garden of Eden where all the other good trees were for eating of its fruits. God created it and yet did not want mankind to eat from it. Why? For the moment try to forget that this was, according to the New Testament, the beginning of God’s plan of salvation, saving humankind from their Fall. Try to forget that it was the Serpent that tempted Eve. Even try to forget that it was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Let’s just think about the Tree of Knowledge itself. It was the Tree of Knowledge. Knowledge. What is knowledge?
Regardless if you believe in these scriptures or not, these passages clearly prohibits and condemns the acquiring of knowledge. Yet even further, in essence, what these texts suggest is the prohibition of thinking. It attributes the process of human thinking as something that Evil tempts you to do – think for yourself, acquire knowledge (which is the act of thinking), gain wisdom – is looked upon as something that is initially controlled by God and that God warns man not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge – that is, to have man gain his own knowledge. The knowledge that God wants man to have is the knowledge that He dictates, not what man himself/herself dictates. The Serpent, the one prompting Eve to think for herself, is viewed here as the Tempter, the Deceiver, and ultimately interpreted as Satan, the Devil, the Dragon, and the Evil One.
Let’s shine some light on this and turn this around properly. From a non-Christian perspective the Bible is at best errant and contradictory. It very well may also be the most brilliantly constructed set of psychological documents in history. The Bible, in my opinion, is exactly that. A series of mind-control documents that were created by incredibly knowledgeable men for the precise purpose of manipulating mankind and controlling the minds and knowledge of the world. Look at Genesis 3 again. Think not from the perspective that God is dictating anything or that even Adam and Eve existed. Think now for a moment that the Old Testament is man-made, not divinely inspired. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil takes on a new light. It becomes the control factor of billions of people. How? By creating a “divine world-view” and telling all of its adherents that Knowledge is to be restricted to “His Knowledge” or devotion to “Orthodox teaching”. To lay out in the beginning that man is NOT to gain knowledge on his own (and in doing so in the first place created the Fall of mankind), but to rely on only that which the Bible-God says to rely on. Men and women are NOT to think on their own, to attain knowledge and wisdom upon what they believe is best for themselves, but only what God says is best for them. Obtaining knowledge of all that is “good” and all that is “evil” on mankind’s own volition is Evil. It is this “eating of the tree of knowledge” by Adam and Eve to be the fall of mankind. We have become corrupt, sinful, deluded, and immoral by eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Thus, this sets all of humanity in a position to be completely dependent on the “knowledge of God” derived from the Old and New Testaments and Koran, since our “minds have been darkened” and the wisdom of God is now “foolish to men”. Thus we are set in a system of control so amazing and so “fearfully and wonderfully made” that we cannot think now outside of this system, outside of this man-made Bible-box, because we cannot understand the "things of God" on our own. We must rely now on God’s Word and its interpretation by the Elders of His Church to teach us His Truth. If we question it, we are rebelling against the knowledge of God. If we question it, we are doing what Eve did in the Garden – think for herself and seek knowledge not based on God’s dictates (according to the bible).
[Another thing to remember is that this is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - this again, is very sublte control, because it states that the knowledge to be had is either Good or Evil. One of the best ways to manipulate a mass of people is to give them two oppositing forces to believe in, neither of which are what they are. This is literally a magic trick. A good magician makes the audience concentrate on two objects while the real trick is going on somewhere else, the focus is drawn away from the real issue. You create two opposing forces and do not give them any other options. People are suckers for battles or fights. The fight between good and evil. If there is no actual good or evil, but only what we are made to believe or think (it only has power if we give it power, it only exists if we believe it exists) then we are stuck with a foundational premise of viewing the world that is controlled with two "opposing forces" that don't even exist.]
Thus, from the very beginning in each of these religions, uncontrolled knowledge [knowledge outside the confines of the bible] (that is, knowledge that is not specifically approved by God, or practically speaking, approved by the Word of God) is a temptation, it is a deception, it is evil. Knowledge, and thus the process of thinking, must be controlled by God for our own protection – for our own good, because we are weak creatures. In the beginning God called man “very good”. Yet, not good enough to allow man to truly think for himself. He needed to be restricted from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He was commanded not to eat thereof. Adam, though “very good” and very appealing to God in the beginning, wasn’t good enough to have access to all knowledge. The knowledge of good and evil was bad for Adam. Why? Because if Adam had knowledge he would become like God himself, the ability to think for himself freely. "God" was the first Freethinker, yet, according to these texts he did not want mankind to have knowledge and to think according to this knowledge. In truth, God forbid man to think for himself. This, of course, is not true in reality, but according to the Old Testament it is. Thus the condemnation and guilt of mankind came from taking in knowledge and thinking for themselves. It makes the act of thinking and knowledge (the fuel of thought) evil. Thus at the very bedrock of the worlds "great" religions is: mind control. Only that which God dictates as approved knowledge is approved knowledge. Mankind, left to think for himself without God’s restriction, produces only evil and condemnation. Man changed from being “very good” to being evil, that “the evil of man was great on the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the day long.” This is because mankind took into himself knowledge. He thought for himself. by the help of the Serpent, and thus became evil.
This is the thrust of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. That only the approved knowledge of God (the knowledge approved by God which happens to be the approved Word of God, the Scriptures) is acceptable knowledge and acceptable to think about. Mankind cannot be left to go his own way, to think for himself, to have all knowledge. His way must be restricted, his thoughts must be wrangled in and guided correctly, the knowledge that he should have is the knowledge of God – of what he approves. Thus the reason why he gave mankind “the good Book”, the “Word of God” the “Holy Scriptures”. "Yes, men wrote the Word of God but they were men who were approved by God to write it and divinely inspired them to do so." "Thus, to have all knowledge, to think freely without restraint or restriction, to reason and question, to go the way we think is best…is all anathema." "The Serpent is responsible for deceiving all of us in Adam and because of him we are now lost, naked, and ashamed." This is what these texts want us to believe.
Ultimately, those who are responsible for creating Genesis and the rest of the books of the Jewish Old Testament, the Muslim Koran, and the Christian New Testament are the ones who truly wanted to keep mankind from the Tree of the Knowledge. To keep mankind from thinking for themselves without restriction. To not question the approved knowledge and to forbid mankind from knowing what the authors of these works know. Knowledge is power. Thus all independent thinking and the seeking of wisdom on our own (outside of this god) is welded into our conscious and subconscious minds as coming from the Evil One. Even if we seek to think for ourselves and reject the teachings and gods of these religions there is the deep programming, the deep indoctrination that says to us that we have gone the way of the Serpent.
So the work has been accomplished quite amazingly according to plan. The majority of mankind are gripped by a fundamental mind control system that cannot be seen or understood by most. The easiest way to control the world is to control the thinking of mankind. How do you control the thinking of mankind? Just look at the religions that hold up the Tree of Knowledge at its beginning and you will see. Programming genius. Those who created these texts knew exactly how to use what is now called "Thought Reform" on the minds of men, for they have been successful in reforming the thought processes of trillions of men, women and children and controlling the knowledge and thus the reality of mankind for thousands of years. This is why the evolution of humanity is governed directly by these religions. We can speak of world consciousness, peace, and the evolution of humanity's consciousness all we like, but without this true knowledge, without being deprogrammed from this restriction of knowledge and devolved view of man we have no hope. As long as our minds are programmed and conditioned to accept these lies humanity is forever bound to darkness and control.
This fake tree is about to be hacked down. Men’s thinking and knowledge has been manipulated and governed for long enough.
Any feedback on this would be appreciated. Thanks!
John Blatt
*************************************************
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
By John Blatt
By John Blatt
It is common knowledge that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil lies at the very foundation of the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Regardless of the various interpretations there is no dispute – that at this Tree the whole of these religions are founded. Yet there is one extremely important fact that is repeatedly overlooked in the understanding of this doctrine within the teachings of these religions, especially within Christianity. These Old Testament scriptures (see above) unquestionably - yet subtly - proclaims that unrestricted knowledge was to be withheld from mankind and the only "true" knowledge is that which is confined to what God authorizes.
From a non-religious perspective it seems clear that, according to the Old Testament, God created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and placed it in the garden of Eden where all the other good trees were for eating of its fruits. God created it and yet did not want mankind to eat from it. Why? For the moment try to forget that this was, according to the New Testament, the beginning of God’s plan of salvation, saving humankind from their Fall. Try to forget that it was the Serpent that tempted Eve. Even try to forget that it was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Let’s just think about the Tree of Knowledge itself. It was the Tree of Knowledge. Knowledge. What is knowledge?
Regardless if you believe in these scriptures or not, these passages clearly prohibits and condemns the acquiring of knowledge. Yet even further, in essence, what these texts suggest is the prohibition of thinking. It attributes the process of human thinking as something that Evil tempts you to do – think for yourself, acquire knowledge (which is the act of thinking), gain wisdom – is looked upon as something that is initially controlled by God and that God warns man not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge – that is, to have man gain his own knowledge. The knowledge that God wants man to have is the knowledge that He dictates, not what man himself/herself dictates. The Serpent, the one prompting Eve to think for herself, is viewed here as the Tempter, the Deceiver, and ultimately interpreted as Satan, the Devil, the Dragon, and the Evil One.
Let’s shine some light on this and turn this around properly. From a non-Christian perspective the Bible is at best errant and contradictory. It very well may also be the most brilliantly constructed set of psychological documents in history. The Bible, in my opinion, is exactly that. A series of mind-control documents that were created by incredibly knowledgeable men for the precise purpose of manipulating mankind and controlling the minds and knowledge of the world. Look at Genesis 3 again. Think not from the perspective that God is dictating anything or that even Adam and Eve existed. Think now for a moment that the Old Testament is man-made, not divinely inspired. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil takes on a new light. It becomes the control factor of billions of people. How? By creating a “divine world-view” and telling all of its adherents that Knowledge is to be restricted to “His Knowledge” or devotion to “Orthodox teaching”. To lay out in the beginning that man is NOT to gain knowledge on his own (and in doing so in the first place created the Fall of mankind), but to rely on only that which the Bible-God says to rely on. Men and women are NOT to think on their own, to attain knowledge and wisdom upon what they believe is best for themselves, but only what God says is best for them. Obtaining knowledge of all that is “good” and all that is “evil” on mankind’s own volition is Evil. It is this “eating of the tree of knowledge” by Adam and Eve to be the fall of mankind. We have become corrupt, sinful, deluded, and immoral by eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Thus, this sets all of humanity in a position to be completely dependent on the “knowledge of God” derived from the Old and New Testaments and Koran, since our “minds have been darkened” and the wisdom of God is now “foolish to men”. Thus we are set in a system of control so amazing and so “fearfully and wonderfully made” that we cannot think now outside of this system, outside of this man-made Bible-box, because we cannot understand the "things of God" on our own. We must rely now on God’s Word and its interpretation by the Elders of His Church to teach us His Truth. If we question it, we are rebelling against the knowledge of God. If we question it, we are doing what Eve did in the Garden – think for herself and seek knowledge not based on God’s dictates (according to the bible).
[Another thing to remember is that this is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - this again, is very sublte control, because it states that the knowledge to be had is either Good or Evil. One of the best ways to manipulate a mass of people is to give them two oppositing forces to believe in, neither of which are what they are. This is literally a magic trick. A good magician makes the audience concentrate on two objects while the real trick is going on somewhere else, the focus is drawn away from the real issue. You create two opposing forces and do not give them any other options. People are suckers for battles or fights. The fight between good and evil. If there is no actual good or evil, but only what we are made to believe or think (it only has power if we give it power, it only exists if we believe it exists) then we are stuck with a foundational premise of viewing the world that is controlled with two "opposing forces" that don't even exist.]
Thus, from the very beginning in each of these religions, uncontrolled knowledge [knowledge outside the confines of the bible] (that is, knowledge that is not specifically approved by God, or practically speaking, approved by the Word of God) is a temptation, it is a deception, it is evil. Knowledge, and thus the process of thinking, must be controlled by God for our own protection – for our own good, because we are weak creatures. In the beginning God called man “very good”. Yet, not good enough to allow man to truly think for himself. He needed to be restricted from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He was commanded not to eat thereof. Adam, though “very good” and very appealing to God in the beginning, wasn’t good enough to have access to all knowledge. The knowledge of good and evil was bad for Adam. Why? Because if Adam had knowledge he would become like God himself, the ability to think for himself freely. "God" was the first Freethinker, yet, according to these texts he did not want mankind to have knowledge and to think according to this knowledge. In truth, God forbid man to think for himself. This, of course, is not true in reality, but according to the Old Testament it is. Thus the condemnation and guilt of mankind came from taking in knowledge and thinking for themselves. It makes the act of thinking and knowledge (the fuel of thought) evil. Thus at the very bedrock of the worlds "great" religions is: mind control. Only that which God dictates as approved knowledge is approved knowledge. Mankind, left to think for himself without God’s restriction, produces only evil and condemnation. Man changed from being “very good” to being evil, that “the evil of man was great on the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the day long.” This is because mankind took into himself knowledge. He thought for himself. by the help of the Serpent, and thus became evil.
This is the thrust of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. That only the approved knowledge of God (the knowledge approved by God which happens to be the approved Word of God, the Scriptures) is acceptable knowledge and acceptable to think about. Mankind cannot be left to go his own way, to think for himself, to have all knowledge. His way must be restricted, his thoughts must be wrangled in and guided correctly, the knowledge that he should have is the knowledge of God – of what he approves. Thus the reason why he gave mankind “the good Book”, the “Word of God” the “Holy Scriptures”. "Yes, men wrote the Word of God but they were men who were approved by God to write it and divinely inspired them to do so." "Thus, to have all knowledge, to think freely without restraint or restriction, to reason and question, to go the way we think is best…is all anathema." "The Serpent is responsible for deceiving all of us in Adam and because of him we are now lost, naked, and ashamed." This is what these texts want us to believe.
Ultimately, those who are responsible for creating Genesis and the rest of the books of the Jewish Old Testament, the Muslim Koran, and the Christian New Testament are the ones who truly wanted to keep mankind from the Tree of the Knowledge. To keep mankind from thinking for themselves without restriction. To not question the approved knowledge and to forbid mankind from knowing what the authors of these works know. Knowledge is power. Thus all independent thinking and the seeking of wisdom on our own (outside of this god) is welded into our conscious and subconscious minds as coming from the Evil One. Even if we seek to think for ourselves and reject the teachings and gods of these religions there is the deep programming, the deep indoctrination that says to us that we have gone the way of the Serpent.
So the work has been accomplished quite amazingly according to plan. The majority of mankind are gripped by a fundamental mind control system that cannot be seen or understood by most. The easiest way to control the world is to control the thinking of mankind. How do you control the thinking of mankind? Just look at the religions that hold up the Tree of Knowledge at its beginning and you will see. Programming genius. Those who created these texts knew exactly how to use what is now called "Thought Reform" on the minds of men, for they have been successful in reforming the thought processes of trillions of men, women and children and controlling the knowledge and thus the reality of mankind for thousands of years. This is why the evolution of humanity is governed directly by these religions. We can speak of world consciousness, peace, and the evolution of humanity's consciousness all we like, but without this true knowledge, without being deprogrammed from this restriction of knowledge and devolved view of man we have no hope. As long as our minds are programmed and conditioned to accept these lies humanity is forever bound to darkness and control.
This fake tree is about to be hacked down. Men’s thinking and knowledge has been manipulated and governed for long enough.
mizlee at aol dot com
An' miz lee, you be black as th ace o' spades an yo aint foolin nobody. Come over an talk to me....my frens call me sheree.
Before you abandon the tree,however, look further back to the original text.
Called the "Tree of Life" or Cosmic Tree, you can find access to some information about the real tree by studying the mystic jewish Kabbalah.
You should be advised that much effort has been made to hide the information referred to in the text.
If you decide to look further into the Tree of Life, you should begin by understanding that the tree models the connection between the unknowable cause at the top and the manifestation effect on earth at the botom.
Almost with all religions, there is a piece of essential knowledge that is hidden and never revealed except by word of mouth at the highest level of the religion.
In fact, likely, it has been lost by most religions and there is no one to realize it.
The "Coptic Gospel of Thomas" verse 39 quotes the mystic Jesus as saying, "The parisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You however, be as wise as serpents and and innocent as doves."
This text comes from the documments found at Nag Hammadi Egypt in 1945. They have not been massaged by edits over time and give a fasinating view back into the time and life of the real mystic we now call Jesus.
(An do not be misled about this man Jesus because of what you read about him in Christian text. Consider how he stood up against all the powers over him in his time to claim his personal and individual mystic union with deity.)
If you have not looked over the Nag Hammadi documents, I encourage you to read them. Roman christians destroyed the "gnostic" movement early on that grew from the true message from the mystic Jesus.
The concept of "gnosis" is yet another access to the "inner sanctum" or hidden knowledge that can be examined by studying the "Gnostic Gospels" as the Nag Hammadi are now reffered to.
Jewish Mysticm has kept the hidden knowledge of the tree alive, but will not reveal it except on exlusive innitiation unavailbe to gentiles. Most jewish people are not even aware of what I speak.
I can assure you that the knowledge of the Tree is on earth even now, and is now hidden by a very few from the masses. No one who has the knowledge is willing to give it away carelessly.
The concept of an "inner sanctum" within the "santum" is an example of how the knowledge is held in secret. Only the iniatiated few may enter and know.
I've fould one place that makes the knowledge available after a process of email discussion. The site has no commercial aspect. As a wandering mystic myself, i recommend it to my fellow travelers: www.mysticshaven.com.
John, from another john, keep questioning until truth rings true even to your deepest doubts, but do not give up the quest because of false information.
another john
Just because you do not know the Truth of the Universe and Life does not mean it does not exist.
The Truth is in the existance of the Universe, life, and yourself.
The Truth I allude to is the independent self satisfaction that there is something unknown and unexplained that can be experienced only by the individual.
That experience begins to fill the individual with a new awareness that is quickly recognized by the individual as knowledge and awareness that was not in the individual's intellect before. It is a very subjective and personal experience that can only be real by personal experience.
If there is no truth, then what is there?
john
It is surely "a" truth (both beautiful and poignant) and offers wispers and indications perhaps of "the" truth. It reminds me of Kahlil Gibran's "A tear and a smile".
If you wish to point to this statement as an indication of truth, then we are in agreement.
I would further suggest, if we continued to examine every element, component, and aspect of the truth you express in the statement, we would, together, go on to discover an even deeper and broader truth.
Your statement then does not deny the fact of truth, but supports it.
One test for truth, by the way, is that it gives resolution, peace, and contentment when known. I can gain these things from your statement knowing the truth beyond your statement.
(Also, by the way, physical science has progressed a long way toward finding the "Truth" in studying the elemental structure of our universe. For thoes with an adversion to religion might find the study of physical science enlightening.)
Soon perhaps the Truth of the mystics and the Truth of the scientists will ring in harmony.)
john
The paradox exists, when a subjective individual proposes they hold a truly objective (human-less) truth. In fact, one must assume they are in third person and talking of "knowledge" which transcends themselves - an out of body experience per se. Much of the bible is presented in such a manner - a subjective human portraying "knowledge" as "transcendent truth", a fallacious argument to say the least.
John Blatt: "We have become corrupt, sinful, deluded, and immoral by eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil."
From a traditional perspective, knowledge in itself is "not" sin... as was alluded in the thread. If the holy bible were considered true knowledge from an objective being sitting outside of the natural realm, then it must indeed be "true", and helpful to the believer, thus, "that" knowledge is not of sin. This of course, conflicts with the essence that all mankind is the offspring of original sin. And, the solution to this obvious hurdle, was that "god breathed" the words in the bible, thus, god facilitated the writing of the bible, and with god's help, mankind was above sin at the moment they scribed the books of the bible...
Anyway, to the point. We are not considered by "most" Christian theology/tradition (per my experience) to be "corrupt, sinful, deluded, and immoral by eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" in a processual way.
We are of sin because of ancestry... and the attributes that were handed down through the bloodlines... and the attribute most cited as the foundation for all sin passed down is - desire. And desire, can be founded as good or evil... a desire to hearken to the words of a transcendent god via even a proselyte is a good thing, yet the desire to be as knowledgeable as god is not necessarily a good thing (see the Tower of Babel story).
To know "of" god, is not the same as to "know" god. To "desire" to "know" god via "knowledge" is not one of the "good" desires to hold. The Jews to this day do not dare write the full name of god (they typically write G-d), as that suggests they have an elevated level of knowledge regarding god, a knowledge that raises them above and beyond knowing "of" him...
Desire again is a theme that runs throughout the bible itself, and continues throughout catholic tradition in many forms... for instance, there are the seven deadly sins...
1-Lust (Latin, luxuria)
2-Gluttony (Latin, gula)
3-Greed/Avarice (Latin, avaritia)
4-Sloth/Laziness (Latin, acedia)
5-Wrath/Anger (Latin, ira)
6-Envy/Jealousy (Latin, invidia)
7-Pride/Hubris/Vanity (Latin, superbia)
When any of these topics are "sought" out by someone, they are said to desire that which is "sinful". But, its the "desire", that propels one to even "think" about sinning, its that genetic something that has been passed down for thousands of years that "causes" us to seek "sin"... Attaining/Desiring knowledge, is no less sinful an act when placed as the "8th" deadly sin, if in fact it brings about the unbalance of humanity...
The Jews have been recognized, although not in much writing (perhaps it's good for book fodder), as presenting the "first" deadly "sin"... and like tradition, the Roman Catholics followed suit, by suggesting the other seven - but again, as usual they were late to the god game or of having any "original" thought. In short, they extended what the Jews were already teaching via oral tradition - the sin of desire.
The Catholics just applied "desire" to categorical areas that were prevalent at the time of their writings. In short, it was a sin to be "greedy", thus, one must pay penance and feel "good" about it, when a man of the cloth required payment - very rewarding for the church indeed. A fool with money is soon departed... and the Catholic priests obviously thought... gee, if they are going to engage in frivolity, they can give us the money, as we would be the better stewards... making themselves, in theory not greedy, but "prudent" - I call it greedy, and this greed has been cinemized via movies such as Robin Hood, etc.
Anyway, "desire" is the prime motivator for our original sin... there are many religious and philosophical belief systems that suggest that "desire" is in fact the root of suffering... some belief systems would go as far as suggesting that detachment from material goods allows one to examine the truth of need vs. want - where "wanting" places a person in a position where they can be controlled. Some economic systems are built on the premise of creating "value" and "materialism" in order to keep its citizens focused on what they can "see", like the magician you spoke of, and not necessarily what is hidden (the theory of economics, etc.)
The tree of knowledge represents that "material" something that... when desired in excess, becomes sinful... There was the potential for the Jewish God to be questioned, as the Jewish God was more Natural and of the substance of life/reality/universe... Christianity placed god outside of the Natural reality, and beyond any mortal "knowledge", in a transcendent state, its how they solved the unending questions being posed by philosophers and thinkers of their time... The response from many Catholic Bishops to questions became "only god knows", and "have faith"... that we (Catholic Bishops) will act on god's true will (truth).
This theme has been threaded in modern day cinema, as secular entertainment, albeit... I wonder how many actually get the point being made and the parallels with ancient Christianity...
Jurassic Park (1993):
Dr. Ian Malcolm: I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it!"
The deriving of knowledge without "discipline" can create travesty in life, and the Garden of Eden in theory, was the "genesis" for the "unchecked" and "undisciplined" desire for "knowledge". Eve failed in her ability to "control" her desire, and thus, through her experience (eating the apple) she became knowledgeable/aware of certain aspects of her reality. This is a lesson to parents of children, and to societies who hold knowledge that when held by "closed minded" individuals/groups, they can inflict suffering that extends to others.
John Blatt: "[Another thing to remember is that this is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - this again, is very subtle control, because it states that the knowledge to be had is either Good or Evil."
Again, the primary sin (thing to avoid) is "desire", the object happens to be "knowledge", but I agree, knowledge... depending on how it is "obtained", through disciplined rigor (educational institutions are supposed to be engaged in forcing disciplined discovery)/undisciplined stupor (the local fanatic club is all over this one), can be either good/positive or evil/negative.
John Blatt: "How do you control the thinking of mankind? Just look at the religions that hold up the Tree of Knowledge at its beginning and you will see. Programming genius."
As you attested, knowledge could be "good" or "evil", not necessarily always "evil".
I would concede that this "topic" is not one hears on Sunday sermon, because it calls into question the very roots of religion - knowledge, and which parts are "good" and which parts are "evil". The genesis of religious "knowledge” begins in "genesis", where knowledge is derived through unbridled desire.
The consequences for humanity and women in general; damnation for all of humanity through original sin (per Catholic tradition, as original sin is not in the bible per se), bleeding/menstruation, child bearing pain, etc., etc.
Women are to be subjugated below men, as woman was the fall of humanity. The physical trials they experience, is considered evidence for Eve's sin, and to this day, women are considered slightly better than farm animals in many Muslim nations. Women, in general must "hide" their face in "shame" via a burqa as a daily reminder that they must "submit" to the "will" of the male, because the "male" is obviously more prone to making a well-disciplined decision.
A thought provoking thread, enjoyed the read.
Muslim:
Fatwas published:
"Fatwas are published opinions by Muslim religious scholars. They are non-binding in law. But Muslim believers are expected to follow them. In Egypt, a number of Fatwas have been issued by the influential Egyptian Fatwa.
Committee on FGM:
--1949-MAY-28: They decided that it is not a sin to reject female circumcision.
--1951-JUN-23: They stated that female circumcision is desirable because it curbs "nature" (i.e. sexual drive among women). It stated that medical concerns over the practice are irrelevant.
--1981-JAN-29: The Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar (the most famous University of the Islamic World) stated that parents must follow the lessons of Mohammed and not listen to medical authorities because the latter often change their minds. Parents must do their duty and have their daughters circumcised.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm
There is "no" other reason to mutilate the female genitalia, other than to stifle female "desire".
In this case i suggest that the portal to discover the universal truth is only through the individual experience of the subjective truth.
It can not be achieved by committee.
In other words, we can never become a member of the "universal truth religion" except by individual personal experience that satisfies our personal sense of being.
I've seen it expressed as being part of a religion that has only one teacher and one follower, both being the same individual person.
This "universal truth religion" however would be available only to an individual that is alone (or in this case actually "all one".
When the universal truth is realized all divisions and forms vanish. The individual begins to lose the bounderies of self and living entities become as a mirrow. One sort of desolves into this unorganized truth religion until even the religion vanishes and the individual realizes its true being.
and so on...
john
:-) Just musing... Does Existence promote Truth? -or- Does Truth promote Existence?
Kahlil Gibran suggests in The Prophet; On Self-Knowledge... 'Say not, I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth"'. and continuing... 'Say not, "I have found the path of the soul.", Say rather, "I have met the soul walking upon my path,"'
Does our truth unfold before Existence, or does Existence unfold to bear its Truth before us?
Speaking with the same understanding of the universal truth as Gibran, Hazrat Khan put it "the soul of all is one Soul, and the truth is one Truth..."
Regarding existance or reality unfording, I would suggest that it could be better stated as "something/nothing creates a potential and initiates an unpredicted unfolding that is other than the something/nothing that caused the potential in the first place".
I would say that our being exists within that established potential and that we fulfill that potential in a very random and haphazard manner.
john
Am back, had a few chores... "Hazrat Khan", suggests, or so it seems that all is of one, and one is of all, fill in the blank on what that "one" represents...
Reflecting back to the movie City Slickers... Mitch Robbins (Billy Crystal) meets Curly (Jack Palance) who counsels Mitch that life is about one thing. The movie brings the viewer to consider "life" as nothing more complex than that "one thing".
So, it would seem we are viewing the proposal of Khan in the quest for defining that "one" thing... and what is presented as an indicator to the "truth" of that "one thing", is that the one thing is immanent throughout "Existence"... the only fallacy/sin, thus is in separation... a distinction between attributes of the same reality/Existence.
John: '"something/nothing creates a potential and initiates an unpredicted unfolding that is other than the something/nothing that caused the potential in the first place".'
I only highlight to draw notice, to the distinction/separation the statement makes between the "initial" something/nothing that is predicated via potential, and the "final" something/nothing.
A distinction is made between the "general" oneness, and "particular" objects/subsets of the oneness. Since Khan suggests all is of one... then at what level/mode would you presume a distinction could be made? Would that require one to be capable of understanding the entire generality of Existence and drawing a distinction to the particular objects/subsets, or could a presumption be made that the particular object/subset could not in fact be reflexive of the "one thing", based on something/nothing? Thanks for the response.
Regarding the "truth" indicated by the concept of "all is one". Taking strickly a scientistic view of the elemental structure of everyting we would agree is real, literally everything is composed of the same basic element and came from the same single element in origination. It may seem that there is a difference, but under close examination, the distinction vanishes.
A question would be, with all the diversity of form and structure in the universe, why is everything composed of the same basic element that is interchangable and indistinguishable?
Can any rational person, who is aquainted with the basic science of today, question that everything originally came from one single small particle?
Is the truth behind the limited spectrum of energy our eyes sense not the actual indisguishability of matter/engery in it's elemental state?
Is the Universe one enity or unrelated pieces?
...separated from what, in what manner, and how?
Regarding separation being evil, I understand how that can be considered, however, I can not from any perspective accept the existance of actual separation in the sense that anyting can be excluded from the universe or existance in it's elemental form.
Evil, is an ancient and vast concept that i am not inclined to discuss at this time, however, i do not consider my being separate from evil.
And finally for now...regarding the difference between "'general' oneness,and 'particular' objects/subsets of the oneness".
I might say that a general "oneness" is my body. A "particular" object/subset might be an organ or better an atom.
I might further say that a general "oneness" is the universe and my body is a "particular" oject/subset of the universe.
There is no way to exclude or exhile me from the universe and my being was produced in accordance with all prior function of the whole and will intergrate seamlessly into the progression.
My view would be that life, existance and the universe is a game/process that "god/something/nothing" plays with itself.
The singular "god/nothing/something" allows something "other" to exist, which creates an illusion for both the "g/n/s" and the "other".
Most do not realize that the illusion is on both the part of the creator and the created.
The game/proces involves the remembering on both the part of the "g/n/s'" and the "other"
(I feel we, as the "other", expect far too much from the "g/n/s" in this game/process and fail to realize the extent of our role in the game/process. We expect the "g/n/s" to be an active participant when we actually should take the responsibility ourselves.)
And about the "reflective" factor: i would suggest that in any creation there is some indication of the creator and reference to the reality associated with the creator in the art." As..."we might be able to deternime something about the artist simply by viewing and considering the painting".
john
The free ability to project one's influence (free will) could be considered instinctive, and knowledge independent. I suppose it depends on how one would characterize "free will". Would suggest that the probability of "projecting" one's will freely, in order to affect a specific result does increase with knowledge, hence the dominance of free will over the remainder of the animal kingdom.
There are many metaphorical aspects to this one story in genesis... Sure, if god of the bible is the god of all, then it logically follows that god planned out the damnation of all of humanity using a tree, and two mentally sterile humans.
A religionist, who believes in the "literal" acts of genesis, would have to be considered delusion by any competent mental evaluator. A further inspection of genesis would likely spawn a few thoughts... Eve desired Knowledge, and Knowledge is Power, thus Eve desired Power... Adam desired Eve, and Eve was Seductive, thus Adam desired Eve's Seduction/Sex.
There have been renowned biologists in recent years, who have written books on the genetic predisposition of women to secure safety for their offspring, thus explaining their desire for power... with power, the likely survivability of the offspring increases.
Moral of genesis... A normal women, give her an "average" name - Eve... was willing to sacrifice eternal bliss in Paradise and her lover (I'm thinking black-widow here) in order to secure Power (Knowledge). A normal man, give him an "average" name - Adam... was incapable of thinking of anything more than his sexual desire... he was mesmerized by his sexual appetite to the point, that he was incapable of thinking of the "eternal" consequences of his actions... he blindly followed his seducer in hopes that he would be "rewarded"...
Now, obviously there are even finer points that could be made, but in general... knowledge is not good or evil... erratic and unbridled "desire" though... well, a person can lose it all, not only for their "own" eternity... but for the eternity of the collective of humanity as well.
To understand the Natural tendency of the female and male, in theory, provides enlightenment. Throughout history, males and females have been portrayed and treated according to their caricatures... Males, incapable of restraining their desire to fornicate with anything and everything (consider the tendency of society to applaud the male gigolo while chastising the female for equal acts). For the male, it's not the procreation that drives; it's the search for sexual release. Females, ruthless in their desire to procreate, willing to sacrifice as many males as it takes to find a winner in a pool of salivating herds of males.
Did I mention, that in the Talmud, Adam was so "fixated" on fornicating, that he was considered to have had sex with not "one", but "all" animals in the Garden of Eden before trying Eve, to which he found a liking.
Fornication, as Adam and Eve were never symbolically married, and Adam being so pent up with a burning "desire", that he committed bestiality with "every" animal he could find... wonder how fast a perfect squirrel can really run.
The tree is interesting, but reading between the lines becomes much more enjoyable... anyone reading genesis literally not only needs to have their head examined, but they are also losing out on some prime entertainment.
:-) Screen name is "Dave8", but... I suppose Daniel8 is a nice enough name, I've been called worse...
John: "Regarding separation being evil, I understand how that can be considered, however, I can not from any perspective accept the existance of actual separation in the sense that anyting can be excluded from the universe or existance in it's elemental form."
Thus, we are applying our extremely limited subjective experience to the whole of Existence/Universe. Would it not be fair to suggest that the premise can only hold true for that part of the Universe experienced?
In an abstract sense, we can not know "everything" in Existence (we are not biologically capable), thus... that part which is unknown, is in "fact" removed from our Reality... In order to form or postulate a theory, we must apply what we have to an "unknown", because we believe there is potential for consistency (determinism), based on our limited subjective experience.
Would it not be fair to suggest, that the "unknown", (indeterminism) creates a "type" of "separation", between the subjective human (mentally/physically) and the whole of Existence?
It seems hard to conceive of anything that is "separate" in the Universe, even at the most "elemental level", yet... if we begin to postulate the "potential" for a singularity prior to our current physical state of being (pre-birth), then would it not be logical to suggest that there must be at least "some" potential for a "type" of separation when exceeding our bounds of experiential knowledge?
Would you consider the pre-birth "potential" for a Universal singularity, based on "best explanation", to be as valid as the claim of the "potential" for a Universal "non-singularity" based on "best explanation"? One must speculate without observation that there exists "potential" when there is a lack of knowledge, either pre-existence/being or via non-omniscience of the Universe as they live.
Some may suggest that neither can be validated... we can not prove that a Universal singularity existed pre-birth nor a Universal singularity as we live... unless we are to consider ourselves not only the center of the Universe, but the whole of the Universe - and... we are fully aware of "all" interactions within our sphere of reality.
To leave our sphere of reality, places us in a precarious position... if we speculate on the "potential" for a particular scenario, it seems we must also speculate on the equal "potential", not for that particular scenario - especially in matters of cosmology, where the only two dimensions well documented are time and space (locality), which require our body to be at some space in time, to validate any experiential claim.
Else, we begin to validate claims, based on "best explanation", and... don't know about you, but that "unknown" cosmological variable seems to be equally "fertile" ground for the rabid god-bot to speculate, as it does for the theoretical physicist...
Some would annihilate all that exceeds personal temporal existence... I tend to focus on that singularity in the sense that it is "Natural", and this of course removes many religious candidates from entering their god as a competitor on the grounds of Natural ignorance...
Still, however... do you assign great weight when applying your personal subjective experience to areas of the Universe you have not experienced?
John: "Evil, is an ancient and vast concept that i am not inclined to discuss at this time, however, i do not consider my being separate from evil."
Well, it seems we must accept "all" in our sphere of reality that has no separation :-) Evil & Good seem to be a matter of economy... helping a neighbor mow their grass makes the neighbor happy, but makes the local lawn-care company mad...
Dropping a nuclear weapon on an enemy nation, brings about the praise of families who get their loved ones returned from a foreign war, even though innocent civilians are melted into concrete by the sheer heat of the explosion...
Obviously, until there is a singularity of purpose with motivation to act in the human race, there will be those who feel slighted and perceive the one who slighted them as evil... Suppose, that means world peace is off the list of things to accomplish in my life-time, unless our planet is attacked by aliens, and we are forced to work together :-)
The American Indians were forced off their lands, the early American settlers were considered heroes to their national leaders... yet, the same settlers were considered evil by the Native Americans...
One singular "event", spinning in a moral contradiction of both "good" and "evil"... One singular "political candidate", spinning in both "good" and "evil" positions... Joy, knowing the difference and ignoring the noise...
John: "My view would be that life, existance and the universe is a game/process that "god/something/nothing" plays with itself."
So, g/s/n is indifferent to the meanderings of humanity... but, yet humanity must somehow be "part" of the game... especially, if we consider the "potential" for a oneness to exist... I suppose I am not aware of what my atoms are doing in my hands at this moment, and I am playing with my keyboard... yet, if a number of atoms were charged and I got shocked touching anything metal around me - I think I'd notice and attempt to remove that which I don't desire... Perhaps, "Nature" finds a way to "remove" undesirable traits... Suppose Natural Selection and reward for desirable traits would be a close parallel, what do you think?
John: "The singular "god/nothing/something" allows something "other" to exist, which creates an illusion for both the "g/n/s" and the "other".
If there is a singularity, would it not be understood that the g/n/s doesn't have the option of allowing something to "exist" or "not" to exist... One would have to remove the binding thought of the permanence of a singularity, if in fact, the g/n/s is capable of disallowing the existence of "all" things, whether important on unimportant in the process of its existence...
I could conceive of an illusion if the g/n/s is as unaware of "everything", as "humanity" per se is... yet, this g/n/s doesn't have the potential to "disallow" humanity to exist... if the premise is that the g/n/s can't conceive we exist then we have a disinterested blind watchmaker...
However, how are we part of a singularity that goes unnoticed by something that encompasses "all"?
John: "Most do not realize that the illusion is on both the part of the creator and the created."
Thus, the "unknown" in our "universe", which we "may" consider "potential", is that which we must seek in order to resolve the illusion of a partial reality... and... in much the same manner, the indifferent Nature of the Universe creates a blind spot/illusion during "it's" existence?
John: "The game/process involves the remembering on both the part of the "g/n/s'" and the "other""
Thus, we now have an indifferent Universe, which stores memories... of which, no memories exist specifically of humanity in any part...
John: "(I feel we, as the "other", expect far too much from the "g/n/s" in this game/process and fail to realize the extent of our role in the game/process. We expect the "g/n/s" to be an active participant when we actually should take the responsibility ourselves.)
Yet, when speaking from the point of view - "other", one is postulating far too much on behalf of a g/n/s for there to exist a viable "illusion" from an "other" perspective... a true "illusion", is something that we can only perceive by "external" observation...
To speak of the "intent" of a g/n/s, such as "indifference", and it's/the potential to "store" memory... one must know more about it, than it does about humanity... if not, and we are equal in our ability to perceive "its" modus operandi, then it should be capable of reciprocating awareness... thus again, removing the "illusion" from both ends of the equation...
However, let's suggest that the minuscule subset of humanity goes unnoticed by g/n/s in the vast array of a Universe... We are posited to become its operator, in order to get its attention...
In short, humanity must become the dominant cognizant force in order to project its influence, so to wake up a sleeping giant… on an indifferent, and potentially un-programmable/totally inert Universe... This is an endeavor that must start from the presupposition, that the Universe (g/n/s) is "not" indifferent and can be influenced, and that it is not "totally" inert... that there is "something" about this g/n/s that compels one to believe it must cling to a mutually beneficial relationship, typically one that would suggest survival in an interdependent state... where both parties consider their mutual existence one that is "valuable"...
If we (humanity) are to be considered the single atom within the Universe body... I am compelled to ask you... would you really care, or even conceive that an "atom" would need to be "considered" as a critical component for your "survival", or positing such an influence that you would have to seriously "consider" saving a single atom? Especially, if you had the entire Universe to yourself, and could accumulate/create as many "other" atoms as you would possible care to? May we presuppose while we are at it, that "we" as humanity, may not be the "only" atoms available to this indifferent g/n/s, but that there may well be many "others" out in that "unknown" where "potentially" anything can be, or not...
John: "And about the "reflective" factor: i would suggest that in any creation there is some indication of the creator and reference to the reality associated with the creator in the art." As..."we might be able to determine something about the artist simply by viewing and considering the painting".
Agreed, yet the paintbrush may likely be wielded by nothing more than indifferent energy... Suppose we must keep an eye of wisdom at the center of out attention in order to find peace… Have a great one.
Having spent many years being considered “too far out there” by my family and people in my midst, and being thought of as a religious and spiritual whore that will accept intimate intercourse with about any religion or spirituality, I have come to enjoy the quiet solitude of my personal contemplations.
Frankly, regarding spiritual matters, I have never experienced a religion or spiritual endeavor that did not give me some benefit and leave me with some fear and concern regarding the religion. For this reason I have never been able to settle down with just one.
I’ve gained from all… Zoroaster to Ram Dass and beyond…and been intimate with every thing from wicca to sufi. When someone asks we what my religion is, to be honest, I would have to include a list too long and paradoxical to seem valid.
One of the things that has benefited me most is correlation and comparison. Finding the same basic information concealed in various manners within religions and such (like freemasonry and the Rosae Crucis) has allowed me to see the same information expressed (and concealed) from a variety of perspectives.
Almost always finding the same basic information at the core has lead me to a certainty that is perhaps unwarranted. Perhaps I delude myself to hold off the hounds of bewilderment.
This dialectic, however, is very fascinating and interesting to me. I am not interested in holding a “position”, however, because I feel sure we can find agreement in your logic.
So in the tradition of the classic Greeks, I will seek to further our dialect, somewhat, for the sheer enjoyment of it.
There is an essay on a website I read recently that would relate to our discussion: “www.mysticshaven.com/es_goodevil.htm”. Oddly enough it appears to me to address some of the issues we are considering.
I admit, however, that I have developed a bias that affects all else. I would describe myself as a “mystic” and therefore feel it is sufficient to suggest that there is knowledge and awareness to be had simply by sitting mindlessly with a receptive attitude toward the potential of communion with something people call God, Goddess, Allah, etc.”
After making this suggestion to anyone, in my mind, the person will either discover this for himself or herself or not. Of what I speak is only valid by individual experience. A person cannot validate my experience and I cannot validate their experience. However, there is a “mystical tradition” that would certainly qualify as a bias on my part. I would quickly point out that there is no mystic religion, theology, or authority, however, and there is nothing a person can join to be a mystic.
No one should take what I suggest as valid unless they can validate it themselves. This has always been the mystic way. In referring to the “mystic way” I indicate a solitary and individual quest for reality by a skeptical mind and hesitant heart. A person can tell me about it, but it is not real to me unless I can experience it for my self.
What is the “it”? Edgar Casey called it the “astral plane” if I remember correctly. I believe Carl Jung called it the “Collective Unconscious”, I cannot explain it, but, by my experience, when we connect with what I will call the “intellect of the universe”, something connects back that expands understanding and awareness in the individual beyond their personal experience of reality. It is as though a person tunes into a source of awareness and knowledge beyond themselves. It can also seem as if something receptive has been established on the other end. I hesitate somewhat to describe what the experience is for me, because I assume each individual would describe the experience differently and does not have to meet my description of the phenomenon to be valid for another individual.
Typically, however, such an experience will effect a change in the personality of the individual that becomes more obvious over time. Because the understanding and awareness does not come in words and concepts it is also difficult to frame the experience in language. Humans have been using meditation and prayer, however, for this purpose over history and much has been written regarding the experience. “The Awakening” by Pir Vialyat Inayat Khan, who recently passed away, is a brief and excellent handbook for guidance toward a personal mystical experience.
I will say that one aspect of the “mystic experience” seems to be a deep realization that nothing is separate. However, as Dave8 might say, ‘this on the surface is a limited subjective experience imposed on the whole of existence’.
The mention of “pre-birth” by Dave8 validates to me that the individual is a product of the whole, simply individualized for a period of space/time. The process of death and reintegration further supports the concept of the homogenization of it all. I would model it as existence being an ocean. A portion of the ocean can be scoped up and contained separately in a vessel, however, when the vessel is emptied back into the ocean, the separation is indistinguishable. It's all ocean at all times in reality.
Dave8 mentioned, “until there is a singularity of purpose with motivation to act in the human race, there will be those who feel slighted and perceive the one slighted them to be evil…suppose, that means world peace is off the list …”
I feel this is the point. Until we realize our unity and the singularity of our being on earth and in the universe, there can be no world peace. However, should we all realize our unity, then heaven on earth would surely be at hand.
I feel we are evolving toward total enlightenment of humankind and a paradise of mutual understanding and love on earth. Will it be in our lifetime? It is for us to decide.
Further as a side point regarding the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. While I certainly would not point to protestant biblical text as credible, however, I do read the text quiet differently, and understand the implications of this text and the original Hebrew to be very different than I am reading in this posting.
Adam and Eve did eat the fruit and consume the forbidden knowledge from the tree and went on to populate the entire earth according to the text. While Adam and Eve were chastised by God, I do not find any thing that says they went to Hell or were sentenced to Hell. In fact the Hebrew version of this story implies far more was gained by humankind and is retained by humankind than God intended. The implication of this story touches what I refer to as the “Hidden and concealed knowledge of the inner sanctum”. Read Genesis, chapter 3, verse 22, 23,24:
“And the Lord God, said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”
The text indicates that humankind obtained and holds much more “power” than God had intended. In fact God attempted to put a guard on ”The Tree of Life” to keep mankind from obtaining this knowledge as well.
I have mentioned the “Tree of Life” previously, and some among us continue to seek that knowledge even today.
john
j.
No offense, welcome to the site... I have been here a while, I perch here often... more times than others depending on my locality in the world/work habits ;-)
John: "Having spent many years being considered “too far out there” by my family and people in my midst, and being thought of as a religious and spiritual whore that will accept intimate intercourse with about any religion or spirituality, I have come to enjoy the quiet solitude of my personal contemplations."
Congratulations, a free mind is a great thing, personal contemplation keeps me sane as well... I am presented by family as "spiritual", meaning I'm on a journey (their definition)... The family uses words with dual meanings, it gives everyone what they seem to want ;-)
Spirituality could mean, I am on a journey to self-enlightenment, aren’t we all on some journey, but... many people "accept" the word "spiritual" to mean "religious" as they paint the word with comforting colors they are accustomed to... family tends to allow many to paint as they please... allowing people to remain in their comfort zone is much easier than attempting to provide therapy via dialectical psychology.
John: "Frankly, regarding spiritual matters, I have never experienced a religion or spiritual endeavor that did not give me some benefit and leave me with some fear and concern regarding the religion. For this reason I have never been able to settle down with just one."
All belief systems do have a story/history, and I find people watching interesting... I could sit at the airport and just watch for days, picking out the little subtleties that go by unnoticed by most... but mean so much in the true understanding of that person. I find that a person exposes their blind spots out in the open often, because they are not aware of them... but those blind spots not only reveal thought patterns, but a part of their history, and I find that people watching allows me to learn and experience them... even if we never have to meet...
Plato: "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle."
I quote philosophers, thinkers, etc., many times... I may not necessarily agree with how they built an entire philosophy and the resulting message... but I still admire the little pieces of their philosophical house at times... I don't mind admiring the paint job, but I would likely not buy too many philosophical houses that have been built throughout history ;-)
John: "I’ve gained from all… Zoroaster to Ram Dass and beyond…and been intimate with every thing from wicca to sufi. When someone asks we what my religion is, to be honest, I would have to include a list too long and paradoxical to seem valid."
It would be like... let's say, looking at a bunch of houses and picking out all the houses, because each one seemed to have the little subtle things that begged admiration; one house has a nice deck which allows a host to throw parties, one has a pool that allows one to exercise and relax on their own time, one has a spa, etc., etc.
An explanation, to those who have expectations that one can only admire, and worship the attributes of "one house", create the atmosphere of paradox for those who are open minded - it's not the reverse. Being flexible and open minded allows one to smile at those things they admire...
I remain silent in contemplation among many, because a single comment around them is akin to validating the value of their entire philosophical/religious house. Typically, because their sphere of reality is so shallow, that all they can see is the wall, they have not become secure enough to step back and see the rest of the crumbling foundation, etc. - at times. I don't tend to feed, hopelessness, nor do I tend to reward myopicness. I do tend to care though, because the sheer fact that many are unable to step back means they are insecure or believe they will "lose" something in such an endeavor.
John: "One of the things that has benefited me most is correlation and comparison. Finding the same basic information concealed in various manners within religions and such (like freemasonry and the Rosae Crucis) has allowed me to see the same information expressed (and concealed) from a variety of perspectives."
True… tis why I mentioned the eye of wisdom, etc., I can admire your eclectic search... your art has revealed something of it's creator ;-) There is nothing wrong with house hopping, and window-shopping; those who are secure in their life don't see threat, only potential...
John: "Almost always finding the same basic information at the core has lead me to a certainty that is perhaps unwarranted. Perhaps I delude myself to hold off the hounds of bewilderment."
It is human to seek shelter... we start building mental rooms to live within early on... our rooms over time, are surrounded by other rooms within the house, etc... Humans build themselves into a room, it provides layers of security... it takes many years, an entire life, and perhaps for some - never, to be able to walk out of the room and find their way outside of the house. The hounds of bewilderment could pique our curiosity, or freeze us in our tracks, it's our decision, at times, we just need an outside perspective/voice to understand we have options... that there really is an outside of the room, and real people are alive out there, and likely enjoying the wonderment :-)
John: "This dialectic, however, is very fascinating and interesting to me. I am not interested in holding a “position”, however, because I feel sure we can find agreement in your logic."
Likewise, I tend not to hold a position either... philosophy or, if one prefers theosophy can be both a position and a process of inquiry... I tend to accept that my house must change to meet new environmental factors I was not aware of, thus I adopt a processual method for building... my house, is thus... never finished. But... I do like the companionship of friends while I build, and there is nothing wrong with honest work ;-)
John: "So in the tradition of the classic Greeks, I will seek to further our dialect, somewhat, for the sheer enjoyment of it."
Sounds great :-)
John: "There is an essay on a website I read recently that would relate to our discussion: “www.mysticshaven.com/es_goodevil.htm”. Oddly enough it appears to me to address some of the issues we are considering."
Interesting read... I notice the correlation that g/n/s is considered to be a conscious being, albeit in what would be considered a "dream state" of sorts... some religious themes would call that a veil between humanity and the g/n/s. As well, the g/n/s is given total responsibility for the creation of good & evil and is the sole progenitor for all deeds, be either good or bad, the g/n/s created the "potential". And, potential opened a portal for diversity of willed/unwilled actions... The analogy uses a lot of metaphor...
John: "I admit, however, that I have developed a bias that affects all else. I would describe myself as a “mystic” and therefore feel it is sufficient to suggest that there is knowledge and awareness to be had simply by sitting mindlessly with a receptive attitude toward the potential of communion with something people call God, Goddess, Allah, etc.”
Being an open channel to absorb information, allows one to find the potential for inner peace, which allows them to leave their house... and enjoy the view.
John: "After making this suggestion to anyone, in my mind, the person will either discover this for himself or herself or not. Of what I speak is only valid by individual experience. A person cannot validate my experience and I cannot validate their experience."
Agreed, although in the general we are likely to come close, it's during the inspection of our experience we are not capable of comparing sufficiently... our ability to communicate effectively, and cohesively in regard to states of mind, experience, etc., is so vague that even if we entered a common process we would fall short during the communication process (linguistically). At this point, non-verbal communication appears to be, equal to or superior to common language, per some whom conduct research.
John: "However, there is a “mystical tradition” that would certainly qualify as a bias on my part. I would quickly point out that there is no mystic religion, theology, or authority, however, and there is nothing a person can join to be a mystic."
But... one can surely accept that they are part of the same whole/one, and in that, there is a common bond and community at some level :-) Lets call it the authority of Nature? Of which, we are not only a member of the family, but willing/non-willing participants...
John: "No one should take what I suggest as valid unless they can validate it themselves. This has always been the mystic way."
This suggests that one can assert there is a process by which others can employ in order to test information... but, it requires the individual to accept the process, and validate that information derived from that process, be epistemologically valid, to the point of having value.
John: "In referring to the “mystic way” I indicate a solitary and individual quest for reality by a skeptical mind and hesitant heart. A person can tell me about it, but it is not real to me unless I can experience it for my self."
If I paint a picture, and tell you how beautiful it is, I realize you will not get the same understanding unless you look at the painting for yourself... reality, seems to be an ever-changing masterpiece.
John: "What is the “it”? Edgar Casey called it the “astral plane” if I remember correctly. I believe Carl Jung called it the “Collective Unconscious”, I cannot explain it, but, by my experience, when we connect with what I will call the “intellect of the universe”, something connects back that expands understanding and awareness in the individual beyond their personal experience of reality."
Filling the gaps, where we intuitively understand, gaps exist. Sometimes, people, places, objects, etc., are the missing pieces that when located and fixed in our mental map, give us a clearer understanding of the whole picture... we are continuously engaged, subconsciously/consciously in the deconstruction and reconstruction of our reality... we use methods to model this mental reality... some people, realize after reconstructing a mental reality from the pieces of information they hold, that there are gaps, and missing links... there is relief at times, in knowing that the pieces must exist out "there" somewhere...
John: "It is as though a person tunes into a source of awareness and knowledge beyond themselves."
Or becomes more intrinsically conscious of the mental picture they overlay on reality... which may create an exact match, or... maybe not... when a match isn't perfect, a conflict arises and we are compelled to continue to deconstruct and reconstruct mental information...
John: "It can also seem as if something receptive has been established on the other end."
Interesting that two people could come together, and both be a missing piece for the other... I have heard the term soul-mate, etc., etc., to describe the meeting of someone who presents that certain "something" that was missing in the bigger picture... The movie quote in Jerry Maguire... "You complete me"... Sappy, but relevant... each person filled something in each other’s life that was missing. Sometimes, a piece has to be missing before there is the feeling of loss in the incomplete picture once held, that brought about comfort, etc.
John: "I hesitate somewhat to describe what the experience is for me, because I assume each individual would describe the experience differently and does not have to meet my description of the phenomenon to be valid for another individual."
I have had experience, that could be construed as hallucination... but, arguing the point, isn't all of our cognizant affairs and how we build our mental reality sort of an optical illusion per se anyway... I mean, we only have these smaller pieces of a bigger puzzle, and our mind continues desperately to make the pieces form a more "complete" picture... I believe we are compelled by Nature to engage in such activity, as this strife/tension pulls us forward to "reconstruct" the next version of life in the Universe...
There are certain truths, that I have found to be constant, and deconstruction and reconstruction, which is supported by the observation of continual "change" is inevitable, our very homeostasis requires this process in order for us to maintain sanity in our lives. Nothing is as it appears, and when it appears, it will change...
On Abraham Lincoln: "It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: 'And this, too, shall pass away.'"
To refuse to allow Nature to work within us, to "create" us through this continual process of "change" via reconstruction and deconstruction, creates tension and "strife"... it places a person outside of balance, per se... If one thread runs through orthodox religious belief, its the total adherence to their steadfast goal of "non-change"... it causes unnatural and highly stressful and unhealthy manifestations.
Its not that I don't mind reading the words of a book, or some magic spell somewhere, etc., I just don't particularly feel like challenging Nature to the point of my own demise... I find that stubbornly ignorant and hubristically unintelligent...
Stephen Hawking: "“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”"
We don't have to buy the whole philosophical house, but yet, for those standing back far enough, we must accept the beauty of a statement that seems to ring true in "every" account that we can apply the statement to in our lives... This statement rings true, without exception, thus, it may not necessarily be a Universal Absolute Truth, but its good enough for me to use in the reconstruction of my mental picture of reality... There is no "conflict" with that statement and my mental reality, or within my current sphere of physical (locality) reality...
John: "Typically, however, such an experience will effect a change in the personality of the individual that becomes more obvious over time. Because the understanding and awareness does not come in words and concepts it is also difficult to frame the experience in language. Humans have been using meditation and prayer, however, for this purpose over history and much has been written regarding the experience."
I agree, communication must evolve... non-communication is sometimes more "important" in the exchange of a moment, than sound...
John: "“The Awakening” by Pir Vialyat Inayat Khan, who recently passed away, is a brief and excellent handbook for guidance toward a personal mystical experience."
How do you perceive the word mystical? Is it something beyond knowledge, or is it within the grasp of human cognition? Maybe I am biased in focusing on the more "traditionally used" word, to suggest there is that which is "unknown", but "yet"... known "enough" to talk about in great detail. Metaphor, is used to talk in the general, and... of course, there could definitely be a discussion on whether talking in the general is any more valuable than talking in the particular, but... aren't we compelled to "deconstruct" the word "mystical" so that we can understand it in view of all of the other meanings that one word could mean?
John: "I will say that one aspect of the “mystic experience” seems to be a deep realization that nothing is separate. However, as Dave8 might say, ‘this on the surface is a limited subjective experience imposed on the whole of existence’.
If we are there, wherever "there" is, then there is no honesty in denying it :-)
John: "The mention of “pre-birth” by Dave8 validates to me that the individual is a product of the whole, simply individualized for a period of space/time. The process of death and reintegration further supports the concept of the homogenization of it all. I would model it as existence being an ocean. A portion of the ocean can be scoped up and contained separately in a vessel, however, when the vessel is emptied back into the ocean, the separation is indistinguishable. It's all ocean at all times in reality."
Agree, but even when a portion of the ocean is scooped up in a bottle, there is still a "link" between it and the ocean it was removed from; physically, spatially, mentally, linguistically, etc., etc. We break out rules to inspect the separation, but that separated water is still in the same Universe that the ocean resides in, it's all still part of the same bowl of soup.
John: "I feel this is the point. Until we realize our unity and the singularity of our being on earth and in the universe, there can be no world peace. However, should we all realize our unity, then heaven on earth would surely be at hand."
Perhaps, after a few more billion years of Universal deconstruction and reconstruction, we, it, is, g/n/s will conform to become one harmoniously... and thus, no longer "exist" in Nature as a sensor to the affects of reconstruction and deconstruction... we will finally enter into a state, where strife no longer "exists" - the religious may call that heaven.
John: "I feel we are evolving toward total enlightenment of humankind and a paradise of mutual understanding and love on earth. Will it be in our lifetime? It is for us to decide."
Well... As much as I would like to believe we are able to control the deconstruction and reconstruction of those variables within our Universe... I would reserve the belief, that Nature is in its own cycle of reconstruction and deconstruction... Its hard for me to envision humanity as "controlling" the entirety of the Universe, so that, the invisible perpetual process of reconstruction and deconstruction becomes controlled. I am humble enough to admit, there are parts of the Universe I don't know exist in the "more particular", I can generally see entire patches of Universe in the sky, but I can not suggest that I can a rich working experiential knowledge of that part of the Universe... perhaps, epistemology, is a follow up discussion...
John: "Further as a side point regarding the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. While I certainly would not point to protestant biblical text as credible, however, I do read the text quiet differently, and understand the implications of this text and the original Hebrew to be very different than I am reading in this posting."
Agreed, I implied that metaphorically it could be read differently, especially in light of the diversity of belief on this thread and site... I took the Jewish view, through cross-examination of their Talmud and Torah... Males are conquerors, women are sustainers, and we are Naturally driven towards those ends... we exist in a state of "strife", which through discipline can become balanced and fruitful for a couple, and further for all of humanity.
John: "Adam and Eve did eat the fruit and consume the forbidden knowledge from the tree and went on to populate the entire earth according to the text. While Adam and Eve were chastised by God, I do not find any thing that says they went to Hell or were sentenced to Hell."
Agreed, actually once there was an understanding in their places, harmony was reached, and Adam live for quite a long time, despite the fact that "god" threatened to kill them if they partook of the fruit.
John: "In fact the Hebrew version of this story implies far more was gained by humankind and is retained by humankind than God intended. The implication of this story touches what I refer to as the “Hidden and concealed knowledge of the inner sanctum”. Read Genesis, chapter 3, verse 22, 23,24: “And the Lord God, said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."
A metaphor for accepting responsibility for wrongdoing... a just god overseeing petulant and disobedient children, who were driven by desire, and lacked the knowledge and discipline to control their Natural urges. A lesson was learned per your statement by Adam, and thus, knowledge was obtained through experience. Adam learned from the school of hard knocks.
Rita Mae Brown: "Good judgment comes from experience, and often experience comes from bad judgment."
Pearl S. Buck: "One faces the future with one's past."
John: "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” The text indicates that humankind obtained and holds much more “power” than God had intended. In fact God attempted to put a guard on ”The Tree of Life” to keep mankind from obtaining this knowledge as well."
A warning that "knowledge", can be destructive especially for a species driven and compelled through their existence with biological urges, which manifest in desire. "Knowledge" becomes the means to an end, and the end is one, which a person desires. Again, the Tower of Babel is another story, which promotes the admonishment of humanity when they attempt to become a "god" of equal knowledge or status.
Perhaps, there is wisdom in creating a system that places rigor on the individual to earn knowledge, its that mental strife that becomes more important than the knowledge itself… those who have had to rigorously construct and deconstruct informational pieces together over and over, will likely realize the bigger picture; that they, along with humanity are part of the bigger picture as “one” inseparable community… and thus, they will be less likely to use their knowledge to hurt that which they have become mentally/intimately a part of.
I believe, in my humble opinion, that there exists “too” much unearned knowledge globally… I mean knowledge, not “information”, I make a distinction between the two… knowledge is the synthesis of information. And, specifically that “knowledge” that can be used to leverage/project power over others.
The terrorists of 9/11 were provided informational training, and only enough to fly (not land) a airliner. They didn’t have “knowledge”, nor were the inclined or required to produce documentation that certified them as “knowledgeable”. They wielded enough information via monkey training (for money) to carry out their “desire”. Kind of like knowing where “one apple” from the tree of knowledge exists – just enough to do the job.
John: "I have mentioned the “Tree of Life” previously, and some among us continue to seek that knowledge even today."
I understand. Wondering though, if you held ultimate control of the Universe and you could "suspend" it in an unchanging "state"... how would you describe that "state"? Have a great one.
Most important to me at this point is to add a public disclaimer: As Dave8 mentioned in the prior posting, we are each on a journey…a valid journey. We are observing existence on earth from a multifaceted perspective that provides a vast number of valid and real ways to view anything at any time. I think of it as if we are all a part of “God/Nothing/Something’s” eye on earth. Through us, every aspect and viewpoint is observed. Admittedly, a blurred and somewhat tormented vision at the moment, however, if all involved would simply realize that we are all viewing our Self, we could get on with this “peace on earth”, “heaven is at hand” thing…no one loves anyone more than we love our self.
So, if and likely, I offend a brother or sister human in my rantings here, understand that I am in my place with my limited vision, still on my journey. From my perspective, there are no judgments to be made, or punishments to be suffered, or Hell’s to cross…each and every precious piece of “light” (every soul) is gathered back to the whole…each tiny piece is absolutely essential to the whole. There is nothing but the “whole” or the” whole in pieces”. Nothing more and nothing less. It cannot be created and it cannot be destroyed…(as Dave8 might say, ‘it can only change’.
For some, however, if so inclined, I would ask that you consider me a part of you and you a part of me and that together we are part of the universe in one being. I would ask that if you do have communion with Deity that you help persuade IT that we are all in this thing together. (End of disclaimer)
I also wonder about the other John whose consideration of the “Tree” caught my attention. John, your points are well taken and I hope we have not veered too far from your intended direction. Hopefully, you and anyone else will contribute more dimension to the verbal meanderings currently underway.
Dave8, in noting the difference in “religion” and “spirituality” allows someone like myself to admit that I’m unsure but still looking. Having some “native” American orientation, it always seemed odd to me that my Dad’s family considered it appropriate to “keep the spirits of our ancestors” alive in our minds and to acknowledge our desire to have their “spirit” presence among us in certain ways; while my Mom’s family were afraid of “ghosts” and did not cultivate their presence in any manner. My dad’s family was very “spiritual” indeed.
Some among us, for good reason, would consider “spirituality” to mean believing in “God” and such. I like the word, as Dave8 said, because it allows people to fit an odd ball, like some of us, into their rational mix… sort of like a “wild card”.
As much a I try (and believe me I have tried) I still have difficulty with the “nihilist/agnostic/atheist’s” perspective. Personally, I would like to be able to believe that “at the end” the lights simply go out…. nothing more. “I wasn’t, then I was, and then I wasn’t again, halleluiah!” I have no problem with that concept if I could just hold it in belief.
I do not agree, but do somewhat envy the person that has satisfied themselves that there is no, what we might call, “deity”, and that we are in a “natural phenomena” that is self-originating and self-perpetuation with no rationale, awareness, or conclusion.
It is easy to see where this leaves a person like me sitting here contemplating my own existence. Science insists that to be rational I must accept that the infinite universe sprang from a finite particle, creating before it, it’s own infinite environment and potential into which it originated. Ok, so the infinite sprung from the finite. Actually, in this case, I do believe them “with my particular slant”.
Now I have to deal with “where did these intellectual concepts and yearnings in my head come from”. The same people that tell me that a million monkeys at a million keyboards would eventually create a coherent story are the same people who say an unthinkable trillion bits of energy/matter exploded from nothing and randomly bumped me and my intellect into existence in an accidental and pointless process.
So,I contemplate something unable to even contemplate! This mindless, thoughtless, unaware, world of particles has no way to realize it accidentally created “pleasure”…it can never know or understand the unimaginable complexities that sprang from its formless simplicity.
So, as much as I would like to think otherwise, I have come to the conclusion that “it is not as simple as that”. It bothers me, however, that the alternative might seem to be, that the prospect of “deity”, means retribution and punishment is a factor. True “enlightenment”, as it has been expressed by mystics and the “messengers” over time, is quite the contrary…it is more like participation in the process…acknowledged, carefully considered, and positive participation because to the “enlightened” we are each a spark of the one “light source” that energizes all living matter with life and intellect”. For this reason, to the “enlightened” what we do to another we do to our Self. I believe a brother said it once like…”do unto others as you would have others do unto you”.
While I still hope not to offend, I do feel this is the time for this to be said out loud:
In the context of discussing the “Trees”, I will take this opportunity to chastise my mystic Jewish brothers (if any chance notice) for withholding the knowledge of the Tree of Life from humankind.
If they read these words, then they know I know and I say to them not “I am” but “We are”.
In good faith some of our Hebrew brothers feel that only they can maintain and use the knowledge of the Tree of Life for the benefit of mankind. They would consider themselves intermediaries and responsible to fix the difficulties that afflict us.
This has failed; those who have held the knowledge hidden have misunderstood and have failed humankind up to now. Since they would deny a being like me access to the knowledge, then they have failed to provide it to one for whom they held it in trust. I have every right to know, as does every other human being on earth. This is the time for all the hidden knowledge to be given to all he people on earth. To the occult I also urge: Open your vaults and remove the veils.
Israel, you should have listened to my mystic brother, and your blood son we call Jesus, when he sought to give the message to all. See what a mockery that has been made of this wondrous human by your abandonment and your denial of his truth.
Unless the knowledge is given to all who seek, it will never bring peace and heaven to earth. The Universe is ours to know and experience and every being has a birthright to know the extent of our power and being.
I feel deep in my heart that there will appear one day an object in the universe that will test us. I have a feeling that either the nations will unite to destroy the object effectively or we will perhaps fail in hatred and turmoil together. I feel there is a rather urgent need for us to awaken to the true reality of our united being. The release and teaching of the knowledge held in the Tree of Life will give us the insight to better affect our destiny.
(Ok, so I got a bit carried away…)
Regarding male and female…I truly feel this is one of the most completely misunderstood aspects of humankind. The “Tree of Life” deals with the male/female aspect of G-d and existence, and hopefully, this will be a subject we can examine together in the future.
To bring a conclusion to all this, Dave8 wondered if I held ultimate control of the Universe and could “suspend” it in an unchanging state…how would I describe that “state”?
I would have to respond “orgasmic” …a state of orgasm. …because this is the state of absolute creative ecstasy.
john
"To bring a conclusion to all this, Dave8 wondered if I held ultimate control of the Universe and could “suspend” it in an unchanging state…how would I describe that “state”?
I would have to respond “orgasmic” …a state of orgasm. …because this is the state of absolute creative ecstasy."
Dan here:
john! This perfectly describes my idea of the perfect way to suspend life here on earth.
Right in the middle of exclaiming "Oh God! Yes! yes!" , and the lights go out, just like they did when Dino was getting it on, and the "big rock" hit, and Dino went home to the lord.
One hundred and seventy-thousand generations of saurs. gone in the blink of an eye.
Dan (I think whatever force created "EVERYTHING" can get along OK without any persuading from us!!!)
My fear is that the strength of America will be so diminished by hatred and destruction by that time that America will be unable to add that essential element to any effective effort to dissuade such an impact in the future. I feel it will require a united effort to avoid the "big rock".
So, Dan, for people like me and our ancestors who would prefer to stay around in such a hypothetical situation, if you have any influence with any force please use it to help dispel the allusion of separation.
john
With ultimate knowledge, would there ever be the excitement of surprise, adventure, exhilaration, that 'rush', etc? As you stated, this topic has generally stayed on the thread of discourse, but I echo your concern that we are not walking down a different path, and wiping our feet on the wrong doorstep, at each interval of discourse :-)
Your post brings about a different dimension, slightly to the ongoing discussion, albeit... the thread encourages discussion regarding a metaphor, that could be philologically construed in so many forms that any and all correlations made to an omni dimensional literary device, would seem pertinent.
Suppose we can continue, until we're told to put a sock in it ;-)
I read through your post, and would like to ask you to envision yourself in that... "...state of orgasm"
John: "Dave8, while this is pleasantly reminiscent of a stroll along a wooded path with a friend, speaking openly about our deepest being, I feel I must remind myself and acknowledge that we are not alone in this discussion."
Well, it is a public forum :-) Dano seems to agree with the premise of a "perpetual orgasmic state" as being desirable. And so, in the "desire" for more "knowledge/fruit", lets walk onward...
I typically talk process, and deconstruct what is produced as knowledge into information, stopping along the way to observe broken links, etc..., When I do construct for coherence, the intent is to show contrast as a secondary method to bring about the attention of the individual who stubbornly believes they live in a one dimensional reality.
Once multi-dimensions are accepted, we move on to which method is best for making decisions in life, etc., etc. For instance, dropping the single dimension of "deity", and opening ones mind up to "other" possibilities, allows for enlightenment to take place... if we accept we do not know all, then of course, we can always learn of new circumstances. As you put it, those singular rays of light, prismatically forming through humanity to form that single light source indicative of "all" colors - wisdom.
Your initial post suggested you were a multi dimensional thinker, thus gate one was cleared... It's very easy to deconstruct thoughts, ideas, etc., but we appear to be i