This is not mine, but I found it interesting.
Song of Storms
~It's rain, it's a storm,
falling across the land,
drowning all your souls,
leaving it alone,
all the thunder and the rain clash into the heaven skys,
taking all your dreams away....~
~A clouded sky,A troubled past
Good things never come to last
Love followed by pain,
Winds followed by rain,
Despite the storms, live for life
A smile can conquer pain and strife
After every storm, Shines light~
Quite a few have claimed authorship of these lines (or many aliases) so I cannot tell you the original writer.
This is not mine, but I found it interesting.
You may detect a few commonalities in this post shared with something else which I will note.
I recommend reading This ("Musings of Self") first to get the foundation of thought this post predicates.
The world I see today is different from the world yesterday. The world has not changed. It is my perspective of it. It's crazy how understanding just a few more fundamental things about yourself and everyone else can make everything seem to make so much more sense. What is even more incredible is where unbelievably provocative implicative ideas, logic, and enlightenments come from. I am not talking of a shallow view of the world when I speak of it in this way. Inversely I am talking about the process of the entire world of humanity as a perfectly reflected image of the individual. The ever so a-like individuals....so predictable. One may ask if humans are so predictable why not predict the future. The problem with seeing the predictability is we cannot see past choices we do not understand (Not enough information to predict it). With enough knowledge about a situation and a person, I propose it would be seemingly obvious as to the ends of the person. Our actions as a group are a reflection of the rash actions of individuals. Certain traits of individuals in a group are exemplified in a group. These traits are not favorable to choice, thought, and free will, but rather these traits are favorable to causality (Cause-and-Effect, Action-Reaction). This concept in itself is fascinating if it is indeed true. I say "indeed true" because at this stage in my development I cannot say I am seeing the real picture, for as before I may be falling to the blindness of ignorance to certain missing concepts. These concepts are fundamental truths of human behavior. I can say with reasonability that most humans if not all are victim to the instinctual effects of causality. As an extension of this Government is also affected by this causality with effects much more exemplified. This I believe may be our end. Life seems to have a natural balance. Things seem to have an auto-correct. I believe it is the causality that promotes this self balancing mechanism (cause-effect, action-reaction.) The anomaly to this balance is a second mechanism that ultimately unbalances this, but is not usually capable of always being expressed. This second mechanism is choice.
This post is an extension of "Musings of Self" and to provide a brief conclusion I believe humans are slaves to the comfortability and autonomy of our emotions and feelings which express causality at its fullest (cause-effect, action-reaction). The other part of that posts concludes that we have do have the power to ultimately control out choices and decisions with our self-will which is weak and usually just passes control to causality instead of careful evaluation and thought of the consequences (which should produce an over-ride of our feelings to do something with a choice to do something we actually want to do.)
Once (if we even can) we learn to control ourselves, think, evaluate, and execute choices, instead of blindly navigating life, it is likely decisions as a group will follow with wise decisions. This would allow the unbalance created by choice to be rebalanced by other choices. This means Goverments and the world in general would fall victim to stability, instead of to a world of imbalances constantly getting slightly more imbalanced.
Choice may not be an unbalance to the self balancing mechanisms of the world, it may just be a problem with causality itself. I have not fully associated Choice as an anomaly in the sense of self balancement. I do believe Choice in itself is an anomaly to the world of predictability and Causality. It is inevitable that if the scale tips too far, a catastrophic recalibration may be required. The larger our species grows the more unstable it becomes, the more sophisticated its action-reactions become - the more the unforeseen consequences are expressed. The main thought that comes to mind as an unforeseen consequence of this nature is Pollution. It is a little known fact that the ocean is every day absorbing more carbon dioxide to balance the earth's atmosphere. The chain consequence of this is that the ocean is becoming more acidic at accelerating rates. There is now a giant trash gyre in the Pacific ocean as well. There is a break point we are approaching where all reefs will die, and the shells of "shelled" fish will dissolve. Algae prevails in such environments. Once an overly massive amount has been absorbed too quickly, it is possible the ocean would also release the absorbed carbon dioxide all at once producing severe effects on the very atmosphere that is vital to our survival. A change of this magnitude would have drastic effects on our life, and may contribute to its end. Our natural resources are running out at the same time. We are nearing the end of the stage where action can have any effect at all. I see this all as a consequence of choices blinded by feelings and autonomy rather than thought-through choices.
"Already, I can see...an emotion that is already blinding you from the... truth...and there is nothing you can do to stop it. "
"I can see the chain reaction - the chemical precursors that signal the onset of an emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason".
"I'm unplugged, apparently free. But appearances can be deceiving"
"The only real truth: Causality... Choice is an illusion"
"We cannot see past the choices we do not understand."
" Because you didn't come here to make a choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you made it."
The popular movie trilogy the Matrix actually introduced me to some of the concepts I used in this post. These thoughts are written on a whim after a time of thinking and are more to help myself work through this to another chain of concepts\ideas\views. These views are probably inconsistent in many ways or only in some. Please post constructive criticisms and I will note them as such.
The above quotes are from the Matrix Trilogy. (Yes its a sci-fi movie but you will find it has much deeper roots if you research it (some of which are in the vedas).)
"Autonomy, emotions, and feelings are the tools of fate. Choice is the tool of fulfilled dreams."
Aug 10, 2008
Will Grows Weak
Self Destruction Prevails
The material held higher than life
Build the walls
Everyone is an enemy
The heart grows cold
A glint of hope remains
In small amounts the warmth of hope hides inside,
Suppressed evermore in time.
Walls ever higher
The power of will failing evermore.
Aug 9, 2008
Please take the following personal discussion as an opinion, and please address it as so with constructive criticism. Please do not mix personal feelings with your arguments if you choose to disagree. I do know this debate is controversial.
This is written with a religious point of view in mind.
The Evolution Debate
In my opinion the contemplation and thoughts of the questions provide a much deeper answer, but not a conflicting answer with the general religious answers. They do not conflict because it is equivocal to viewing the problem from two different views. This is where my problems with people arguing the legitimacy of evolution vs. creationism comes in. God's acts in general are naturalistic in means, and aren't "Pull the rabbit out of the hat." Some find conflictancies in the Adam and Eve story and evolution, but again this doesn't really argue evolution directly but instead argues the starting point. Evolution is in itself a process. Creationalism is a starting point . Scientific and religious views are two sides of the same coin when it comes to looking at things with both views from a religious side. Yes perhaps the sun rises because God made it to, but the mechanisms he designed to make this work are what science explains (religious point of view). Scientific analysis explains in depth how things work. There is increasing evidence for evolution, and I do not see any reason why both can't exist together - because one is a process and one is a starting point. As for consolidation of the starting point of it all I think arguing the intricacies is useless since many people will interpret it differently. Literal interpretation is what some may argue, but the problem with this is in the bible literal interpretation can end up in some very extreme scenarios, stoning the kids probably isn't something very many would condone. Context and interpretation are important things that also must be considered as well as symbolism. With all the possibility for slight personal variance depending on interpretations I don't believe it at all constructive to argue the starting point. I would like to query reader's as to why it's important to argue this minute point. From my opinion the lesson and reason behind the story is more important than the literal story itself. Literal interpretations in the bible don't seem to work all the time, so in my opinion you must take from it what they are trying to actually "say" rather than the literal words. Reading the resurrection stories side by side you will see what I mean, all the accounts of the four describe the small points differently sometimes in direct conflict with each other (how many were present, who showed up, What the tomb was like upon arrival, the presence of the guards, etc. ) These stories were written later and what was meant to be preserved was the stories, ideas, and lessons behind the words for because the words are written with human hands years after small details may vary. Arguing the Creationalism vs. Evolution debate from the point of view of where things started is seemingly pointless. Conclusion? Evolution is a process and creationalism is an initial setup. Evolution is something you can see in real effect as well (as a process.) The physical differences of people in different locations alone is evidence of such. Adaptations occur and things change. Crossbreeding has occasionally produced new "species" as well (Ex: Ligers.) These two arguments alone allow for evolution as a process.
As for the teaching of creationalism in schools - I can honestly say in my opinion this makes absolutely no sense. Evolution is taught as a theory, which has undergone scientific process. Creationalism is purely religious, and teaching creationalism joins church and state which violates the foundations and principles of our country. Teaching creationalism in public schools would by inference produce many more extreme issues. Schools would then by the principle of equality be forced to teach every religions version of "the beginning." Dismissing evolution as an exception is paramount to dismissing all scientific process and denying the existence of everything science shows and produces. The teaching of creationalism would also be capable of expanding religious views of all types into the other areas of science.
One last note, arguing for creationalism in schools, would also mean extreme religions such as Scientology could be taught as feasible as well. I believe this to be completely fair and in my opinion high schoolers should be shown all of their religious options so they can find what they believe in rather than being ignorant of everything else (outside of a school setting in my opinion), I believe many parents would have an objectionable albeit hypocritical view on their children being taught Scientology in school, which is what teaching creationalism in schools is arguing for at the same time.
|"Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts."|
—Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences
I realize this is controversial, and without doubt I probably have something wrong or inconsistent logic. Please point these out, and I will note\address\credit as such.
Your sphere of existence; touch, taste, sight, sound, and smell. We don't usually live outside of what we immediately effect. We see a very localized scope. You see your routine. You see your life. You see the halls you goto school in. You see the buildings you pass every day you goto work. You see your living partners. When thinking, living, and planning you are in the immediate "sphere" of existence with all of these things. These things all affect you and you simply by being there effect them. This is where it stops. You affect these things and your considerations stop there. You must realize that your effects go much further. You produce consequences that you do not usually foresee. These consequences are produced equally by you and everyone else in one giant sum of created effects we call the world. As we roll through time we are losing more and more of any foresight we might once have had. We are changing the world at exponentially accelerating rates. Everyone hides in their bubble. Do you actually expect those you see as over you to fully appreciate anything outside of their own sphere of existence? Put yourself in someone else's shoes, any random person can you see sight outside of their bubble? Can you look past their small world? It's not unexpected to see only our sphere of existence. This is what we live in every day. It is what our life is. The effects in our small sphere are the internal effects. We could care less about what what the external effects are right? Someone else will deal with it. Problem is everyone has the same view as you. Now as our spheres of existence are getting affected quick fixes are being applied. Yet we are still blindly doing things that are ever more affecting our existence, and in the future even threatening it. We do this on a personal scale too. You drink one more even though you won't know what happens between now and when you end up in a ditch. You forgo doing your work now even though there is no reason to. You buy those shoes even though you can't afford them. You buy that car you can't keep collateral on. You reply in rash anger at someone who has slighted you with the possible consequences resulting in your end. You receive an angry assault and make it your immediate vow to destroy everything they are even if it results in your own destruction. See what I did there? We are becoming more and more of a self-destructive species even on the personal levels. Take a look at your own bubble. Then look at someone else's. Stop hiding. See things as they are and don't be blinded by emotions. Remove how you feel in every decision you make. Evaluate it thoroughly.
Aug 6, 2008
It is going to fail.
It is going to hurt.
It will be fun while it lasts.
It is a new feeling everytime.
It cure's the pain inside and turns it to joy.
It's like living for the first time.
It falls apart.
It leaves my soul in pieces.
It finds me again
I let it inside again, even though it's going to fail.
I was raised in a Mormon family. My grandparents were strongly "religious" from the standpoint that they went to church every Sunday and attended many meetings and gatherings outside of the Sunday mass. In my teen years I went to a few Baptist mass' as well. The older I grew the more repulsed I was about religion. To be honest I am still repulsed by many institutions of religions. A -lot of people do not know why they believe what they do. They don't stand on any ground with what they believe. A common religious folk song talks of the foolish man building his house upon the sand and the wise man building his house upon the rock. This is a symbolic lyric. Blind faith is I am sorry to say ignorance. Faith is a thing I do believe in, but I need a reason to have the faith. Otherwise it is equivocal to placing my beliefs in almost anything. Just because I grew up in a religion is not a reason to believe it. My beliefs must stand up to criticism, and I must not be afraid to be the one doing the criticizing. I struggled for years with what was right to believe when it comes to life after death. The problem is that growing up in a religion doesn't make it right. A fellow human saying "this is the right way...." doesn't make him right. There is just over twenty major religions in the world. Christianity is one of the few that is mutually exclusive, and is also one of the newest (You goto hell if you don't believe it.) Every religion has its devout followers willing to die for their beliefs. Every religion has books and works from long ago in history. So how can I know what is right? I pained over this for a long time. My heart just told me to do my best and carry things as far as I could being as objective in my research and evaluation of religions as possible. I prayed, I agonized and thought about it for long periods of time. Introspection into myself actually carried me the closest to God, rather than an external source. The fact is the world is a complex place and if you have to make a mutually exclusive decision in your choice of religion your odds of the right one are low. I was then given a book from a friend at the college who I had some religious discussion with. "The Case for Christ" was a like a wave washing away all my unanswered questions about Christianity's "inconsistencies" and authenticity. The book initially showed me that the bible had authentic origins and also pointed out some very key things like the medical descriptions of Jesus death and that Christianity unlike the second largest religion Muslim had 12 sources verifying the story, with no motive and risk of persecution. There was much much more and I won't go into detail but it basically laid my questions about the inconsistencies of the religion to rest. However, this was short lived. After reading the book, I immediately checked criticisms and reviews of the book. Apologetics were very supportive of it. Scholarly criticisms unfortunately tore the case the book built apart. After reading the cross examination - the book actually pushed me away from God; for I had all my questions at rest, but now there were more fundamental problems. I was forced to contemplate that there may be no God. I pained trying to come up with something to believe in one way over another. The book did make a good point about Islam's Origins being on one founder (Muhammad), which makes it possible to founded on some questionable origins. Christianity did have independent 12 stories going for it, however arguably these can be consolidated down depending on who you listen to on who wrote the accounts with information from whom (The accounts were not written at the time of Jesus but many years later, and possibly with influences from on another making multiple sources one source.) Christianity is the largest religion. It does have alot going for it. It is also one of the few with exclusion (non-believers are treated worse). I still wasn't sure what to believe. I just didn't know. The answer actually came coincidently one day from a great philosopher by the name of Immanuel Kant.
"Kant asserted that, because of the limitations of argumentation in the absence of irrefutable evidence, no one could really know whether there is a God and an afterlife or not, and, conversely, that no one could really know that there is no God and no afterlife. For the sake of society and morality, Kant asserted, people are reasonably justified in believing in them, even though they could never know for sure whether they are real or not. He explained:
All the preparations of reason, therefore, in what may be called pure philosophy, are in reality directed to those three problems only [God, the soul, and freedom]. However, these three elements in themselves still hold independent, proportional, objective weight individually. Moreover, in a collective relational context; namely, to know what ought to be done: if the will is free, if there is a God, and if there is a future world. As this concerns our actions with reference to the highest aims of life, we see that the ultimate intention of nature in her wise provision was really, in the constitution of our reason, directed to moral interests only.
The sense of an enlightened approach and the critical method required that "If one cannot prove that a thing is, he may try to prove that it is not. And if he succeeds in doing neither (as often occurs), he may still ask whether it is in his interest to accept one or the other of the alternatives hypothetically, from the theoretical or the practical point of view. Hence the question no longer is as to whether perpetual peace is a real thing or not a real thing, or as to whether we may not be deceiving ourselves when we adopt the former alternative, but we must act on the supposition of its being real." The presupposition of God, soul, and freedom was then a practical concern, for "Morality, by itself, constitutes a system, but happiness does not, unless it is distributed in exact proportion to morality. This, however, is possible in an intelligible world only under a wise author and ruler. Reason compels us to admit such a ruler, together with life in such a world, which we must consider as future life, or else all moral laws are to be considered as idle dreams… ."
Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant>
The key part lies in:
"If one cannot prove that a thing is, he may try to prove that it is not. And if he succeeds in doing neither (as often occurs), he may still ask whether it is in his interest to accept one or the other of the alternatives hypothetically, from the theoretical or the practical point of view. Hence the question no longer is as to whether perpetual peace is a real thing or not a real thing, or as to whether we may not be deceiving ourselves when we adopt the former alternative, but we must act on the supposition of its being real."["
I can't prove that Jesus is, and I can't prove that he is not what Christianity claims. So i have not succeeded in proving one way or another. It is definitely in my interest to accept him. With Christianity being one of the only major religions that is mutually exclusive to a large extent. It is in my interest to accept it over the others. I am giving credibility to the fact of Christianity being the largest religion, in my conclusion. I was worried about this being insincere belief. However, a little introspection revealed to me that I really can choose what I want to believe. For the information I have this was the best I can do. I choose to believe in Jesus. I also have reasonable ground to stand on, to believe this and I believe my core reasons for belief stands to criticism. Alot of people would cite religious experiences, feelings, or aid in times of need as reasons for belief. This is better than completely blind faith but it is also flawed. A-lot of religious followers of every religion share the same experiences, so you can apply those reasons to any following if that happens to be the thing you would have been following at the time.
I don't believe going to church every Sunday secures you a spot with God. I also get a little sad when I see followers of Christ pushing others away with their religious zealotry and pride. I have my reasons for belief and the rest is on faith.
I don' t want to preach. I don't care if you join a religion or not. I don't like religious zealots and I would not like to become one. This post is not to convince you. Though I hope it does aid you in your journey to whatever end you do decide to choose. I think a lot of followers today are blinded by themselves, and i think they need to go back to the foundations of their beliefs and evaluate what exists if anything and make sure it stands to their own criticisms, and make sure they actually believe the teachings they have attended as part of the beliefs they follow.
Please leave comment with suggested corrections if there is any error in my statement(s.) This is something I hold on a high priority when it comes to ensuring integrity, and is also the first time I've posted this. Peace.
Often quotations and movies expressing a related situation can provide comfort when life gets less than simple.
"A life lived of choice is a life of conscious action. A life lived of chance is a life of unconscious creation."
- Neale Donald Walsch
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
“Retire into yourself as much as possible. Associate with people who are likely to improve you. Welcome those whom you are capable of improving. The process is a mutual one. People learn as they teach.”
“When you meet someone better than yourself, turn your thoughts to becoming his equal. When you meet someone not as good as you are, look within and examine
"Most true happiness comes from one's inner life, from the disposition of the mind and soul. Admittedly, a good inner life is difficult to achieve, especially in these trying times. It takes reflection and contemplation and self-discipline.One of the greatest moments in any body's developing experience is when he no longer tries to hide from himself but determines to get acquainted with himself as he really is."
- William L Shirer
1. V for Vendetta
-Amazing movie on the chain effect one person can instigate.
2. American Beauty
-Great symbolism and brilliant movie, about life, contentment, and happiness.
3. Requiem for a Dream
-About addictions and dreams - very different and very good.
4. Fight Club
-Great movie lots of themes about who you really are.
5. American History X
-Racism and stereotypes. Great movie.
I'd also like to add a special spot for Bruce Almighty. While it is a comedy it's underlying point is something that should resonate in the soul of all. You are capable of doing almost everything in life yourself. Don't abuse offered help, and don't toss everything on his shoulders.
-Amazing movie on the chain effects of one's actions.
I ask myself often why I can't grab control of life. Why can't I do what I want? I want to succeed. I want to take life and make it my own. In order to do this I want to do well in my educational career. I want to complete tasks as they come up. I want to excel. Yet I waste time - why? My mind is of two parts. My soul or me as I am if you prefer, and my other half my emotions, my current desires, and the "autopilot" of my life. When I say "I", I will be referring to me as I am stripped clear of all my emotions and desires. My emotions and feelings convince me on the spur of the moment to take a path of autonomy. I am like the boss in the factory, with a team (my feelings\emotions) recommending minimalistic easy paths.
I have the final decision on what I do. Yet often I let this other part of me decide for me. I let it take control. I fall asleep inside. I wander through life day in and day out, waiting to awaken inside, while this other part of me takes what I am given and reacts. I am making a choice every time I release control. I am responsible for this choice. I cannot claim ignorance of my doings due to the autonomy of my current life. It is I who pass the final decisions on what I do. It is my will that I am talking about. My will is not strong. Resolutions fall under the whim of a feeling of desire to do something. My will releases control and my feelings and emotions take control. I get lost in the tornado of thoughts in my head. I undergo constant analyzation of everything in my life. I feel anxiety. I feel stressed riding the roller coaster of contentment and repression in life. So what is the answer to control? Some would resort to religion to answer this question, but I believe God allows us our own journey in discovery of this purpose, and I believe it to be one of the major purposes of life itself for it is the value of a man.
The answer is I need to wake up.
I need to remember what I have and forget what I don't.
I need to think about decisions and choices, I need to recognize when I make them, rather than making them without thought.
I need to make decisions to make a life I want, rather than accepting a life that is thrown upon me by life and living in autonomy.
I need to recognize that my problems, and my faults are my own fault and my responsibility.
I need to recognize that a choice today has consequences tomorrow and what those consequences are.
Most of all I simply need to say no to the feelings and desires. Sometimes they coincide with what I want. Sometimes they don't. I need to step up and take control and lead myself.
I must realize I am my own worst enemy.