Sunday, July 06, 2008

SAVING THE WORLD


Now there's a phrase guaranteed to get as many interpretations as there are people to hear it. Not only are there a myriad varieties of inclusiveness meant when the word, world, is employed, there's at least as many interpretations as to what needs fixing at each level. In the last post I tried to establish the difference in the meaning of the word, nature, when applied to the nature of the universe; the way of everything or when applied to the nature of any of its manifestations as a defining individual characteristic. To save whatever world one finds suffering with whatever malady first requires realizing one's universal commonality; one's essential connection through the nature of the universe, the Tao, to the nature of those things we have always considered to be only others.

I have often mentioned a Hindu principle of the Minahana and the Mahayana, the little boat and the big boat, wherein each individual must learn to understand the way the universe works for their own boat before they can take an oar that will benefit the big boat rather than become another hole in its hull. I have lately come to understand that the big boat is more than merely plying the course of human civilization through the vicissitudes of time, it is a reawakening of our intimate connectedness to the entire universe and a recirculation of its energy throughout our consciousness for a return to a more aware, considerate symbiotic coevolution with our habitat, our life boat and fellow passengers.

One of the confounding things about civilization's rules of communication, language, when applied to the universe is that one must identify and get detached from and outside the myth of one's civilization to see the blinding filter it poses to a free vision of life as it is and the stultifying clot it is in the circulation of original human evolutionary thinking about the vast implications of the universe, yet remain intimately conscious of the ubiquitous energy of awareness at the very essence of each part of whatever level of the universe with which we seem to have our world of problems. Acknowledging such common connections tends to dissolve the annoyed self-righteous approach of fixing other's problems for them in deference to solving our own self interested skew on the world's duty to be our surrogate source of happiness. I am not claiming that there are no problems, but the solutions up to now have been wiggling in quicksand.

I must admit my solution to saving the world is ultimately simplistic: Rather than attempting to change everything in it to suit our own desires, learn to see and respect the the way nature has always been and will be without human civilization's taming, conquering, subduing, commodifying and rearranging the environment and infant humans having fucked it up almost beyond all sense of genetic recognition and intuitive belonging. Civilization is the only element in our lives that requires survival. Just ask the world's indigenous people. Just ask the part of yourself that rejoices on vacation in natural settings.

33 comments:

Lilwave said...

One of the confounding things about civilization's rules of communication, language, when applied to the universe is that one must identify and get detached from and outside the myth of one's civilization to see the blinding filter it poses to a free vision of life as it is and the stultifying clot it is in the circulation of original human evolutionary thinking about the vast implications of the universe, yet remain intimately conscious of the ubiquitous energy of awareness at the very essence of each part of whatever level of the universe with which we seem to have our world of problems.

Wow! That is a mouthful...are you trying to make my brain explode? haha...actually I do believe I understood it.

Civilization is the only element in our lives that requires survival. Just ask the world's indigenous people.

I have to disagree. I think anything living must learn to survive the elements of whatever habitat they are in whether it is natural or man-made. Even indigenous people create man-made things to accomidate their lifestyle and survival such as tools and homes.
For that matter, you could even say animals such as Gorilla's for example, create Gorilla-made things to accomidate their lifestyle and survival. At what point do you decide it isn't how nature intended it to be?

The difference as I see it is this...we possess a power unlike anything else in nature because we have the ability to make choices. Some call it free will.

I know that my life makes a ripple with each choice I make. If done with loving consideration the ripple can help life grow and when it is done with selfish intentions my ripple can destroy. When is the small ripple enough to bring awareness to the entire ocean?

I do feel, however, that to make any change, we should never exclude the impact of nature in the life choices we make. Problem as I see it is not how civilization screwed up nature but what do we do now? What change do we make to correct our actions and at what point do we as individuals even start to care?

gregra&gar said...

At what point do you decide it isn't how nature intended it to be?

I have never supposed nature intends anything. All intentions arise in our attitude toward it as if it were some other thing.

…we possess a power unlike anything else in nature because we have the ability to make choices. Some call it free will.

I hope you realize that you wrote this right after giving examples of animals choosing to seek build shelter and use tools.

And about that free will thing … even though I don't saddle nature with intentions, I definitely see a way to it. Our free will lets us use our intelligence to recognize the way of all things so that we may either live in harmony with it or suffer the consequence of our mindless perversion of it. This is something every being in the universe senses as right and wrong without purpose or intent or gods ever being considered.

Lilwave said...

I hope you realize that you wrote this right after giving examples of animals choosing to seek build shelter and use tools.
Of course I do, but there is a difference in using our thinking abilities for survival and making a choice about the consequences of our actions. We have the ability to go much further than the things needed for simple survival. That is the part we need to be aware of. We need to be able to choose how far to go before we screw it all up.

we may either live in harmony with it or suffer the consequence of our mindless perversion of it. This is something every being in the universe senses as right and wrong without purpose or intent or gods ever being considered.

I agree but there again, you get into the argument of why your right is supposed to be my right and your wrong is supposed to be my wrong.....

gregra&gar said...

but there again, YOU get into the argument of why your right is supposed to be my right and your wrong is supposed to be my wrong.....

I don't suppose any ownership of right or wrong. There is only owning up to ones own responsibility for the results of acting on ones own sense of right and wrong. Do you suppose gorillas only bed down in leaves because they lack our "superior intelligence" that makes us go so much further (in your god only knows what direction) for a spoiled nights rest or that maybe the gorillas, being so much more in tune with nature than we that building a high rise just would not occur to them as beneficial to anything for any reason.

Lilwave said...

. Do you suppose gorillas only bed down in leaves because they lack our "superior intelligence" that makes us go so much further (in your god only knows what direction) for a spoiled nights rest or that maybe the gorillas, being so much more in tune with nature than we that building a high rise just would not occur to them as beneficial to anything for any reason.

So let me get this straight....It sounds like your telling me that the only reason a Gorilla doesn't build a high-rise building is because they are more in tuned with nature than we are so therefore the concept hasn't crossed their minds.
I'm sorry, but no, As amazing as Gorilla's are, I don't think they possess the ability to build a high-rise building no matter what, period.

I don't suppose any ownership of right or wrong. There is only owning up to ones own responsibility for the results of acting on ones own sense of right and wrong.

(in your god only knows what direction)


How can you say that you do not suppose ownership of right or wrong but easily discount the right and wrongs of God? Aren't you taking the ownership of my right or wrong by doing that? You're putting your own law of responsibility on me.

gregra&gar said...

You are a wonderful person with whom to have this discussion. Thank you for sticking with it.

If you took a cave man coming out of caves after the most recent ice age about 14,000 years ago, or more recently and more up your alley, if you took Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden 6,000 years ago, "I don't think they possess the ability to build a high-rise building no matter what, period."

Abilities arise in response to perceived needs. The Anamami tribe in Brazil cannot build high-rises because the need would never arise to make them want to do it or learn how. No one had the ability to incinerate entire cities with one bomb until some self righteous, avowed Christian leader of western civilization perceived a need to do so for the greater good of his own belief system and the obliteration of the heathens.

Please don't confuse the Tao with the ten commandments when I speak of the sense of right and wrong genetically evolved over millennia of experience with the ways of nature by all physical entities manifested. The ten commandments are from a god to beings he has created incapable of figuring out right and wrong for themselves. There is no comparison to be made.

Anyway, how can I discount the rights and wrongs of YOUR God, when you have gone to great lengths to assure me He is not the same one most Christians use to excuse their evangelistically self righteous war against all that are different. I have no idea what your god thinks is right and wrong except what you show me you think is right and wrong.

By the way, I feel confident that you haven't seen my reply to your last comment on my Bored of the Things post because I can't believe you would ever let it pass without further comment.

Lilwave said...

Abilities arise in response to perceived needs.

I disagre because I feel humans don't.

Anyway, how can I discount the rights and wrongs of YOUR God, when you have gone to great lengths to assure me He is not the same one most Christians use to excuse their evangelistically self righteous war against all that are different.

Why do you say "MOST" Christians. When you group something in a neat package like that you loose so much that is otherwise valuable.

God is God is God....
People are people are people....
A person will often use an excuse whether it is God or something else for their self-righteousness. God is just not needed for us to do that. Look at Hitler. He was atheist.

I've not found some new God....
I know many people who are very loving and caring Christians who want nothing more than to do good things for people and the world. They love people right where they are without judgment.

If you read about Jesus in the New Testament you would probably really like him. His life never included half the man-made crap that has been loaded into the various Christian religions. In fact, most of the things he addressed were directed toward correcting the ways of the church.
Jesus doesn't have a carrot and stick approach. Man does that.

Did you ever read "The Shack"?

gregra&gar said...

"'Abilities arise in response to perceived needs.' I disagre because I feel humans don't."

I have no idea what your disagre meant.

Why do you say "MOST" Christians. When you group something in a neat package like that you loose so much that is otherwise valuable.

If I was into neat little packages I would have said "ALL" Christians, but I wanted to save so little that is otherwise valuable.

God is God is God....

Does this mean allah is your god with a different name? Was Pan your god as a horny lad? Or … are you saying that any concept of god must lead to Christianity to be valid.

If you read about Jesus in the New Testament you would probably really like him.

How judgmental of you to assume that I haven't read the Bible. I may not carry it around like an instruction manual but I understand it at least enough to know that Jesus was not directing his efforts "toward correcting the ways of the church." He was trying to convey a message of love and compassion for all. There was no bloody church until some five hundred years later, like Graceland for Elvis, delayed until the priests could come up with a good story to fleece believers of the last shreds of self reliance. It is know as the New Testament; plagiarized from earlier myths of saviors of other cultures for the same political control of the masses by the church. Don't know where you came up with carrot and stick approach — in this context, I find no meaning for the metaphor.

The Shack has not arrived at mine.

Lilwave said...

Abilities arise in response to perceived needs.

"I disagre because I feel humans don't."

I have no idea what your disagre meant.

Lol..I just meant that I do not agree that abilities arise only because of the response to perceived needs. We often do things just because we can as if we are in some kind of race to be the first or best. The almighty power thing, ya know?

How judgmental of you to assume that I haven't read the Bible.

I'm not judging you Daddy. I guess it was more of a miscommunication of your feelings toward Christians as opposed to Christ.

Does this mean allah is your god with a different name? Was Pan your god as a horny lad? Or … are you saying that any concept of god must lead to Christianity to be valid.

ROFL...To me there is only one God. God is many things with many faces. I don't claim to know or even understand others relationship with God. I trust God is big enough he doesn't need my help for that.
For me personally though,I happen to believe Jesus when he says that he is the way. It makes sense to me and has allowed a loving relationship with God that I'm able to grow in.
Each of us must find our own way spiritually.

Don't know where you came up with carrot and stick approach — in this context, I find no meaning for the metaphor.

Maybe I didn't use a good metaphor but I was referring to how man builds the carrot and stick approach into their religious laws.

Minx said...

We are God - that universal energy that most have interpreted to suit their own ends and cushion the blow that we might just be responsible for our own actions. If we replaced the name 'god' with 'love' then we might have a better understanding that we are all swimming in the same pond.

Michael said...

lilwave,

The name of the person you call Jesus was Joshua, or Jehoshua if you like. His name means: God is salvation.

Worshipping the Son in place of the Father is not what he told you to do.

He said, I AM the way.

I AM THAT I AM.

YHVH.

Michael said...

Minx,

We are.

gregra&gar said...

Minx,
Exactly

Lilwave said...

We are God - that universal energy that most have interpreted to suit their own ends and cushion the blow that we might just be responsible for our own actions.

Hi Minx,
God is the creator of all things in the universe. We are connected to it all through the energy that flows. We didn't create anything, so we cannot be God. We are only able to re-create what was originally made. We love but are not love. God is love. Although many could be held guilty of using God as an excuse for their selfish actions or a death insurance policy it doesn't make God non-existent. It is just the unfortunate result that comes with the self-righteousness that we all possess as human beings.


The name of the person you call Jesus was Joshua, or Jehoshua if you like.

Michael,
Yes your right but it was spelled Yeshua in Hebrew or some think Yehoshua but even that is still up for debate among many.

Worshipping the Son in place of the Father is not what he told you to do.

You're making assumptions about my worship practices and about what God has told me but thanks for the concern.

gregra&gar said...

Lilwave, your reply to Minx seemed so absolutely sure of yourself in flat denial of her beautiful view of the world that I question your admission to Michael that the spelling of a mythical savior's name could possibly be still up for debate.

Or vice versa, I'm neversure about you worshippers.

By the way, since you didn't answer my question back at the end of the comments on the "Bored of the Rings" post, I'll paraphrase it here:

Upon your saying that, rather than the way I follow my own authority, you choose to follow Gods(sic), I ask you just who's authority requires that you choose any god or okays the choice you claim you've made? Think about your answer, dear. This is the crux of the matter to me. If you answer that god made you do it, it would appear that you have surrendered your ability to ever choose again, and I can only mourn the loss.

Michael said...

Actually, if we're going to be particular about spelling, Joshua is just the way we translate Yod-Shin-Vav-Ayin into English. Yod is an abbreviation for Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, so Jehoshua is just an expansion, Yod-Heh-Shin-Vav-Ayin.

The point is the meaning of the name, and Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh is the name of God the Father, I AM. Shin-Vav-Ayin, salvation.

I'm trying to preserve meaning, pronunciation is another matter. I AM as Jehoshua was and is and as we are all but for consciousness of being. For we were all created in the image of the creator, we are all of the creator.

Lilwave said...

Lilwave, your reply to Minx seemed so absolutely sure of yourself in flat denial of her beautiful view of the world

I spoke with no more or less authority than what Minx did in her definate statement, "We are God". You just like what she said better. I think my view is beautiful too.
Minx, I hope you weren't offended and I'm sorry if you were.

I question your admission to Michael that the spelling of a mythical savior's name could possibly be still up for debate.

Why? Everything about Jesus is still up for debate by many and always will be. I haven't admitted to anything profound here.

Upon your saying that, rather than the way I follow my own authority, you choose to follow Gods(sic), I ask you just who's authority requires that you choose any god or okays the choice you claim you've made? Think about your answer, dear. This is the crux of the matter to me. If you answer that god made you do it, it would appear that you have surrendered your ability to ever choose again, and I can only mourn the loss.

Hmmm...I must have missed that somewhere. I'll have to go back and track it down but according to your above paraphrase I'll say this...
God speaks to me because I choose to listen. God doesn't make me do anything. It is a choice I make for myself based on my interpretation of facts, opinions, and personal experiences. No different than how you choose to interpret your own facts, opinions, and experiences. I looked with an open mind, heart, and spirit. I saw God. You saw something else. Just keep in mind that you have no authority to dismiss my personal testimony and expect to find truth.

Lilwave said...

Actually, if we're going to be particular about spelling...

Interesting info to look into Michael. Thanks...

gregra&gar said...

Lil'wave,
As usual you have completely missed my point about your dubious combination of self righteousness and willingness to debate within the same comment by completely destroying the context of the statement with two different answers, neither to the point.

As for who gave you the authority to choose your god, you answered, "It is a choice I make for myself based on my interpretation of facts, opinions, and personal experiences," Can you not see that YOU are your ultimate authority, not God … which is the only point I have been trying to make with you all along. All the rest of my argument is about the huge amount of horse twaddle you give yourself authority to believe, now that I understand some god isn't forcing you to be different than you are.

Lilwave said...

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you point is. Or maybe you aren't allowing me the same rights to my opinions as you do for yourself. Or maybe we just think so differently, that we are blinded to the fullness of what the other is saying.

Of course I am the ultimate authority for the choices I make in this life. I never once said that I wasn't but that does not make me God. You missed the point of what I said if you think I ever said otherwise.

gregra&gar said...

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you point is.
Bingo! The point was, and still is if you let it be, that you can be so adamant about really sweeping things atated as fact, not opinion, with Minx;

God is the creator of all things in the universe.

while you can debate with Michael about something as petty as the exact name of an imaginary being pointing up the fact you adapt your truth to situations.

Well, I am relieved to hear that you trust yourself over the word of god. Minx did not say "you are god," she said, "we are god," as in parts of the mind, spirit and body of the endless universe that combine to inspire personifications of authors in the imaginations of every one. If you hadn't noticed, she wanted to use another, more inclusive name, love, instead of naming some maker of the whole shebang as a plaything for Earthbound humanoids.

Michael said...

Lilwave,

No one can speak to you with authority that you must recognize. Everything you must test for yourself. You are God, indeed, because you hear God and yet choose for yourself. You exercise free will which is God's, and you are righteous.

I am who is.

gregra&gar said...

Thank you, Michael. I guess I don't talk her language right.

Lilwave said...

You are God, indeed, because you hear God and yet choose for yourself. You exercise free will which is God's, and you are righteous.

I do hear God, yes. I don't always choose God's way. Gods way is not always to my understanding or sometimes even what I want. By choosing to do Gods will over my own though, I have learned to opened up, love more, and see things that I would otherwise miss. I am a better person than what I would do on my own. On my own I am selfish and blind.
I do exercise free will which God created us to do. God didn't want companionship with robots. I will never claim to be God just because I have the authority of choice. God is more than that.


Daddy,
I've done my best to understand your language. Sometimes simplicity is a good thing when trying to making a point. I feel that you often just don't want to understand me in my response. I find you to enjoy debating the wording rather than the meaning. Or maybe I'm wrong to think my meaning is coming through clear just as you are.
Since I constantly miss your point, there is no point left to discuss I suppose. Who knows, we'll see.
I'll walk away for now and come back to read this another time. Maybe then I'll see what I somehow missed.
Love, peace, and joy....

Lilwave said...

Daddy,
One more thing...by choosing my wording in my response to Minx, I was actually testing your reaction. I chose my wording in the same context Minx chose. I saw what I expected. Maybe you are the one who is missing the point.
What I saw was that you aren't wanting to debate on even ground.

I wasn't the one who started the name discussion. Michael did. I never debated anything with him so again, maybe you missed the point again.

gregra&gar said...

I concede that once again your insistence on a creator has mythed the point once again. You may stop now — you're beginning to repeat yourself.

Michael said...

Lilwave,

I do not wish to offend you, but you speak of hearing God as if you did not hear God within yourself, or as if that which is within yourself is something alien to you. You are not a separate being from that which you are. If you are unable to accept this for now, it is for you to understand as you come to make your will one with that of God that you will realize who you are, no less than who I am, no different from who I have been and will be. Your own authority derives from none but God, you are that which you are with or without being conscious of yourself. This will be the last comment I leave you on this thread.

Michael said...

Todd,

Be patient with Lilwave. Her metaphors may be different than yours, but not inferior. You can learn as much from her as she from you.

gregra&gar said...

Michael,
I understand that a vow of humility precludes assumptions of a godhood within as a defense against corrosive pride, but it also prohibits discovery of the innate potential one is born to exercise when the distraction of manipulating nature's manifestations is transcended.
Ah, well, we all live and learn — or not!!

Michael said...

Todd,

I do not know from vows of humility, but I cannot be otherwise when I understand that everyone is equally God with me. Namasté.

Lilwave said...

Michael,
No offense taken.
Thank you for some attempt to understand what I have said. I get what your saying but God is more than the little voice in my head. It is a pathway of little steps that have gotten me through to this point in time. Unless you walked them with me it would be hard to describe. This is certainly something I will search myself to try and find words to match the experience.

Michael said...

Lilwave,
I said I would not speak further to you on this thread but you misapprehend what I understand. God is more than a voice, God is everything in the universe, and beyond even that. Yet you are that, as every cell of my being is myself. Listen to your father, he has much to teach as well, even if he thinks that we are a myth. I will walk alongside if you take off your shoes.

gregra&gar said...

Michael,
even if he thinks that we are a myth

Did I miss something here? What have I ever said that you could possibly construe to mean I see you or anyone as a myth? See today's post for my take on faith based knowledge being a debilitating prosthetic.