1. learn how to be an organic farmer of:
a. produce
b. chickens/ eggs
c. herbs/flowers to produce into oils and related products
d. goats and cows for milk and cheese
by doing:
a. WWOOF
b. apprenticeship
c. home experiements
2. go on mission trip(s)
a. india
b. anywhere in US hit by storm
c. anywhere/any length of time
3. be a cultural anthropologist studying:
a. american christianity
4. be a religious studies researcher/professor
5. have about 5 kids and run a farm and homeschool them
6. Be a travel writer. Even if it's not professional.
7. Stylist and/or fashion writer and/or fashion merchandiser
What I want to be when I grow up never existed, I want to be who I want to be now, and what I want to do, maybe I will have to wait for, but I can build towards it. To choose one is to draw closer to experience, is to draw further away from another experience, until I go so far that as I run gravity bends my course to find the original spot again, closer in circle to my beginning, but never the same, and further still upon the creation of new ideas with each choice in each day. Whether I am a bunny following a carrot on a string, or a bunny about to find a real carrot, it doesn't really matter. Just be the best bunny you can be. And be open to finding more carrots.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
india ideals
Reflecting on my pro's and con's list, I realized that no where do I mention anything about India itself, or the people I would be with, what I would be doing. Essentially, I would be teaching english, helping out with things here and there, sitting with untouchables, and (hopefully) carrying a presence of love.
I don't know if it's bad that I didn't consider the "service" or "mission" I would be doing as a "pro", or if it's worrisome that I didn't consider living in and amongst poverty I have never seen before as a "con". As for the latter, I didn't consider living in poverty a "con" because that is kind of the whole point: find light, joy, goodness, satisfaction despite poverty, realize through poverty all the richness that is, see "how good I've got it", minimize my own silly worries in light of the serious problems of poverty, and enlarge my heart for those who live in poverty everyday. Sure it might be "sucky" at first (just the word "sucky" exudes my unrecognized wealth), but to let go of all my things and realize who I am without them-- a practice in letting go of accumulating material wealth and instead "storing up treasures in heaven" so to speak-- that is part of the spiritual goal.
But speaking of "my spiritual goals" brings me back to my former query... I'm not sure if it's "bad" or if it's okay that in my initial listing of all the pro's of doing a year long mission trip in India I never once included the pro of other people being helped. People finding needs newly met through my service. The benefit of someone helping teach english, or the benefit of someone being a loving presence, or all other random services I might provide while there. I find this unconscious omission interesting.
On one hand, it shows my selfishness and inherent self-centeredness. To be quite honest, my primary reason for wanting to take this journey is for my own benefit. I want to find spiritual nourishment, I want to feel good about myself, I want to have an adventure, I want the trip to look good on a resume, I want to have experience teaching English, I want it to be a way to strengthen my relationship with my husband. I, I, I, want want want. Frankly, It's all about me. This isn't something I feel great about... as in, I would like to be a self-less person, altruistic and "in it" for the outcasts and untouchables who cannot advocate for themselves. I am very interested in helping in this way, but when I think about the opportunity, I see it generally in terms of my own success. I have a feeling that this is somewhat normal... isn't it like, part of the human condition that we are all selfish? If not, why would a message like Jesus' really be needed? The golden rule says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because it typically works out that one would wish to have good things be done unto them. I don't want to celebrate my selfishness, but I don't see the point of condemning myself either. The more energy I spend agonizing over my own predicament of self-centeredness, the more centered on myself i become. If I could take an approach of honesty, in which I allow myself to state it's purpose without judgement, the more clearly I can see my intentions and discern if this is the "right" thing to do. ("right" is in quotes because I don't think life decisions like this can be considered right or wrong. They just are. Sure, we can make "bad choices", but what's a bad choice is dependent on the goal. If the goal is to live a meaningful life, there are many ways to do so, going to India for a year being one of them. However, with the goal of living a meaningful life, shooting up with heroin everyday would, I say with a good amount of certainty, be a "bad choice", as it strips one's life of years (therefore cancels out the goal of living) and one's meaning is greatly limited to the effects of one potent chemical only... the meaning that a drug can provide seems relatively flat, like a "one trick pony").
So, it's established that I want great, deep, meaningful life for myself. Perhaps it is technically "self-centered", but I don't think it is intrinsically wrong. In just as much honesty, I also want these things for others. I like being nice because I want people to feel good about themselves. I do want anyone who wants to learn english get to learn it. I do want a destitute woman to feel supported. I want a random little kid to have fun. I want someone with a sickness to have a cure. Perhaps I want these things to bring myself comfort, or perhaps I want to do good so I feel more important. I don't think the reason why really matters. If showing love for another brings love onto yourself, and that love in yourself breeds love onto another, then the original intentions regarding selfishness really lose importance, because something greater has occured.
In any case, I also think I may not have thought much about the pro's of "helping others" because I dont really know who much I can help others. I can go, and do what's asked of me, and hope it helps others. But I don't see myself as an american saint, giving up my good life of "stability" and cars and jobs and air conditioning and other illusions to go save the lives of destitute Indians. I dont' see that as the point of this program. If I decide to go, and if I am raising money, I will not be asking for money so I can go help these people. If someone's day is brightened by me, if someone's English is improved by me, if something good happens by me, it isn't really BY me. It's through me. I can hope hope hope good things come through me, but I don't know that they are coming FROM me. Because I'm not sitting here generating my own goodness, I am getting my joy and light from something else. I am going to "give to" others because in that giving I recieve.
The prayer of St. Francis of Assisi says "Lord make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love, where there is injury, pardon... where there is despair, let me sow hope... ect ect... O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, grant that I may not so much seek to be loved, but to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life." This prayer is probably one of my favorite "by-products" of Christianity. What it tells me is that we are in a predicament of selfishness. That is why we must ask to be the instrument of peace. It says grant that I might not seek to be loved as much as I seek to love, because it is a common thing to wish to be loved. I don't think the prayer says "it's wrong to want to be loved", but it says that in order to truly experience this love, you've got to go outside of yourself, and find a way to give it to someone else. In doing so we too will find the love we seek. Could this be a greater theme of "mission" in general? To go somewhere with the itinerary of taking on another's poverty, doing services asked of you, giving a gift you have (english speaking skills, house building skills, the gift of love, whatever), giving yourself in the form of your time for a year, that is how you will find yourself. That is how you will be blessed. This is the style of everyday living that I want to do. I know I don't need a fandangled trip to do it, but I want the intense experience of it to help teach me. It's my own wretchedness that leads to this idea. And my faith in the "system" described in St. Francis' prayer. My head says "this is how I want to live my life" but my head knows it needs a prayer from my heart to attempt it.
I didn't intend to go on and on about the notion of selfishness. But why one wants what one wants is intruiging. Why should I logically want to go on this trip to India when it means potentially setting myself and husband behind in terms of career growth, money, stability, direction, and other goals? I guess it's that those goals feel less important in an "ultimate" sense. It's a battle inside me. I am terrified to give up the scrap of direction and financial stability I think I've established. I'm not sure if I'm courageous enough to do so. I'm not sure if it even would be "courageous" to do so, or just plain stupid. My idealistic gut is bursting with hope about situations I am not in. My cloud of dissatisfaction rains on the everyday. No doubt this cloud may follow me wherever I go. No place or situation can eradicate that internal issue. Though no decision or change would solve all my problems, it would give me the variety of having new ones. Or the wisdom to see through them to the eternal ones. And then, perhaps, the greater wisdom to discover the ongoing surrendering of them to something Greater.
I don't know if it's bad that I didn't consider the "service" or "mission" I would be doing as a "pro", or if it's worrisome that I didn't consider living in and amongst poverty I have never seen before as a "con". As for the latter, I didn't consider living in poverty a "con" because that is kind of the whole point: find light, joy, goodness, satisfaction despite poverty, realize through poverty all the richness that is, see "how good I've got it", minimize my own silly worries in light of the serious problems of poverty, and enlarge my heart for those who live in poverty everyday. Sure it might be "sucky" at first (just the word "sucky" exudes my unrecognized wealth), but to let go of all my things and realize who I am without them-- a practice in letting go of accumulating material wealth and instead "storing up treasures in heaven" so to speak-- that is part of the spiritual goal.
But speaking of "my spiritual goals" brings me back to my former query... I'm not sure if it's "bad" or if it's okay that in my initial listing of all the pro's of doing a year long mission trip in India I never once included the pro of other people being helped. People finding needs newly met through my service. The benefit of someone helping teach english, or the benefit of someone being a loving presence, or all other random services I might provide while there. I find this unconscious omission interesting.
On one hand, it shows my selfishness and inherent self-centeredness. To be quite honest, my primary reason for wanting to take this journey is for my own benefit. I want to find spiritual nourishment, I want to feel good about myself, I want to have an adventure, I want the trip to look good on a resume, I want to have experience teaching English, I want it to be a way to strengthen my relationship with my husband. I, I, I, want want want. Frankly, It's all about me. This isn't something I feel great about... as in, I would like to be a self-less person, altruistic and "in it" for the outcasts and untouchables who cannot advocate for themselves. I am very interested in helping in this way, but when I think about the opportunity, I see it generally in terms of my own success. I have a feeling that this is somewhat normal... isn't it like, part of the human condition that we are all selfish? If not, why would a message like Jesus' really be needed? The golden rule says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because it typically works out that one would wish to have good things be done unto them. I don't want to celebrate my selfishness, but I don't see the point of condemning myself either. The more energy I spend agonizing over my own predicament of self-centeredness, the more centered on myself i become. If I could take an approach of honesty, in which I allow myself to state it's purpose without judgement, the more clearly I can see my intentions and discern if this is the "right" thing to do. ("right" is in quotes because I don't think life decisions like this can be considered right or wrong. They just are. Sure, we can make "bad choices", but what's a bad choice is dependent on the goal. If the goal is to live a meaningful life, there are many ways to do so, going to India for a year being one of them. However, with the goal of living a meaningful life, shooting up with heroin everyday would, I say with a good amount of certainty, be a "bad choice", as it strips one's life of years (therefore cancels out the goal of living) and one's meaning is greatly limited to the effects of one potent chemical only... the meaning that a drug can provide seems relatively flat, like a "one trick pony").
So, it's established that I want great, deep, meaningful life for myself. Perhaps it is technically "self-centered", but I don't think it is intrinsically wrong. In just as much honesty, I also want these things for others. I like being nice because I want people to feel good about themselves. I do want anyone who wants to learn english get to learn it. I do want a destitute woman to feel supported. I want a random little kid to have fun. I want someone with a sickness to have a cure. Perhaps I want these things to bring myself comfort, or perhaps I want to do good so I feel more important. I don't think the reason why really matters. If showing love for another brings love onto yourself, and that love in yourself breeds love onto another, then the original intentions regarding selfishness really lose importance, because something greater has occured.
In any case, I also think I may not have thought much about the pro's of "helping others" because I dont really know who much I can help others. I can go, and do what's asked of me, and hope it helps others. But I don't see myself as an american saint, giving up my good life of "stability" and cars and jobs and air conditioning and other illusions to go save the lives of destitute Indians. I dont' see that as the point of this program. If I decide to go, and if I am raising money, I will not be asking for money so I can go help these people. If someone's day is brightened by me, if someone's English is improved by me, if something good happens by me, it isn't really BY me. It's through me. I can hope hope hope good things come through me, but I don't know that they are coming FROM me. Because I'm not sitting here generating my own goodness, I am getting my joy and light from something else. I am going to "give to" others because in that giving I recieve.
The prayer of St. Francis of Assisi says "Lord make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love, where there is injury, pardon... where there is despair, let me sow hope... ect ect... O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, grant that I may not so much seek to be loved, but to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life." This prayer is probably one of my favorite "by-products" of Christianity. What it tells me is that we are in a predicament of selfishness. That is why we must ask to be the instrument of peace. It says grant that I might not seek to be loved as much as I seek to love, because it is a common thing to wish to be loved. I don't think the prayer says "it's wrong to want to be loved", but it says that in order to truly experience this love, you've got to go outside of yourself, and find a way to give it to someone else. In doing so we too will find the love we seek. Could this be a greater theme of "mission" in general? To go somewhere with the itinerary of taking on another's poverty, doing services asked of you, giving a gift you have (english speaking skills, house building skills, the gift of love, whatever), giving yourself in the form of your time for a year, that is how you will find yourself. That is how you will be blessed. This is the style of everyday living that I want to do. I know I don't need a fandangled trip to do it, but I want the intense experience of it to help teach me. It's my own wretchedness that leads to this idea. And my faith in the "system" described in St. Francis' prayer. My head says "this is how I want to live my life" but my head knows it needs a prayer from my heart to attempt it.
I didn't intend to go on and on about the notion of selfishness. But why one wants what one wants is intruiging. Why should I logically want to go on this trip to India when it means potentially setting myself and husband behind in terms of career growth, money, stability, direction, and other goals? I guess it's that those goals feel less important in an "ultimate" sense. It's a battle inside me. I am terrified to give up the scrap of direction and financial stability I think I've established. I'm not sure if I'm courageous enough to do so. I'm not sure if it even would be "courageous" to do so, or just plain stupid. My idealistic gut is bursting with hope about situations I am not in. My cloud of dissatisfaction rains on the everyday. No doubt this cloud may follow me wherever I go. No place or situation can eradicate that internal issue. Though no decision or change would solve all my problems, it would give me the variety of having new ones. Or the wisdom to see through them to the eternal ones. And then, perhaps, the greater wisdom to discover the ongoing surrendering of them to something Greater.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Pros and Cons
Living in India for a year: Pros and Cons
cons:
-difficulty in configuration (where do our cats go, where does our stuff go, what about our car?)
-"starting over" when we return (getting jobs again.)
-putting off having babies
-intense homesickness, missing family, friends, feeling lonely
-fears (what if i get sick? what if I feel anxious? what if there is a terrorist attack?)
-guilt about moving "again", quitting job "again"
-possibly considered irresponsible in terms of building stability, savings, ect
-may upset loved ones
pros:
-thrilling adventure that satisfies my wanderlust and desire for something bigger and deeper than trying to establish and maintain a status-quo
-opportunity to purposely explore faith and spirituality in community
-chance to overcome fears
-experience that may lead me to a more preferred living when I return (better platform for further study/grad school, or job relating to my interests)
-living life to the terrifyingly fullest
-Saris
-finding the riches in poverty, increased contentedness with my relative material wealth
-form deep bonds with people in the same fox hole, grow closer to husband
-experience teaching english
-it's a trip with a designated time frame (I have the comfort of knowing an end will come in difficult times)
-travel and retreat programmed into each month
-more to give and more to share with others from the experience
-the craziness and spontenaity of it make me laugh
-learn a new language
-fulfill lifelong dream of missionary experience abroad for significant period of time
-stretch my strength and soul further than a chinese gymnast.
http://www.yavindia.net/
http://gamc.pcusa.org/ministries/yav/yavexperience/
cons:
-difficulty in configuration (where do our cats go, where does our stuff go, what about our car?)
-"starting over" when we return (getting jobs again.)
-putting off having babies
-intense homesickness, missing family, friends, feeling lonely
-fears (what if i get sick? what if I feel anxious? what if there is a terrorist attack?)
-guilt about moving "again", quitting job "again"
-possibly considered irresponsible in terms of building stability, savings, ect
-may upset loved ones
pros:
-thrilling adventure that satisfies my wanderlust and desire for something bigger and deeper than trying to establish and maintain a status-quo
-opportunity to purposely explore faith and spirituality in community
-chance to overcome fears
-experience that may lead me to a more preferred living when I return (better platform for further study/grad school, or job relating to my interests)
-living life to the terrifyingly fullest
-Saris
-finding the riches in poverty, increased contentedness with my relative material wealth
-form deep bonds with people in the same fox hole, grow closer to husband
-experience teaching english
-it's a trip with a designated time frame (I have the comfort of knowing an end will come in difficult times)
-travel and retreat programmed into each month
-more to give and more to share with others from the experience
-the craziness and spontenaity of it make me laugh
-learn a new language
-fulfill lifelong dream of missionary experience abroad for significant period of time
-stretch my strength and soul further than a chinese gymnast.
http://www.yavindia.net/
http://gamc.pcusa.org/ministries/yav/yavexperience/
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
why do we wonder, or, thoughts after 1st book of Peter
Thinking, wondering, daydreaming, nightdreaming, doubting, declaring... it's our special human power of cognition. It is in there churning away, and although we can develop techniques to cultivate it just so (pruning out the bad thoughts, pacifying the anger, assuring the fears, and fueling the positives) it still keeps firing off. I watched a lecture on Nebraska's awesome public access station about the brain last night, and though my understanding of it was limited, I did take a few facts away... apparently our brains consume like, a ton of energy. These things are like big SUV's of the body, guzzling up 70% of our blood sugar just to lollygag about in revery. Our thoughts make us hungry! Feed me feed me they say, I am a factory of cognition and I want not to be slowed. If oxygen fails to be sent to the brain for even just a minute or two, extreme damage can be done... A woman who had suffered an arterial blockage in the back of her brain lost the capacity to walk, and once the brain was repaired "physically" she had to relearn the skill like a little baby all over again, because the brain lost its nutrients briefly, and therefore started pruning itself away. Brains freak me out.
I also watched a documentary about the "science of babies"... really just about how their brains work. Apparently, other mammals come out of the womb ready to walk within hours... all preprogrammed for life and raring to go. Human fetuses emerge less developed, though, as they still need about a year of development to begin to attempt walking. This is because 1. we are bi-pedal, so walking is just that much harder due to the balancing of our giant heads over our tiny feet, though it's that much smarter as it is more energy efficient than quadrapedalism. 2. If our brains were developed enough to handle the difficult walking gig, they would be too big to fit through the pelvic bones. So it is actually quite important that babies are born exactly when they are-- a fetus outside the womb, a helpless animal relying completely on the care of its mother and father for life and security. Too soon, though, and what results is the precarious touch and go health of a preemie. Buffalo give birth on the wild plains all alone. Humans need other humans to complete this delivery in any effective way. Other interesting fact: at three months, a baby can distinguish between the faces of different humans as well as different monkeys... they can tell that one human and one monkey are different from the other human and other monkey. Surprisingly, at six months, a baby can no longer distinguish between different types of monkeys, only different types of humans. That is because, through experience, the brain learns that the different faces of humans are much more important to recognize than those of monkeys, and so due to the brian's pruning power, selected by experience, the ability to distinguish monkey one from monkey two is lost. At least we can still recognize when a monkey is a monkey. That knowledge remains relevant. Though experience shapes what information the brain will pay attention to, it is not just "experience" that takes a brain from helpless baby to capable adult. Evidence shows that the brain is in a sense pre-programmed or wired with all sorts of information.
Like Math! So some scientists did an experiement... babies pay more attention to things they do not understand, and babies lose interest when bored with old information... so given that knowledge a baby was shown a "puppet show" where one puppet came on the stage. then a second came on the stage. A board was put up blocking the stage, and when the board came down, only one puppet remained. The baby was staring in riveting confusion... indicating an innate ability to understand the laws of addition and subtraction. This was counterbalanced by the fact that when a. both puppets were remaining on the stage post-board, and b. when the baby saw one puppet leaving the stage and acknowledged the subtraction of puppets, the baby's interest was minimal, and it's eye contact shifted away from the stage. Cool.
So as you may have read, I want to have children. As it feels like that biological clock is going off trying to be like "the oven is preheated!", I also feel other biological urges, such as the one to make a nest. I feel that a human nest is different from other mammals. There is the physical home-nest component... Finding shelter, a constant supply of food/resources, being safe, protected, but also well decorated and making it smell nice... there is also a cognitive nest making which I don't suppose other animals experience to this extent. In order to consciously teach, it feels like one needs an understanding of what one will teach. Perhaps there are biological mechanisms that ensure that the essentials of what must be taught are taught... when a baby cries, it is our instinct to pick it up and hold it. Babies need this nurturing and touch, so alas, one need not consciously think "i believe i should now hold the baby to satisfy it's need for touch"... we just do it. We can now through science try to understand why we do things, but if they are effective we have already been doing them without knowing why or even that we do... We mimic faces with babies without realizing it... and in turn this teaches babies to recognize facial cues relaying important information. When someone makes a face, we don't think "because her nostrils are slightly flared and her lips are turned down by 5 degrees and her eyelids are pulled back and the lines on her chin are deepening it must mean she is experiencing anger"... we just think, "dude she's angry". There is so much information that we don't know we know yet. But along with these "innate" skills we teach our offspring, there is a whole set of concious ones, too. Like, "how will we raise our kids"... will they go to time out if they disobey? will they get spanked? Will they be required to eat five bites of veggies to guarantee dessert? will we allow them sugar? Will we try to make them into ballerinas? Will we make them be vegans? Will we teach them a certain religion? Which questions one asks depends on which subjects are the most valuable to you. And the answer to them depends really on the desires and discoveries within yourself. Some parents choose to actively teach their children about all world religions and encourage the child to "choose" or follow the one that most speaks to them personally. Doing so is just as much a decision about "what will I teach my child" as one who un-conciously teaches their child about Islam without ever making a choice against anything else to do so. I'm not sure what I'm getting at except that the idea of relaying love and information and skills to offspring conjures up a desire in me to actively understand what I value. It feels like a biological nesting of the mind, this urge to understand what I believe, value, desire, and strive for, so as to "always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence." I want to be ready with a response I have confidence in when a child asks me what happens to dead people, for example. In fact, I actually think it may be my own inner child asking all these questions, which occurs with or without offspring. The hope that is in me, what will I say about it? To what account will I say it is from? Those are the questions I feel urged to investigate in order to answer them with integrity and sincerity.
The same place that above verse came from also said "Rid yourselves, therefore, of all malice, and all guile, insincerity, envy, and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation-- if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good."
I find that so interesting, particularly the last little tidbit... "if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good." It's so real. So so so so many people have tasted that "the Lord" is bad. A way to exploit others, a way to dominate and supress women, a way to judge and condemn anybody that makes one uncomfortable, a wrathful, angry diety, an imposer of plagues, floods, disease, a son-killer, a buzz-killer, an opiate of the masses. To me, the author known as "peter" seems to be hinting at the fact that this good Lord ain't so sweet to everyone. I like it because it means he isn't saying to everyone who passes this scripture "you better do this and do that and not this and not that"... why should they? why would they? Why would someone listen to the commands of a person declaring themself a disciple of the Lord... this same Lord that seems to inspire wars? Peter makes his audience clear with that statement, and with it the whole lot makes more sense. If one has tasted that the Lord is good and sweet, one would naturally want more of the "pure spiritual milk" which causes one to "grow into" salvation. Salvation here to me means less "going to a place called heaven when you die" and more "going to a place called heaven and/or kingdom of God here and now in this life"... a place without malice, a place of personal sincerity, a place without envy in one's heart... all those destructive forces that can make life the description of a hell. So one rids oneself of that, and seeks pure spiritual milk as an alternative, and from this good things grow. Make yourself like a baby and feel the basic yearning for love and nurturing.
If one hasn't tasted that the Lord is good, then one will most likely have malice and perhaps slander against this Lord. But if one has not come to this conclusion, if one feels that perhaps "the Lord" is good, then there is no longer a place for these feelings, because a greater good has restored them. In a way, I feel these things such as malice, envy, insincerity, and slander have an important place in the world. They can be guides pointing to some deep wound that needs caring for. If i'm constantly malice-ing, then im probably angry, butif i just condemn myself for my anger, I will only grow more angry with myself. But if I can listen to it, allow it to be, accept it as a reality, and ask it where it is coming from, then I can find its source and make things right, hopefully. That is why I think Peter says to ride oneself of these things if one has tasted that the Lord is good. Perhaps following these negative emotions to the source may show someone why they tasted that the Lord is not good, and could lead to a reconciliation with that entity "lord". But for those who find the Lord tasting good, and thereby seek pure spiritual milk which thereby grows into salvation, the salvation acts to heal the wound pouring out with malice and envy and such, hence, no longer needed?
I also watched a documentary about the "science of babies"... really just about how their brains work. Apparently, other mammals come out of the womb ready to walk within hours... all preprogrammed for life and raring to go. Human fetuses emerge less developed, though, as they still need about a year of development to begin to attempt walking. This is because 1. we are bi-pedal, so walking is just that much harder due to the balancing of our giant heads over our tiny feet, though it's that much smarter as it is more energy efficient than quadrapedalism. 2. If our brains were developed enough to handle the difficult walking gig, they would be too big to fit through the pelvic bones. So it is actually quite important that babies are born exactly when they are-- a fetus outside the womb, a helpless animal relying completely on the care of its mother and father for life and security. Too soon, though, and what results is the precarious touch and go health of a preemie. Buffalo give birth on the wild plains all alone. Humans need other humans to complete this delivery in any effective way. Other interesting fact: at three months, a baby can distinguish between the faces of different humans as well as different monkeys... they can tell that one human and one monkey are different from the other human and other monkey. Surprisingly, at six months, a baby can no longer distinguish between different types of monkeys, only different types of humans. That is because, through experience, the brain learns that the different faces of humans are much more important to recognize than those of monkeys, and so due to the brian's pruning power, selected by experience, the ability to distinguish monkey one from monkey two is lost. At least we can still recognize when a monkey is a monkey. That knowledge remains relevant. Though experience shapes what information the brain will pay attention to, it is not just "experience" that takes a brain from helpless baby to capable adult. Evidence shows that the brain is in a sense pre-programmed or wired with all sorts of information.
Like Math! So some scientists did an experiement... babies pay more attention to things they do not understand, and babies lose interest when bored with old information... so given that knowledge a baby was shown a "puppet show" where one puppet came on the stage. then a second came on the stage. A board was put up blocking the stage, and when the board came down, only one puppet remained. The baby was staring in riveting confusion... indicating an innate ability to understand the laws of addition and subtraction. This was counterbalanced by the fact that when a. both puppets were remaining on the stage post-board, and b. when the baby saw one puppet leaving the stage and acknowledged the subtraction of puppets, the baby's interest was minimal, and it's eye contact shifted away from the stage. Cool.
So as you may have read, I want to have children. As it feels like that biological clock is going off trying to be like "the oven is preheated!", I also feel other biological urges, such as the one to make a nest. I feel that a human nest is different from other mammals. There is the physical home-nest component... Finding shelter, a constant supply of food/resources, being safe, protected, but also well decorated and making it smell nice... there is also a cognitive nest making which I don't suppose other animals experience to this extent. In order to consciously teach, it feels like one needs an understanding of what one will teach. Perhaps there are biological mechanisms that ensure that the essentials of what must be taught are taught... when a baby cries, it is our instinct to pick it up and hold it. Babies need this nurturing and touch, so alas, one need not consciously think "i believe i should now hold the baby to satisfy it's need for touch"... we just do it. We can now through science try to understand why we do things, but if they are effective we have already been doing them without knowing why or even that we do... We mimic faces with babies without realizing it... and in turn this teaches babies to recognize facial cues relaying important information. When someone makes a face, we don't think "because her nostrils are slightly flared and her lips are turned down by 5 degrees and her eyelids are pulled back and the lines on her chin are deepening it must mean she is experiencing anger"... we just think, "dude she's angry". There is so much information that we don't know we know yet. But along with these "innate" skills we teach our offspring, there is a whole set of concious ones, too. Like, "how will we raise our kids"... will they go to time out if they disobey? will they get spanked? Will they be required to eat five bites of veggies to guarantee dessert? will we allow them sugar? Will we try to make them into ballerinas? Will we make them be vegans? Will we teach them a certain religion? Which questions one asks depends on which subjects are the most valuable to you. And the answer to them depends really on the desires and discoveries within yourself. Some parents choose to actively teach their children about all world religions and encourage the child to "choose" or follow the one that most speaks to them personally. Doing so is just as much a decision about "what will I teach my child" as one who un-conciously teaches their child about Islam without ever making a choice against anything else to do so. I'm not sure what I'm getting at except that the idea of relaying love and information and skills to offspring conjures up a desire in me to actively understand what I value. It feels like a biological nesting of the mind, this urge to understand what I believe, value, desire, and strive for, so as to "always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence." I want to be ready with a response I have confidence in when a child asks me what happens to dead people, for example. In fact, I actually think it may be my own inner child asking all these questions, which occurs with or without offspring. The hope that is in me, what will I say about it? To what account will I say it is from? Those are the questions I feel urged to investigate in order to answer them with integrity and sincerity.
The same place that above verse came from also said "Rid yourselves, therefore, of all malice, and all guile, insincerity, envy, and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation-- if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good."
I find that so interesting, particularly the last little tidbit... "if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good." It's so real. So so so so many people have tasted that "the Lord" is bad. A way to exploit others, a way to dominate and supress women, a way to judge and condemn anybody that makes one uncomfortable, a wrathful, angry diety, an imposer of plagues, floods, disease, a son-killer, a buzz-killer, an opiate of the masses. To me, the author known as "peter" seems to be hinting at the fact that this good Lord ain't so sweet to everyone. I like it because it means he isn't saying to everyone who passes this scripture "you better do this and do that and not this and not that"... why should they? why would they? Why would someone listen to the commands of a person declaring themself a disciple of the Lord... this same Lord that seems to inspire wars? Peter makes his audience clear with that statement, and with it the whole lot makes more sense. If one has tasted that the Lord is good and sweet, one would naturally want more of the "pure spiritual milk" which causes one to "grow into" salvation. Salvation here to me means less "going to a place called heaven when you die" and more "going to a place called heaven and/or kingdom of God here and now in this life"... a place without malice, a place of personal sincerity, a place without envy in one's heart... all those destructive forces that can make life the description of a hell. So one rids oneself of that, and seeks pure spiritual milk as an alternative, and from this good things grow. Make yourself like a baby and feel the basic yearning for love and nurturing.
If one hasn't tasted that the Lord is good, then one will most likely have malice and perhaps slander against this Lord. But if one has not come to this conclusion, if one feels that perhaps "the Lord" is good, then there is no longer a place for these feelings, because a greater good has restored them. In a way, I feel these things such as malice, envy, insincerity, and slander have an important place in the world. They can be guides pointing to some deep wound that needs caring for. If i'm constantly malice-ing, then im probably angry, butif i just condemn myself for my anger, I will only grow more angry with myself. But if I can listen to it, allow it to be, accept it as a reality, and ask it where it is coming from, then I can find its source and make things right, hopefully. That is why I think Peter says to ride oneself of these things if one has tasted that the Lord is good. Perhaps following these negative emotions to the source may show someone why they tasted that the Lord is not good, and could lead to a reconciliation with that entity "lord". But for those who find the Lord tasting good, and thereby seek pure spiritual milk which thereby grows into salvation, the salvation acts to heal the wound pouring out with malice and envy and such, hence, no longer needed?
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
jumble of junk.
One thing you may not know about me is that I'm semi-obsessed with and love the Duggars. That giant 21-person sized family with the long hair and long skirts? They fascinate me and are delightful. So I've watched past seasons of their show, read their first book, and I'm currently reading their second book "A love that multiplies". Early on in their marriage, Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar used oral contraceptives and planned on having between 1 and 3 kids. They had their first child, and decided to wait a few years and use oral contraceptives before going for another one. Apparently, during this time Michelle got pregnant, and due to the use of birth control pills, she incidentally miscarried. This devastated the couple, and prompted their decision to leave family planning up to God. They decided to let contraception go and leave it to God whether they would become pregnant or not. 20 or so years later, they have 19 children. What's amazing about this isn't the sheer size of the family. Michelle, Jim-Bob, and the little people they have created exude happiness, self-assurance, brightness, intelligence, and well-mannered good ole' fashioned wholesomness. A beautiful testament and feat in this world for any size family. Despite the size of the family, they are the most optimistic, positive, genuine people in the media today. The children are well-fed, bright, well mannered, happy, funny, playful, and seemingly well adjusted. They are all talented musically, and all have their own sense of aspiration and ambition for the future. They aren't unthinkably rich, but they are provided for and do not want. They manage money wisely. Despite the untraditional size and extremely conservative values, there doesn't seem to be any funny business, any weird creepy cultish scary dark undertones to this family. Compare the Duggars to other untraditional families in the media: Jon and Kate plus 8? divorce, trauma, tabloids. The Sister Wives? They had to move their brood of half-brothers and half-sisters to a new state to avoid being incarcerated, and the children seem deeply distressed. The Duggars attribute all their success to God.
I'm a fairly liberal person when it comes to religion. I tend to have feelings of suspicion, discomfort, and bitterness towards extremely conservative or "fundamentalist" points of view. There is a history of pain and injustice there. (Which can be said for any religious tradtion). This is an instinct I am actually working on overcoming so as to be an open-minded person in all aspects. But, based on appearances, one might assume I would be put-off by some of the Duggar's life choices and convictions: they take the Bible very literally, and therefore the women do not cut their hair, they only wear long skirts, they wear "wholesome" bathing suits that cover the body from the knees to the elbows, they have conviction against birth control, they do not date or kiss until "I Do", they adamattly do not acknowledge evolutionary sciences, they don't dance, they don't drink, and they are constantly dishing out Bible verses for every occasion. A scene like this would typically make me raise my eyebrows.
But these people are so cool. They have an unending source of optimism, hope, peace, strength, endurance, and enthusiasm. When faced with challenges and adversity, they are creative and perservere. They are incredibly kind and warm hearted. Despite the severe extremes of their personal convictions, they don't ever seem judgemental or preachy towards anyone with differing points of view. They don't write "God says birth control is evil and therefore thou shalt not use it!", they say, "for our family, we came to the conclusion that all children are a blessing, and so we felt that meant to leave it up to God"... they speak from their own experience and point of view, rather than imposing their experiences, choices, and points of views on others as a universal truth. And yet, they never shy away from expressing their convictions and Christian status. They focus their attention on helping others, making mission trips as a family each year to El Salvador, as well as countless other altrusitic daily activities. Perhaps it is what Christianity is meant to be... (not neccessarily the skirts and no dancing) but the focus on helping other people and being warm and kind and trying to do what they percieve as right-- meditating on what what is right. Even though I find some of their practices a little kooky, they are genuine and authentic. I find myself wanting to be like them. I honestly think their family is a ministry of sorts, even if they aren't trying to make it so.
One reason I desire "starting a family" is from the Duggars' tele-influence in my life! It sounds silly that a reality TV show would cause me to think so much about "deep life". But Oh Well! Michelle never raises her voice, she thinks creatively to come up with positive ways to raise her kids and instill sound values in them, and it looks like a blast. The Duggars' homeschool, and if I were ever to actually do that it would require loads more research, but it does look fun! The more I contemplate the reality of having children, the more I want to raise them in a "Christian home"... going to church and such. I write on this blog all my doubts, my wonderings, my uncertainties and my issues with the long-lived-long-loved-overloaded look at "Religion/Spirituality/Christianity/ECT", but to exist without honesty and without room to express these things would be suffocating. I believe it can all co-exist. And if a faith full of certainty is ever the goal, it won't be achieved by just faking it. In any case, my experience being raised Christian was completely positive. It imbedded in me a compass of goodness, stability, and altruism. Plus it was fun. Even if I'm not being good, feeling unstable, and being selfish, I can at some point come to recognize that and seek to change because I've seen and heard and learned of opposite. Even though not all religious people act morally, Religion, or, as I must try to speak from my own experience, Christianity, seeks to instill Morality. Whether or not it gets properly installed, or whether it's in working order in one's own life is a whole other story. I would want the deep messages of Christianity for my kids. Even though "christianity" fails some people, and unspeakable acts of evil are conducted in its name, unspeakable acts of evil can also be conducted in other names, and I don't think "Christianity" itself is the cause of the unspeakable acts of evil. Christopher Hitchens, RIP, was a great and passionate thinker, but this is one fundamental point where we completely disagree.
In any case, in order to raise a family I have to be in good working condition. To be able to answer hard questions, instill a faith, lead a child, and relieve another's anxiety, I've got to have my ducks in a row. Perhaps that's what all this existentialism is all about. It's my biological, emotional, and intellectual response of the growing reality of soon having children. I've been trying to get my body to a place to deliver children, which means for me being sans-medication, and the past few days that goal has been extremely challenging, violently so. For whatever reason, I want to have kids. So I want to be ready to "leave it up to God" as the Duggars say. I hear from most people that you can "never be truly ready". That makes me feel better. It's good to hear no one else is perfect, and that no one else has ducks perfectly in a row. Then I don't feel so hopeless! The Duggars seem like an "imperfectly perfect" freaky family, but they're all just humans doing the good fight.
The Duggars, and how I want to adopt some of their ways: I simply can't be completely like them. It wouldn't be genuine of me to grow my hair out and stop dancing and wear a long skirt and disregard the theory of evolution. I can't just imitate it and, voila, I'm a transformed mortal. But the Duggars seem to earnestly search for purpose, meaning, truth, light, love, and peace. I am glad for them that they find these ideals in the Bible, in Christianity, and through their lifestyle choices.
I do think, though, that the earnest searching of my own might reveal different interpretations of not only how to live life and wear my hair, but what I hear through the Bible. Could one be wrong and one be right?
I personally don't quite think so. I can't honestly say I believe that there is "One" essential "Truth". Except that maybe the "one essential Truth" is the search for Truth itself. If "One Essential Truth" does "exist", it's got to be a bigger notion than the one implied on the giant billboard off the side of a Missouri highway in the Bible belt, glaring down at passerby's with condemnation and judgement. A search for truth must involve, I suppose, clarification on what the word truth means. I find this word Truth to be misleading because for me it conjures up images of "right and wrong", sin and blessing, heaven and hell, in or out-- a tool for segregation, separation, and division. Truth can be attributed to the "correct" interpretation of a verse, a bible, a religion. I think this type of truth is a diversion from what the idea can actually embody. I feel that Truth might mean something more like the word "authenticity". A mix of emotional honesty, bravery, searching, and peace. If Truth can't mean this, than maybe Truth just isn't that important. If "Truth" doesn't come hand in hand with Peace and Love, than what good does it do? If I must "accept" or "believe" a certain event in history as a factual occurence, or declare a line from a book as the one set of words that can eternally determine the state of one's soul, then accepting or believing it won't do me any good if I'm not at peace with that conviction, and if there is no meaning found in how that line or how that event can actually change my life here and now for the greater good.
I would rather not give a hoot about what happens after death, as I might spend all my time looking past all the wonders of the present world for something that could just as well be complete nothingness. However, just as humankind has deliberated throughout all of its species history on the mystery of death, I too am not immune to that aspect of the human condition. It seems unavoidable that part of life involves the imagination about and at times, fear of, death. And since there is no way I can "know" what comes post death anymore than anyone else can in any quantifiable way, I do see I have a choice in the matter as to what I prefer to imagine. I think humans are fairly lucky and it is a trait of survival to believe death can possibly lead to eternal heaven, peace, nirvana, moksha, whatever. Perhaps there is a more mysterious, God-given reason as to why humans have perceived a metaphysical reality inside and outside the realm of "this" life. I personally do think so. I wonder if conciously choosing to imagine heaven after death or "believing in" heaven are terribly different? I think there's some cross-over there, as what we choose to believe can shape our attitudes and become a deeper part of us. If I'm upset, but choose to not yell and instead calmly express my emotion, that calm may wash over the upsettness and chemically change it to a sense of understanding. In the same way, if I choose to address the mystery of death with a vision of peace in heaven, perhaps that deep contentedness will infiltrate my being and be more than the answer to a multiple choice question. Whether one comes to this conclusion through conscious choice or through a sense of deep conviction or by God communicating it to them personally... does it matter? Maybe. I'm not sure.
I'm a fairly liberal person when it comes to religion. I tend to have feelings of suspicion, discomfort, and bitterness towards extremely conservative or "fundamentalist" points of view. There is a history of pain and injustice there. (Which can be said for any religious tradtion). This is an instinct I am actually working on overcoming so as to be an open-minded person in all aspects. But, based on appearances, one might assume I would be put-off by some of the Duggar's life choices and convictions: they take the Bible very literally, and therefore the women do not cut their hair, they only wear long skirts, they wear "wholesome" bathing suits that cover the body from the knees to the elbows, they have conviction against birth control, they do not date or kiss until "I Do", they adamattly do not acknowledge evolutionary sciences, they don't dance, they don't drink, and they are constantly dishing out Bible verses for every occasion. A scene like this would typically make me raise my eyebrows.
But these people are so cool. They have an unending source of optimism, hope, peace, strength, endurance, and enthusiasm. When faced with challenges and adversity, they are creative and perservere. They are incredibly kind and warm hearted. Despite the severe extremes of their personal convictions, they don't ever seem judgemental or preachy towards anyone with differing points of view. They don't write "God says birth control is evil and therefore thou shalt not use it!", they say, "for our family, we came to the conclusion that all children are a blessing, and so we felt that meant to leave it up to God"... they speak from their own experience and point of view, rather than imposing their experiences, choices, and points of views on others as a universal truth. And yet, they never shy away from expressing their convictions and Christian status. They focus their attention on helping others, making mission trips as a family each year to El Salvador, as well as countless other altrusitic daily activities. Perhaps it is what Christianity is meant to be... (not neccessarily the skirts and no dancing) but the focus on helping other people and being warm and kind and trying to do what they percieve as right-- meditating on what what is right. Even though I find some of their practices a little kooky, they are genuine and authentic. I find myself wanting to be like them. I honestly think their family is a ministry of sorts, even if they aren't trying to make it so.
One reason I desire "starting a family" is from the Duggars' tele-influence in my life! It sounds silly that a reality TV show would cause me to think so much about "deep life". But Oh Well! Michelle never raises her voice, she thinks creatively to come up with positive ways to raise her kids and instill sound values in them, and it looks like a blast. The Duggars' homeschool, and if I were ever to actually do that it would require loads more research, but it does look fun! The more I contemplate the reality of having children, the more I want to raise them in a "Christian home"... going to church and such. I write on this blog all my doubts, my wonderings, my uncertainties and my issues with the long-lived-long-loved-overloaded look at "Religion/Spirituality/Christianity/ECT", but to exist without honesty and without room to express these things would be suffocating. I believe it can all co-exist. And if a faith full of certainty is ever the goal, it won't be achieved by just faking it. In any case, my experience being raised Christian was completely positive. It imbedded in me a compass of goodness, stability, and altruism. Plus it was fun. Even if I'm not being good, feeling unstable, and being selfish, I can at some point come to recognize that and seek to change because I've seen and heard and learned of opposite. Even though not all religious people act morally, Religion, or, as I must try to speak from my own experience, Christianity, seeks to instill Morality. Whether or not it gets properly installed, or whether it's in working order in one's own life is a whole other story. I would want the deep messages of Christianity for my kids. Even though "christianity" fails some people, and unspeakable acts of evil are conducted in its name, unspeakable acts of evil can also be conducted in other names, and I don't think "Christianity" itself is the cause of the unspeakable acts of evil. Christopher Hitchens, RIP, was a great and passionate thinker, but this is one fundamental point where we completely disagree.
In any case, in order to raise a family I have to be in good working condition. To be able to answer hard questions, instill a faith, lead a child, and relieve another's anxiety, I've got to have my ducks in a row. Perhaps that's what all this existentialism is all about. It's my biological, emotional, and intellectual response of the growing reality of soon having children. I've been trying to get my body to a place to deliver children, which means for me being sans-medication, and the past few days that goal has been extremely challenging, violently so. For whatever reason, I want to have kids. So I want to be ready to "leave it up to God" as the Duggars say. I hear from most people that you can "never be truly ready". That makes me feel better. It's good to hear no one else is perfect, and that no one else has ducks perfectly in a row. Then I don't feel so hopeless! The Duggars seem like an "imperfectly perfect" freaky family, but they're all just humans doing the good fight.
The Duggars, and how I want to adopt some of their ways: I simply can't be completely like them. It wouldn't be genuine of me to grow my hair out and stop dancing and wear a long skirt and disregard the theory of evolution. I can't just imitate it and, voila, I'm a transformed mortal. But the Duggars seem to earnestly search for purpose, meaning, truth, light, love, and peace. I am glad for them that they find these ideals in the Bible, in Christianity, and through their lifestyle choices.
I do think, though, that the earnest searching of my own might reveal different interpretations of not only how to live life and wear my hair, but what I hear through the Bible. Could one be wrong and one be right?
I personally don't quite think so. I can't honestly say I believe that there is "One" essential "Truth". Except that maybe the "one essential Truth" is the search for Truth itself. If "One Essential Truth" does "exist", it's got to be a bigger notion than the one implied on the giant billboard off the side of a Missouri highway in the Bible belt, glaring down at passerby's with condemnation and judgement. A search for truth must involve, I suppose, clarification on what the word truth means. I find this word Truth to be misleading because for me it conjures up images of "right and wrong", sin and blessing, heaven and hell, in or out-- a tool for segregation, separation, and division. Truth can be attributed to the "correct" interpretation of a verse, a bible, a religion. I think this type of truth is a diversion from what the idea can actually embody. I feel that Truth might mean something more like the word "authenticity". A mix of emotional honesty, bravery, searching, and peace. If Truth can't mean this, than maybe Truth just isn't that important. If "Truth" doesn't come hand in hand with Peace and Love, than what good does it do? If I must "accept" or "believe" a certain event in history as a factual occurence, or declare a line from a book as the one set of words that can eternally determine the state of one's soul, then accepting or believing it won't do me any good if I'm not at peace with that conviction, and if there is no meaning found in how that line or how that event can actually change my life here and now for the greater good.
I would rather not give a hoot about what happens after death, as I might spend all my time looking past all the wonders of the present world for something that could just as well be complete nothingness. However, just as humankind has deliberated throughout all of its species history on the mystery of death, I too am not immune to that aspect of the human condition. It seems unavoidable that part of life involves the imagination about and at times, fear of, death. And since there is no way I can "know" what comes post death anymore than anyone else can in any quantifiable way, I do see I have a choice in the matter as to what I prefer to imagine. I think humans are fairly lucky and it is a trait of survival to believe death can possibly lead to eternal heaven, peace, nirvana, moksha, whatever. Perhaps there is a more mysterious, God-given reason as to why humans have perceived a metaphysical reality inside and outside the realm of "this" life. I personally do think so. I wonder if conciously choosing to imagine heaven after death or "believing in" heaven are terribly different? I think there's some cross-over there, as what we choose to believe can shape our attitudes and become a deeper part of us. If I'm upset, but choose to not yell and instead calmly express my emotion, that calm may wash over the upsettness and chemically change it to a sense of understanding. In the same way, if I choose to address the mystery of death with a vision of peace in heaven, perhaps that deep contentedness will infiltrate my being and be more than the answer to a multiple choice question. Whether one comes to this conclusion through conscious choice or through a sense of deep conviction or by God communicating it to them personally... does it matter? Maybe. I'm not sure.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
reflections, certainties, doubts
"to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe" -Carl Sagan
From the onset of this blog, I intended to use it as a way to practice academic writing and organize my thoughts on things I was studying. While that is still something I hope to do with it, I find myself more and more wishing to write from the heart, voicing personal reflections, wonderings, certainties, and doubts-- all which occupy my mind on a deeper level. Not just that the axial age was a time when multiple independent civilizations changed in fundamental ways regarding self-consciousness, but why, and why that is worth thinking about and uncovering now, and what it might mean for me or human kind. I find myself wanting not to report, but to reflect. So why not allow it to be? In my "welcome back" blog post, I said something about not wanting to "trap down" my "beliefs" but rather explore the questions. I have been thinking about this statement, and trying to figure out if it is true. I am a natural explorer. My search for meaning is ongoing, and feels insatiable. I've wondered, then, if that means I am constantly trying to define my worldview. What I think is: yes and no. Yes, I feel that we are all constantly defining our worldview (whether we try to or not, whether we are conscious of it or not). We encounter information and experiences, and reflect on what it means to us, and how we understand it. The No part is reacting to my words "trapping down". I am constantly changing, as is the world around me. To trap down a "belief system" into a box of untouchable certainty does not feel as important or real for me as the curiosity and questions that lead us to our next journey, and temporary destinations. I percieve that there are core values and tendencies in myself, and those are revealed to me time and again. The smaller, detail oriented curiosities are a novel bunch to consider and pontificate, but in a way, each situation requires a whole new evaluation of the universe. In a split second I am confronted with life and concoct a response based on innate values, my education thus far, my experience, my biology even. And in that second I am unaware of any of this. It is a rush of wordless whispers to my brain, my limbs, my lips, and small constant decisions and evaluations. This seems to be the nature of life's activity: a process. So I don't wish to come to set conclusions about all the mysteries of the universe. That seems a silly goal. And yet, it is what I ponder most. What might I believe, and what then is belief? Conviction? Certainty? Doubt? They are all beautiful and terrifying.
From the onset of this blog, I intended to use it as a way to practice academic writing and organize my thoughts on things I was studying. While that is still something I hope to do with it, I find myself more and more wishing to write from the heart, voicing personal reflections, wonderings, certainties, and doubts-- all which occupy my mind on a deeper level. Not just that the axial age was a time when multiple independent civilizations changed in fundamental ways regarding self-consciousness, but why, and why that is worth thinking about and uncovering now, and what it might mean for me or human kind. I find myself wanting not to report, but to reflect. So why not allow it to be? In my "welcome back" blog post, I said something about not wanting to "trap down" my "beliefs" but rather explore the questions. I have been thinking about this statement, and trying to figure out if it is true. I am a natural explorer. My search for meaning is ongoing, and feels insatiable. I've wondered, then, if that means I am constantly trying to define my worldview. What I think is: yes and no. Yes, I feel that we are all constantly defining our worldview (whether we try to or not, whether we are conscious of it or not). We encounter information and experiences, and reflect on what it means to us, and how we understand it. The No part is reacting to my words "trapping down". I am constantly changing, as is the world around me. To trap down a "belief system" into a box of untouchable certainty does not feel as important or real for me as the curiosity and questions that lead us to our next journey, and temporary destinations. I percieve that there are core values and tendencies in myself, and those are revealed to me time and again. The smaller, detail oriented curiosities are a novel bunch to consider and pontificate, but in a way, each situation requires a whole new evaluation of the universe. In a split second I am confronted with life and concoct a response based on innate values, my education thus far, my experience, my biology even. And in that second I am unaware of any of this. It is a rush of wordless whispers to my brain, my limbs, my lips, and small constant decisions and evaluations. This seems to be the nature of life's activity: a process. So I don't wish to come to set conclusions about all the mysteries of the universe. That seems a silly goal. And yet, it is what I ponder most. What might I believe, and what then is belief? Conviction? Certainty? Doubt? They are all beautiful and terrifying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)