LIFE–AND THE VEIL OF DEATH (part 4)

Having now given you my picture of life on earth, for those of you who are willing, I want to take you to the veil of death, which just happens to correspond with preparing you for the time of birth. What? Am I sure I didn’t write that backwards? I am sure. Due to extraordinary experiences, I have witnesssed a process the likes of which conjures up one of the oldest philosophical questions ever asked, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”

I still cannot answer that, I hope I did not get your hopes up. But having said that, I need to ask what happened to the chicken that emerged from the first egg? She died. And humans have been eating chickens and eggs ever since…

Yes, I am joking, but not completely. The first living beings on earth reproduceded, and were born again. I bet you’ve heard that phrase before, and where do you suppose it came from? Christ? Wrong! It came from Buddha. And he actually took it from the Hindus, who probably took it from the Jains–but nobody is counting.

So let’s get back to life. One of the primary components of life, according to the definition of life I quoted at the start of this series of posts, is death. Why do you think that is? If we somehow became immortal, would we not still be alive? Technically, if life can be considered technical, I think we would still be considered alive, but immortality might challenge another requirement of life, continuous change. How long could someone or something exist before it became so bored with life it would stop changing? One hundred years?  500 years? 10,000 years? 1,000,000 years? There is, of course, no way to answer this question, but if a body could last 1,000,000 years, would a mind last that long? Again no one can know, but I’m betting at some point change would cease. And when it did, that would at the very least be the equivalent of death. So, in my pinion, death is a necessary part of life.

Why? Because it allows us go go through a totally different kind of change, one which cannot happen here in this physical realm. If you will allow me to digress again for a moment, let us look at the concept of reincarnation. Exactly where it started, or who started it, we cannot say. The oldest concept I can find of it is in the Sanskrit language, often considered as related to some of the oldest languages on earth. But this is taking us into pre-history, so unlike Abrahamic religions, Indian religions such as Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism all have some basis in the continuity of life after death. And I see to reason to disavow life of this wonderful, and necessary, process of life.

Jainism is apparently older than Hinduism, definitely older than Buddhism, and similarly older than all Abrahamic religions. Having said that, I cannot find how reincarnation in Jainism works, but in Hinduism it is believed that individual souls reincarnate over and over again. Buddhism takes that idea and changes it to take away the vagaries of continual rebirth and gives the individual some power of how or when or where they will reincarnate.

In all three above religions, karma plays a big part in the reincarnation process. Many people in the west think they understand the concept of karma, and use the word in ways it was never intended. Yet, they have it basically right, if you hurt others you will be hurt in this life or a following life. Karma is a kind of universal system of vengeance, and in Hinduism your past will catch up with you, though probably not in your present incarnation. Buddhists allow you to manipulate your karma, so you can atone for things you have done in hour past. It is not exactly like Catholic confession, yet Catholic confession is highly based on a manipulated form of karma. All in all, though, each stage of life in the process of reincarnation is more or less predicated on previous behaviour.

My own belief is quite different, yet it did grow out of the eastern idea of reincarnation. For me, though, karma is not a factor. In fact, I do not believe karma can exist in whatever form one might think it could. Still, the western concept of sin is based on the eastern concept of karma, so I think it needs to be looked at. For karma to come into play in life, one must have either done something good for someone (creating good karma) or something hurtful (creating bad karma). Think of it as god writing all your good deeds and sins in a ledger, and counting them up at some point and either rewarding you or condemning you. This is the state Christ* supposedly found religion in when he returned from his travels in the desert. (See part 2 of this series.) If Christ had studied in India, he would have brought a lot of these concepts home with him, including sin (karma), and rebirth or being born again (reincarnation). But as I also said in part 2, he could not explain these concepts to the people he tried to teach because the concepts had no basis in their languages. Hebrew, Greek, Latin, none of them could cope with reincarnation or karma. So he winged it, and thus brought himself down to the level of his followers, and nothing came out the way it was intended.

Life on the earthly plane, as I believe it to be, is a spiritual journey before anything else. It is a process of the sparks inside our cells being reincarnated over and over into earthly life forms in order to learn how to be good, compassionate living beings. We, the group minds for those sparks, are not here to suffer, nor are we here to overindulge ourselves. We are here to understand how to be “godly,” but not to be gods. Each of us has inside of us a vision of what a good life might look like, and the more lives we live the better that vision generally becomes. Individual beings are not reincarnated, though if you are a reader of my past posts you will know I have been struggling with this concept. In writing this account of life I think I have come to envision (remember) how reincarnation does work. So, to Sha’Tara goes a big thank you for suggesting this post which turned into a whole series of posts. Thank you. And to you, dear readers, I hope you will read this treatise,  think about it, take what you want from it, leave behind what you do not want.

I have not finished yet everything I want to say, and I haven’t yet drawn you a complete picture of what I believe. I don’t even know that I can do either of those tasks, but I think now I have laid the groundwork for future posts.

Please felt free to leave your comments, pro, con, or otherwise. It is by being challenged that I am able to strengthen my understanding of life. And I am ready to move on to the next step in this journey I am on.

But, as I try to do, I want to remind you that these beliefs are my beliefs,  and I do not want anyone to believe me because I say so. Life is about looking inside yourself to find out what is true for you. Not everyone is ready to do that,  but they will be. If you aren’t ready now, you will be. It is all part of the process that we call life. And when you come right down to it, life is all we have. Without life, we have nothing.

Until next time…

*-Just a reminder that I still think Christ is a character in a fiction, but after writing this post I am a little more able to see he might have been real, if he actually did study in India. The beliefs of Christianity are definitely based in Buddhism, but twisted to point in other directions. This is a critical error, but an understandable one. If the man Christ existed, he certainly was human.

Letter to a Theist

Dear Readers,

Today as I was reading The Common Atheist’s post on 2.4 Billion and 1.6 Billion and no Bliss, I came across this posting on Three Paradoxes of Atheism by Neil Shenvi, or NAShenvi, as he calls himself.. He is a Chemical Theorist, and quite obviously, a theist. I was intrigued. You know I HAD to read that post. Not only did I have to read it, within just a few lines I HAD to reply to it. Only, there was no place for commentary. So I went to his attached website, and still had to search for awhile to find a way to contact him. You know, of course, I am not computer literate. Even moreso, I am NOT WordPress literate. But eventually I came across his email address, and following is, almost word-for-word (I corrected a few small errors I missed while proofreading):

His full quotes are in red, his broken into pieces quotes are in magenta:

********************************************************************************************************
Dear Neil,
May I kindly enquire why it is you have a website and a blog on Word Press, yet you choose to make claims that cannot be publicly addressed since you do not leave a space for comments. You have an idea of “atheists” in your mind, obviously, yet you seem to know little about who atheists are. I am one. I have my own idea of a cosmology that does not include a superbeing of any kind, but does include a very strong spirituality that connects all living beings together. Yet, as I say, I am an atheist. How can this be?
It is mainly because we are not a group, nor a club, and especially not an anti-religion. NO TWO ATHEISTS think the same. Yes, there are those who try to stand up and speak for all atheists, but they can only represent themselves. NO ONE ELSE! Does that surprise you? It should, because like most people who are not atheists, you are likely so bound and boxed into having strength in numbers, you have probably misplaced the knowledge that the strongest number in the world is 1. No two atheists think alike, or even pretend to think alike. Atheism is a belief in one’s own cosmology, and no one else’s, therefore you are misled from the get-go. You cannot truly fight atheism as long as you believe atheism is a quantitative philosophy. IT IS NOT!
Yet you say we believe… Please allow me to correct that statement, because WE do not believe anything. The best that can be said is “I believe!”, or “in my opinion (IMO)…” Had you looked at who you are really dealing with, you would have known this. But it seems you have taken the easy way out. As a chemical theorist I would have expected more of you, but maybe you are too busy with chemicals to understand what words mean, and who people are.
But please, let me answer the charges you have levelled against atheists, such as “it is very hard for atheists to explain why seeking the truth is intrinsically good or why we are obligated to seek it.” My first thought is, why would I try to tell anyone “seeking … is intrinsically good,” when “seeking” is not something everyone does, so it is not “intrinsic” to anything. Millions upon billions of people on this earth seek, or rather desire (which is the correct verb in this instance), to be left alone, to live their lives as they see fit. No one, as far as your argument is concerned, has proven seeking to be intrinsic to anything. It is but an unproven assumption, intrinsic to nothing. But allow me to expand your statement one step, “the truth is intrinsically good.” Goodness has its root in the word “god,” so to a believer such as yourself, the truth is intrinsically god-like. Don’t  you think that is a rather fatuous statement? You are applying your belief system where there is no call to do so. God has not been proven yet, though nor has he been misproven. The point is moot. For now we will have to agree to disagree, because we are getting into an area that has absolutely no meaning in my vocabulary, so again, IMO, I cannot argue for either side. So, let us expand your statement once more, “seeking the truth is intrinsically good.” This, I presume, is part of your argument, though it is stated as an “a priori” truth,  or “truth is truth.” But is it? My truth is not your truth, and your truth is not my truth. So, either truth is relative to the beholder of the truth, or it is non-existant. There can be no “truth” when two people hold the same “truth” to be different. Truth either lies in between the two positions, or it lies nowhere at all. You can expound your belief all you want, that is your privilege. I won’t bother expounding anything because, as I said previously, the words are meaningless to me. They are beyond argument.
Ah, at last, we come to the crux of your statement, which is “it is very hard for atheists to explain why.” I could rejoin your argument with its counter, “it is very hard for a theist to explain why,” but why bother. Ring around the rosy, a pocketfull of posy, husha, husha, we all fall down! Not I fall down, not you fall down, but WE fall down. We fail to make headway from either side to the other side. We both end up looking like (biblical) asses. Yet you seem to think you have scored some points… And you may have, if like Trump you believe all you have to do is state an assumption is true and it will become truth. But that is not how the real world works. You must either prove your side, or disprove mine. You can do neither. For my part I just ignore the entire claim as meaningless, though I feel it is my duty as a living being to point out your so-called “facts” are fantasy. You really ought to check them before you try to make them true.
And finally, “or why are we obligated to seek it.” You may be obligated to seek out truth, I am not. If I choose to seek out truth, relative as it may be, I do so for my own edification. And when I find my version of truth (I much prefer understanding to truth, it is so much more meaningful to me), I may tell it to some others, but I do not offer it willy-nilly to everyone, but to only those who are looking for it. And, I ask deliberately that no one believe anything I say unless it is meaningful to them in some way. I will never again say, “Here is truth, believe me when I tell you. I KNOW WHAT TRUTH IS!” I do know what “my” truth is, I have no idea what your truth is.
So why do you feel obligated to find out “why?” Why is such a spurious question. Any two year-old understands that. At first s/he really means it, but soon the child learns it irritates the adult, and so continuously asks “why?” There needs to be no why. Because it is there. Because I made up the question. Because I want to learn. Because I want to understand. Take your choice. But that is what why is, a choice to know or not know, to understand or not understand. You ask, Why? I answer, Why not? I could tell you why if I wanted. I doubt you could tell me why not.

“The paradox of atheism is that the atheist, while usually committed to living a life consistent with reality, cannot bear reality as he believes it actually is.” Say what? To transliterate from theist to atheist language: the self-contradictory absurdism of atheism is that I who am living a life consistent with reality (as I find it), cannot bear reality as I believe it to be.
Oh, my. Oh, my. Oh, My! I must shorten that statement to make it even pretend to be understandable: I CANNOT BEAR TO FACE WHAT I BELIEVE IS REALITY? Please, give a person some intelligence, even if only that of a two year-old child. Since “what I believe to be reality” is something that I choose it to be, why would I construct a reality that I would not want to be in? The insanity of that thought is incredible! My reality allows me to be joyous, to smile, to laugh, to cry, to scream “I am alive! And I love it!” My reality does not require that I suffer, that I be in constant pain. My reality allows me to be in control of life as I know it, not to exist at the whim of some other being. Truthfully, Neil, you think an atheist cannot bear to live? I am appalled. I am human. Why would I want life to be anything but what it is? I, for one, do not want any other life. Thank you for asking.

“I am not asking whether atheists can do good. Rather, I am focusing only on the impact that atheism has on our moral motivation.” Dear sir, it is no wonder you do not understand atheists, in particular, this atheist. What have I to do with “moral motivation?” Morality is for theists. I am an atheist. I have no need to be moral. I have no need for motivation. What I am is responsible to all living beings. What I am is self-obligated not to intentionally hurt anyone, not to take life needlessly or frivolously. To help they whom I see need help. To soothe those I see are in pain. To succor those who are destitute, and I can give help to.
And I do this not through motivation, or through any sense of morality. I do it because I care. I do it because I can. I do it with compassion. And I do it because “I CHOOSE” to do so, not because I am told to do so.
What you call morality I want no part of. No one but me can tell me what is right or what is wrong, because there is no right or wrong. There is only life! And life is what I share with every living being, including you.
But I don’t believe you will care about me, because you have no duty to care. You might care about my soul, but believe me, you would be wasting your time. I have no soul. All I have is me, my life, my spirit, and Life itself. And that, sir, is why I am writing you today, because I care that you are working with fallacious facts, unbelievable understandings, and a need to be correct in whatever you write. Be honest with your readers, Neil, they deserve nothing less.
Thank you for your time.


rawgod

LIVE YOUR LIFE EACH DAY TO CREATE MEMORIES YOU WILL NEVER FORGET, OR REGRET

Humanisn vs Spirituality

I just read a post on the WP blog “ANTILOGICALISM” at https://antilogicalism.com/2018/05/15/the-problem-of-atheism/. It is a fairly philosophical post, but I enjoyed reading it quite a bit, and enjoyed responding to it even more. So, I keyed on a certain 2 quotes from this post, and here is my response…

Keiji Nishitani — “The seriousness of this new humanism is that such a restoration is possible only through a denial of God.”

rawgod — In my philosophy, although the concept of a god, or gods, or a super-being, or super-beings, is something that can be spoken to, a denial of same is absolutely not necessary to speak of life. Since all above concepts are inventions of humans, they will, like all human inventions, eventually pass into non-being, and there will come a time someone reading such a composition will have few points of reference. To deny something is to give that something value, but I personally see no value in any of these concepts at this time and in this place. I am an atheist, I do not accept the beingness of the objects of these concepts, and this is the total of my dealing with them.

However, I am not just an atheist, I am a spiritual atheist. I personally am aware of other states or planes of existence, forms of beingness that do not and cannot exist on this plane, or in this state. Some are places for After-Death, which can be equal to places Before-Birth, when contemplating thoughts about life and being on this worldly, or even universal plane. Others are states or planes of existence that could pre-date our plane, but definitely there are planes that post-date our plane. But I am not about to deal with them here, since the subject of the post is life on Earth, so the commentary should focus on life on Earth. To wit:

One of humanity’s biggest problems is that it sets itself apart, for the vast majority of humans, from all other forms and species of life. This gives rise to the idea that all other things, living or non-living, exist only to serve the purposes of humanity. The writer, Keiji Nishitani, has offered up some Buddhist principles to help differentiate certain western ideas from other ideas, hoping to widen the field of play to incorporate other ways of considering the world. They may or may not accomplish his goal, that is not for me to say. However, I prefer to widen the field of play to incorporate other ways of considering life. Humanism is only one part of life, albeit I am human. Before being human, I am a living being–no species necessary.

Keiji –“Involved in the problem of the essence of human being are the questions, “What is a human being?” and “By what values should one live?”

rawgod–Being human does not mean to individualize humanity to all other living beings, but rather to find where we fit in that order, if there were such a thing as order–I do not believe there is, except the order to which we try to force life into. We are a very egotistical species, we who call ourselves human. We look at all other forms of life, and judge those lifeforms in human terms. This is not a long-viable approach to life. It has lasted for thousands of years, I grant you, but thousands of years are not even a blink in the eye of Earth, and much less in the eye of the universe. If you can consider the cosmos at all, thousands of years are not even a microsecond in our concept of time. To have value to the cosmos, humans must successfully exist for at least millions of years, but this is not assured.

Therefore, let me move on to the second question asked above, “By what values should one live?” This question pre-supposes the concept there is a way that we “should” live.” Should is a loaded word, full of obligation, and refers to an attempt to make life orderly. Life is not orderly, and never has been, though many believe it can be made that way. Order precludes accidents, and accidents happen all the time. By their very definition, accidents are things “not expected to happen, not part of order.” If there were a way humans should live, we should not ever have accidents. But since we do have accidents, there can be no order, no matter how much we try to make life so.
So let us reword the question to “By what values will we live?” The word values is also a loaded word, but not in the same way as the word should is. Values also implies an attempt at order, but this word is not so absolute. Using the plural word “values,” we are not restricting the possibilities of how a being will live, but more “hoping” a being will live by values that have a positive affect on oneself, as well as others. But again, humans being who they are, generally only want to apply any such values to human life, and to hell with any other kinds of life. Human life is the only kind of life that matters. But human life cannot exist without other kinds of life. Life feeds upon life. Humans need food to exist, and except for vitamin pills and mineral pills, and suchlike man-made foods, humans exist and survive on the carcasses of once-living plants and animals. All life, except some of the most basic beings in the world, survive to some extent on what was once living matter. The higher up the food chain one goes, the more true that statement becomes. But this only speaks to values in an indirect way. We value other living things by the matter they leave behind when they die, OR ARE KILLED.
Let us look at other types of values, in general, rather than in specifics. How we treat others, respect, compassion, empathy, love, hatred, bigotry, murder, infliction of pain, healing of injuries, and oh so many more, these are values that we use in our relationships to others, and with others. Generally, we feel it is important to treat others as we wish to have others treat ourselves. But how often do we throw these values aside according to the time and place of where we are, or where we recently were, or where we want to be. Values are easy to talk about, but they are very difficult to live by. What is even the use of having them in the first place? Because we want to feel superior to those who do not act in ways we feel our values give us precedence for having. But yet, one of the values many of us have is the value of all being equal in our basic being. Equality, while possibly real in certain ways, is a joke in most ways. What is the value of being equal if we do not live equally? We do not live equally! There is no value at all!
The same can be said for almost every value humans can think of. Values are merely concepts of ideas of actions we would like others to take so as not to hurt us.

But those values, worthless as they are, are seldom put into play when thinking of other species, or other lifeforms. Remember, we are the top of the food chain. Right? Wrong! Our dead bodies are eaten by all kinds of insects, bacteria, viruses, and especially maggots. There is no top of the food circle, biologically speaking. It goes round and round and round.

But were we to look at our spiritual beings, that which exists inside of us, but outside of physical reality, what would we see? Again, humans like to see themselves at the top of the spiritual ladder, if they even entertain the concept of a spiritual anything. But we are again not at the top of anything. Because, spiritually-speaking, all living beings really are equal. They have what we call the spirit of life, and because we are all alive, we are equal at our deepest cores. We are not the only beings on Earth, in the universe, or as part of the cosmos to have spirit. Life is spirit.

Remember, I changed the original second question above from “By what values should one live?” to “By what values will we live? I made this change because the verb should is basically meaningless. Life knows no order, and all attempts to impose order are, for the most part, useless. Accidents happen. Next, I challenged the use of the words values, and turned them into meaningless phrases that are only paid attention to when useful to the holder of said values. So where does that leave us?

We are left the the signifying verb, will. I am not using the word will here to discuss mental power, as in having the will to quit smoking. I am merely using the word will to express future action, as in, we will live however we want to live, or, we will go to the park this afternoon. It is an intentional verb of sorts, but really it only gives the possibility of intention, making it conditional on future events. So, when I ask the question By what values will we live? I am asking if, assuming everything goes according to our plans, how will we respond to them. So, if we were to make a list of values we perceive as meaningful to our lives, will we live by them? Based on humanity and the way it acts as we presently know it, the easy answer is, No, most will not. We may want to, we may try to, but situations will always come up where we will act against our best intentions. Mothers will defend their babies to someone’s death, even their own, if a perceived threat becomes potentially real. They see their child walk close to a wild bear, and they go on full alert. They remember their value, do not do any harm to anyone, but this is not an anyone, it is only a bear, and it is threatening my baby. This woman is a member of the American NRA, she will have a rifle ready, even if her only purpose of having it is target shooting. As she goes to get the gun, she is not thinking, My child was not supposed to go near bears, so it is his or her fault for disturbing the bear! No, she is thinking the bear might harm my child. Now she has the gun, loaded it, and readies herself to use it if necessary. Then she sees a bear cub come out of the bushes on the other side of her child from the bear. She knows bears will hurt anything that comes between her and the cub. She gives no thought at all to the idea that if the bear were to do anything, it would just be defending her own cub as best she knows how. Nor does she take into account most wildlife, even bears, realize that babies of any species are not generally threats to anyone. No, she will only remember hearing a story of a bear hurting a baby, and as soon as this bear takes one step towards her own cub, which means a step towards the woman’s child, she fires the gun, killing the mother bear, and orphaning the cub. But does she yet care? No, all she cares is her baby is safe, and she has to get away from this place of danger. She grabs her child, and drives quickly away.

Despite the woman’s value of not hurting anyone, she intentionally killed a mother bear. The bear did not even threaten the baby. All it did was take a step towards her own cub. But the mother did not see any of that, she thought only of protecting her child. She threw away her value for what she thought might happen, whether it might have happened her not. She will not live by her value. And neither will most people, not even in a potentially dangerous situation as this.

So do we humans forgive the mother for unnecessarily killing the bear? Most humans do. I will not. She had other choices, like making loud noises to chase the bear away, distracting the bear to lead it away from the child, walking up, without fear, picking her child up, and backing away, just for starters. But the mother is not thinking, she is acting on the same instinct the mother bear might be acting on. Does any of this absolve her of guilt? No! But most humans, as I said before, will look at her humanness, and forgive the killing of a non-human. This is unacceptable. The bear has as much right to life as does the mother, or even the child. In fact, in this situation, the bear has more right to live. The woman, though acting through instinct as is the mother bear, is awake, sentient, and able to reason, all she has to do is shrug off the instinct. The bear, as far as we know, is awake, is possibly sentient, but as far as we know, not able to reason. But now we can never know, the bear is dead. The cub has no mother to teach it. Chances are good the child still being a baby in looks, would have been by-passed by the bear, there was no visible threat as far as she could see. We again will never know. The bear is dead. She cannot be brought back to life…

Will we act according to our values? Now we get to the we. The original question used the singular pronoun, one. One individual might be able to live by a particular value, maybe even two individuals might. But unless the above mother is one of those individuals, which she obviously was not, the bear might still be alive. But does talking about individuals really answer the intent of the question, “By what values will one act?” By referring to the previous question, “What is a human being?”, it could appear Nishitani is asking, “What is one human being?”, but really he is asking about all human beings. Human beings are all alike biologically, and according to some psychologists, even mentally. So “What is one human being,” can easily be understood to be, “What are human beings–all human beings.” After all, “We’re all one.” So this now changes the second question to, “By what values should all humans act?” All humans includes all of us, living, dead, or still to live. So, the 1st person plural pronoun we can easily replace the third person singular, one.” Having already changed the obligation-loaded verb should to the futuristic form of “be,” will, the question in its simplest term becomes, “By what values will we live?”

As I have shown above, we likely will not live by any values if the opportunity to not live by those values forces itself upon us. Why not? Because we are human. We think of our selves first, or extensions of our selves such as children, maybe spouses, other loved ones. Anyone else is, first by virtue of not being connected to the self, next by not being human (in whatever way you choose to define human), not worthy of our consideration. Does this really make us human? Is this what humanism (that which constitutes the essence of the human, by species or by individuals) is all about, being better, more important, than anything or anyone else? If it is, I want no part of it. I may be human, but I am no more important than the fly that lays the eggs from which will hatch the maggots that would eat my dead body, were I not intending to be cremated.

All life is equal, in my opinion.

All in all, the questions asked at the start of this comment by the writer, Keiji Nishitani, may be important, but to me their importance lies in the difference between humanism, and spiritual atheism. I cannot, and do not, speak for anyone else. For myself, humans are but a link in the endless chain of life, and values need to be something you cannot only believe in, but something you can and will abide by. Otherwise it’s value is zero.

 

A Philosophy for All Living Beings (The NEW Part 1)

From the time the term came into my mind, “A PHILOSOPHY FOR ALL LIVING BEINGS,” upon which I posted 3 entries on my blog during February of 2018, I was completely dissatisfied with my writings, they were not a dissertation on my philosophy, but turned out to be more of a “How To…” discussion on to to become a self-aware, self-actuated or self-powered, spiritual being, providing you were human, and able to read English. These posts were so bad (as they did not relate to my philosophy hardly at all, though they were decent renditions of what they really turned out to be) that I developed a writer’s block that lasted many months. Where did I go so wrong? I might not be a talkative person, although that is in the process of changing, but when I pick up a pen, or sit at a keyboard, I usually have so much to say I cannot keep focus on what I am trying to write about, even as in this very minute. I love to explain, and even more I love to digress. And digression led me away from my original purpose in Part 1 of my earlier attempt. So now, if I may be so rude as to repeat myself, I am going to quote a few of the paragraphs I wrote in Part 1 while I was still trying to stay on focus, then go on from there. My sincerest apologies…

Sanity is a condition of life that LOCKS us inside a universal (or should I say, at this time, planet-wide?) shared concept of what reality is. Insanity, in its turn, appears to mean something like unable to live in that shared reality that sane people exist in. But unsanity, as I use it, means able to go beyond the shared planet-wide concept of reality without losing that concept of reality. “I feel like I am unsane because I can see through the veil of reality while still being able to live in that shared reality without making other people think I am insane, or unable to cope with that reality in some way. As I see myself, and the reality around me, I am not locked into that reality, but able to transcend it whenever I see or feel the need. Therefore I am more than sane, I am unsane.” To wit, I am unsane enough to believe I can write a philosophy for all living beings….

“…I did not start out to discover a philosophy for all living beings, because to even have had that concept before I stumbled onto it would have been insane, even to me. All I was looking for was something I could live with, a thought or idea or maybe even a purpose about my life, or for my life. You might say I was adrift in a sea of concepts, all handed down to me from the people whom I thought understood the world into which I had been born. Yes, I believed what I was told, for maybe the first 10 years of my life.” But then I started to grow up…

And lastly, “Reality on Earth is many things, but is not always the same for all people as one would think it would have to be if there was nothing beyond reality.” — rawgod (Feb. 2018)

But there is something beyond our shared concept of reality, at least in my opinion. In fact, I have experienced things, drug-induced, to be truthful, under the influence of LSD, that turned out to be very similar to Near Death Experiences (NDEs), only my experiences were not induced by life threatening accidents, or even intential suicide attempts, or Out-Of-Body (OBE) events, they were induced by taking LSD caused by my hope to discover if there was anything beyond our shared concept of reality–beyond sanity.

If you care to stop reading right here, that is your choice, I will not hate you for it, but I am going to keep on writing, even if nobody but me reads my words. Please remember, however, everything I am about to say is “in my opinion,” or “from my personal experience,” or arrived at through long consideration by my mind or by my spiritual self. To go on…

There is life beyond the reality we see around us every day. Mostly, no one gets to see this other Reality-Beyond-Our-Reality (RBOR), or (“arbour,” also “arbor” like a group of leafy trees designed to create a shelter), or (a place to rest unseen due to blocking of penetrating vision–rawgod) except those who have died in this perceived shared reality we call life on Earth. “Death is the ultimate trip,” hippies were wont to say back in the 1960s, but even we did not see how close we were to RBOR. Close, but yet so far, because for most living beings in the after-death, a return to life is barely an infinite blink away. But, what can occur during that infinite blink!

The body dies, and the mind detaches from it. A door opens inside the mind, and as mind dies the spirit flies through the the door. A tunnel leads the way to a shining welcome. There are no eyes and yet the sense of music of the spheres. There are no ears, yet notes and chords are brought to notice with more colours than are in the rainbow. There is no nose, and yet the communication of telepathy . There is no mouth but yet the warmth of sharing. There is no skin but yet the beauty of being. There is no me, but yet there now is us. A movie reel (real?) starts and runs from birth to death, yet no judgment hammers the view. Then all is all there is, yet is becomes, and life is formed and sent to start anew. A womb or egg or seed or spore or splitting by mitosis is chosen, spirit is set in life, and reality closes the door, and us is back to me…

Poetic, don’t you think, in every sense of the word. But this is death in my experience, or as close as I could come without dying, and bringing back with me things I did not know were attached. It has taken me 50 years and more to move from delight to insanity to fear to confusion to maybe to possibility to finally a sense of undertanding. But understanding is not yet complete, and may never be, unless I live another 50 years or more. There is so much beyond the capacity of even spirit to hold while on this realm, this plane of mainly physical being. Social workers, of which I once was one, now retired, have a word for life on earth, biophysicalpsychlogicalsocialspiritualbeing. Not all social workers ascribe to this or similar views of life, but that depends on many factors, including the willingness or unwillingness to understand life as a spiritual experience. Like social workers, people from all backgrounds, all races, all nationalities, all physiologies, all psychological types, all social communities, and all spiuritual communities, or lack of any acceptance of all or any above states and biologies of being, may choose for themselves what they want to believe, or even not choose to make a choice. All reactions are welcome, and all choices are acceptable. There is no right or wrong. There only is.

A DOG AND PONY SHOW Part One

The following is a back and forth dialogue carried on between two Word Press bloggers. I am the pony, I respond to the dog’s writings. Who the dog is does not matter, though regular readers may realize which blogger I am referencing. The who does not matter, it is the ideas expressed that are important. The originals have been proofread for ease of reading, but because I am such a bad typist I will probably not catch them all. My one promise is to do my best to not take passages out of context. I will try to keep this series as close to honest as I can. It started with this from the original post:

DOG The question [is] simple and innocuous enough: is a child born with an innate sense of God, or in a broader sense, the numinous? I suppose the question was custom-made to being hijacked mostly by atheists, and I should have been a bit more wary to even try to wade on the shore of that stream. The water was acid on my bare feet.

I’ve never liked atheism. I tried it for a few years and I found it to be a dead religion, devoid of awe, beyond short-lived awareness of pretty sunsets, flowers and waterfalls, perhaps the enjoyment of sex; devoid of joy, since true joy can only be known on that spiritual plane atheists abhor and denigrate every chance they get.

Essentially, you are born to die. You can be no more than a superior intelligent animal and all accomplishments are but the results of a pointless evolution which cannot lead anywhere since there is no continuity beyond a mindless material level. There is no purpose to life beyond propagating itself, again, for no purpose. Though atheism denies “luck”, that being a spooky goddess we do not speak of in fear of losing our atheist badge, in its philosophy everything is happen-chance.

Self-professed atheism is a recent phenomenon, at least in the Western White Christian World, stemming mostly from deliberately misinterpreted works of Charles Darwin and his speculations on species adaptation which he called natural evolution.

So began our conversation. It was not directed to me personally, but when I read it, I had a need to respond. The following begins my response:

PONY “It is naysayer time, and I say “Nay!” to you. I am a SPIRITUAL ATHEIST. I do not believe in any god, or any super-being of any kind. Children are NOT born with any idea of a god within them. All gods or super-beings are human inventions, and can only be sustained by authoritarian brainwashing. I know. I was brainwashed as a child. But my mind was too strong to allow that brainwashing to persist as I grew older, and became able to think for myself. I undid that brainwashing, and now I am free to look for myself.
You can call atheism a religion all you want, but it is not contiguous one atheist to the next. Yes, many atheists deny the existence of a spirit, but NOT ALL ATHEISTS DENY SPIRITUALITY! There are a good number of us around, but we are not a group. We don’t need others to give us our strength. We find that strength wherever we can, and from my experience, most of us find it in ourselves. But that is our choice, and no one else’s.
I would love to see a religion, any religion, make that claim for itself. None can. Religion can only be learned from outside the self. Nothing is innate, except breathing and eating. And both of those are biological processes. They do not come from the mind.
You talk about evolution, and how it is a progressive sequence of being. We started out on earth as one-celled creatures. Did those creatures believe in a god? Not impossible, but highly unlikely. One-celled beings became two-celled beings. Did they believe in a god? Again, highly unlikely. Two-celled beings became three-celled beings became ten-celled beings became 37.2 billion-celled beings (the number of cells in an average adult human being). When did gods come into the picture? The cells that make up our bodies today are identical to the cells that existed 4 billion years ago, give-or-take a few 100 million. When did gods appear? We don’t know about other species, but for humans gods first appeared when early humanoids learned about fear. First they feared nature, and tried to placate it. Then someone invented gods, and taught others to fear those gods to the inventor’s favour. The rest is history.

But, spirit is a whole nother matter. One-celled beings had a connection to each other, and that connection was life, or spirit. Every being from those first one-celled beings have had that same connection–life, and that life is spirit. Today, our 37.2 billion cells have life, and they have spirit. Through them we have life, and we have spirit. Every living being everywhere on our plane of existence has life, and every living being anywhere has spirit. Spirit is what connects every one of us to every other one of us. Not just humans to humans, or sentient beings to sentient beings. All brings to all beings! Life is connected to life!

DOG Hey rawgod, good response. So, as with religionists, there are many different kinds of atheists. However, one reacts or responds to the most vocal and “stick-together” types who form self-supporting groups on social media, for example, using the same pattern of demagoguery as their estranged brothers in the faith.

PONY “If you only take note of the loud-mouths, you cannot understand the essence of a thing. That would be like only listening to Trump on what it takes to be an American. Would that be a good thing to base your knowledge on? I would bet that if you give an honest answer, it would be an outright, absolute “NO!” So why would you do that with atheists? Believing Trump would be the easy way out, but truth is seldom easy to come by.”

DOG “Why would I listen to demagogue atheists and not the rank and file? Because, as in all other “isms” only the loud-mouths are heard. The rest go on about their lives mostly unaware of what they believe, or not, and most of their thoughts have already been formed by those very same demagogues. If you’re looking to dialogue, you can’t respond to something that doesn’t express an opinion.

PONY “I am asking you to respond to me, as the only representative of my brand of spiritual atheism. I have no knowledge of what others are saying about their brand of atheism, nor can ANYBODY BUT ME say anything about my brand of atheism. If you want to respond to those others, please do not make me appear to be part of them.”

DOG “You claim to be a spiritual atheist, which would be a total contradiction if I didn’t make the effort to understand that you do not reject some sort of “spirit” world or connection for yourself, but you definitely reject the idea of a particular male God as a super-being who created all things out of nothing and who demands abject servitude, worship and desires to be prayed to even if he never deigns reply/respond to any such prayers. So you are also a kinda-sorta agnostic-atheist, picking and choosing what fits, what doesn’t? A lot of atheists would take strong exception to that, I think, based on my own experiences with Neo-Darwinians.

PONY ‘Do I pick and choose what fits and what doesn’t? Definitely not. I look inside myself to see what is there. No super-being is inside me, nor is there any reason to believe there is a super-being outside of me. The truth of this matter, for me, is there is no reason to even consider there is a super-being anywhere. As long as I look only inside myself to see what is there, I see nothing to even suggest looking to see if there is a super-being anywhere. Such are the stuff of comic magazines and religious organizations. Even as I said to you in my above comment, there is no god in a new-born baby until some authority figure puts it there.

[Newly added–To start, there is no conflict between atheism and spirituality. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods or pantheons of gods. Spirituality, as I use it, and as Wikipedia defines it, is centered on the “deepest values and meanings by which people live.And the deepest value by which I live is the spiritual connection between all living beings. And if by spirit world you are talking about angels, ghosts, and demons, yes, I do not believe that spirit world exists. But if you are talking about a plane of existence outside known reality, though NOT in any religious way, then that I do accept, and, of necessity, believe in a spiritual world. As for any super-being, deity, or theity, as I just said, there is no reason to even think there is such a one.]

DOG Like me, you were brought up to believe in a “super being” who knows all, sees all and is much more likely to punish than to reward. Like me, you rejected that concept but unlike me, it would seem you did not pursue the reasoning why any sane person (85% of the world’s population believes in this character, worships it, sacrifices to it and stakes its future upon its dubious mercy-are they all automatically certifiable, and we 15% the only possibly sane on this world?) would continue the charade.

PONY Ah, but I did take a good, long, hard look at those 85% who believe in some type of deity or otherwise super-being. You probably won’t see that in my writing because I didn’t find anything there to give me a foothold to remain believing in deities. It (the concept) does not exist IN MY PHILOSOPHY, so why bother with it. But what I did do is realize that those who follow deist or theist religions, or even those who deny the religion but keep the theity or deities, are merely on a different part of the spiritual journey that is life. To understand religion, or belief in gods, you must believe in them yourself. You must be a part of that community. I was born a part of that community. But a time came when that community ceased to function for me, so I threw it away. But, did I throw all babies out with the bathwater? Not right away. I looked into other Abrahamic religions like Judaism, Mohammedanism, and the many other branches of Christianity, into non-Abrahamic religions such as voodoo, witchery, druidism, devil-worship, and so on.” 

DOG I [began] unravelling the reasons for man to insist on having a god. It came down to [the] realization that “god”, while not a super being, does exist. Therein lies the rub. Denial is fine and dandy, and that is what atheism is.

PONY [Newly added–Atheism is not “Denial,” to deny something would be to give it value, or credence. Theism is based on a fallacy. Atheism does not consider the fallacy.]

DOG [Atheism] doesn’t seek to unravel the cause of belief in a god, it just wants to bury the concept within a purely materialistic life. Declaring something non-existent because I can’t prove scientifically that it exists is childish. What constitutes evidence? On this world, it’s whatever those in power decide is evidence. The rest of us just better shut up if we disagree, or pay the price for being mavericks. Denying the existence of something because it is determined that the “something” doesn’t live up to certain claims made for it is an error. That thing still exists, it just doesn’t perform according to our beliefs about it. Someone could claim that a “Smart car” can pull a trailer of hay bales normally assigned to a semi. Saying that the Smart car doesn’t exist when it fails to deliver is faulty reasoning. So… God exists, outside the propaganda. What is god then? Apart from the dubious claims made by 85% of the population, from observation and study of non-approved research, we can deduce that “god” was/is an alien character, or a group of alien characters, who once lived on this world. We can deduce that Homo Sapiens are not a product of evolution, but indeed the result of a deliberate act of “vandalism” perpetrated upon a humanoid species that once lived here; the cloning of a slave race to serve the aliens. We can deduce this by looking at the many constructs that continue to baffle and intrigue and over which so much ridiculous speculation and pronouncements have been made. Of course if we want to remain either proper fundamentalist religious people, or fundamentalist Neo-Darwinians, we can mock and denigrate all observations, and all recorded research that has gone into unravelling our pre-historical but relatively recent past. We can also mock and denigrate anyone who has taken the trouble to “travel” into the past and into the future and taken a serious look at the social workings of the universe and not just those of one insignificant little world on the edge of nowhere.

As I have stated before, I have done such travelling. Through one NDE, I encountered entities/beings/aliens who had interesting things to teach about universal happenings. For example, the existence of Time Lords. On earth (‘Oh Please! Pure fantasy!) such ideas are immediately confined to looney bin thinking. But I was taught a truly neat way through the denials based on lack of information and mostly deliberate mis, and dis, information and misdirection, and that is, “Believe all things, believe IN nothing.” That which rules sentient worlds chooses to hide, and for good reasons. Another good source of information is the very book that portends to speak for God: the Judeo-Christian writings themselves. The more truth you can put in a lie, the more effective will be the lie. The Bible is a massive piece of lying propaganda but the reason it remains the number one best seller is how much truth is used to cement the lie. So, I went into it looking to find how the cement was used. Here’s a very telling quote from a letter to the Ephesians:

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

So, who are “rulers, authorities, powers”? What are spiritual forces of evil in heavenly realms? I know what the intent of the statement is, but what if I choose to follow the bouncing ball in a different direction than the writer expected? What happens if I discover, not what he hoped I would deduce, but the actual truth behind his words? Trouble! God is a Time Lord. Time Lords are spiritual forces of evil outside of Earthian awareness. Ergo why organized religions always, without fail, promote evil while disguising themselves as fronts for a benevolent “super being” as you call it. To properly engage the history of Time Lord control of this universe would mean developing an entirely new cosmology, a little beyond my abilities at the moment and beside, I doubt that I’d get anywhere with it for obvious reasons.

All that may seem off topic but not to me. I like foundations to any claim. I like evidence, not necessarily of a physical nature. I need to KNOW.  You state/claim there is no “god in a new-born baby until some authority figure puts it there” and you could not be more, and crucially in error. It is not a living super-being entity that is present (not in the new born actually, but in the foetus hence, and note: the totally irrational religious fundamentalist doctrine of protecting the unborn!) That is what the Teachers explained is in fact the soul implant; the controlling apparatus that determines what a pseudo-human will accept as truth, and what it will automatically reject. Apart from that however, there is also the spirit aspect that accompanies life. That is the thing even the Time Lords could not remove from their sentient slaves. No spirit, no life.

That much I know so far.

PONY [Newly added–All fine for you, and those who have the same and/or similar experiences. But most people on this world, I would venture less than 1% of 1% of the world’s population, have any such experience to go on.]

But, [for myself, returning to my previous comment] I found no resonance in other Western or African religions with what was in my heart and mind, and especially my spirit. So I turned to Eastern religions and philosophies, and almost immediately discovered there some very attractive theories, particularly the theory of reincarnation.
As I just wrote in a comment to someone else, I had already concluded that Abrahamic religions were impossible to live without committing their brand of sin at least once in an entire lifetime, so [as a child] I postulated practice lives, where a human could live over and over in an attempt to learn how to live the perfect life. But when I broke away from the religion that I was spoonfed as a child, I forgot all about practice lives… Until I discovered reincarnation. That was exactly what I had been looking to find in Occidental religions, but never could find.

At that time the biggest Oriental religions were Buddhism, Hinduism, and Zen Buddhism. Regretfully, I somehow missed Jainism, but not finding it then probably meant my move beyond Tibetan Buddhism, the style of Buddhism I finally chose to follow, may have taken longer to arrive at. Now, please do not think I didn’t give TiBu a good chance, because I did. I studied under a rinpoche, one of those who were at a level next below to the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of all Tibetans. He was an excellent teacher, and I learned a lot about life from him. I daresay my spiritual consciousness lifted itself many levels under his care. But one day I found the chink in the armour of TiBu, and the rinpoche and I had a horrible argument in front of his other acolytes, and I could not stay in his presence. There was a thing I believed that he did not, nor did 10,000 years of his predecessors. Not even the Bhudda left any words to say it that I could find, if even he considered it noteworthy. At last I was on my own, and I was able to shine with my own inner light. I was over religions, over deities, over most earthly philosophies but my own. And I was not lonely.

DOG [A requote] “Denial is fine and dandy, and that is what atheism is. It doesn’t seek to unravel the cause of belief in a god, it just wants to unravel the cause of belief in a god, it just wants to bury the concept of god within a purely materialistic life.”

PONY “Is this question for real? It shows absolutely no understanding of the concept of atheism. It is equivalent to Trump saying the Democrats are the reason for separating immigrant children from their parents. But I will answer it anyway.
Atheism is not about a convenient choice to ignore the concept of god in order to have fun without consequences in this particular lifetime. Okay, maybe it is for some, I cannot speak for them. Most atheists I know started out as religious, but turned away because their minds or spirits were not fulfilled by either what religion had to offer, or a god had to offer. Most are atheists because they fought the long hard battle, and came out of it standing alone. They started as an army of 1, and they ended as an army of 1. They looked at the millions around them they had massacred in effigy, and they stood proud, unafraid, relieved, and a little fatigued. But they stood victorious.
However, as many religious victors would have done after winning great battles, they did not pillage, rape, and plunder. Atheists walked to the bottom of the mound of (figurative) dead theists, and then slept the sleep of the weary. There was no rejoicing, no bending of their conciousnesses, possibly not even a smile. But it was over. For some…

DOG [A requote] “We can deduce that Homo Sapiens [as a species] is not a product of evolution, but indeed a result of a deliberate act of “vandalism” perpetrated upon a humanoid species that once lived here.”

PONY “You can deduce that, a few myths and some totally amazing bits of architecture might even support that deduction, but fossil records put the lie to the statement that evolution did not cause Homo Sapiens to appear on this earth. The thing is, I could have an easier time proving that Jesus did not spend 40 years in the desert, but he did spend a lot of time learning at the feet of buddhist teachers in India, or Persia, IF HE DID INDEED EXIST. The clues, if you care to look, are many. Most don’t want to look at them. But, yes, I for one have looked (indirectly) at Stonehenge, and the Pyramids, and a lot of other such constructions, and while the feats were definitely unworldly, they were still within the realm of human capability. Further, if such constructions were designed by alien engineers, why did they use such crude building blocks? Surely, with their technology, they could have sliced mountainous rocks into mirror-smooth blocks that fit perfectly together. The building blocks of said architecture show evidence of being made with crude contemporary tools. Were the aliens so cruel as to make their slaves take years to do what they could have done in minutes? This does not fit, for me.”

Thus ends part one of my conversation with my fellow blogger. Hopefully I will get the next part done soon, and hopefully I can throw in an analysis. Till then, keep on keeping on…

Learning How to be Unsane

But enough about obstacles. I have told you what the major obstacles are, but I now need you to discover the rest on your own. The thing is, I really don’t want to tell you anything at all, my only purpose in writing this work is to have it act as a guide, not to act as a How to Change manual. I want it to be more of a “This is My Experiencework that you might be able to use to help you through the changes you are about to go through. This is definitely NOT a Bible for Change.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him or her drink!

Probably at some point in your life you have heard the above adage or saying, or one similar to it. I want to take this moment to remind you, no one led you to this work (unless someone connected to you in some way suggested you come, but that certainly was not me), you basically led yourself here. But even so, however you got here, no one, including me, can make you read what is here, or force you to use anything you read here. This change, if you decide to go through with it, is wholly up to you, and how that change happens for you is completely and absolutely up to you.

Just a short while back I suggested authority figures will be an obstacle against making this change. I even suggested to you that God, being the Ultimate Authority Figure, would be an obstacle. Now I need to change that statement. Since you are still reading this, and didn’t stop reading it when I wrote the above piece on obstacles, I know now that you are serious about making a change, or at least seriously contemplating making a change. So, if you believe in God, and find that after you make the change you still believe in God, I’m not going to tell you that you are wrong. I may not have said this in so many words before this, but as you go through this change, you may find you believe things inside yourself that did not originate inside you. That does not mean they are wrong. Some people actually know what they are talking about. And here is the point I tell you that while the concept of God, or any supreme being or force, does not work for me, it is up to you to decide what does or doesn’t work for you. Only you can know what works for you. No one, absolutely no one, has the right to tell you that you are wrong about anything.

Somewhere in the course of reading this work, you probably also asked yourself, “If this change is so hard to make, and so potentially life-changing, why should I bother trying to make it? Do not let me answer that for you. My opinion is that if you (the horse) are here (at the water), and looking for help (wanting to quench your thirst), why not drink? That is the simple response, but does it help you decide to drink? I hope it isn’t that simple for you, although if you are ready it might be. But if you still aren’t sure, what is it that you might decide to not make the change that keeps you from doing it? First question: Is the water safe to drink, and am I being truthful when I say I believe it is? My response is: I have absolutely no vested interest in what you decide to do. I am not asking you for money, so I don’t want to steal from you. I am not asking you to become a follower, a cult member, or anything like that, so I don’t want to force you into anything. I am not asking you to do anything at all that you don’t decide to do on your own. In fact, I really only want to help you do this if you decide to do this for yourself. There is no should here, or no must. This is totally up to you. And to take that idea one step farther, I don’t want to tell you or anyone why to change or what to change into. My only role in this whole process, if you will allow me to change the allegory, is to be the midwife as you give birth to the new you. There is nothing else I can or want to do. On the off chance that there is a second question, I would prefer you ask it either in a comment, or directly to me (gewcolo@gmail.com) if you prefer privacy.

Here, I think, is a good time to back up a little in this work. Another question you are probably asking in some shape or form is: What has all this to do with all living beings? Everything I have said so far pertains to human beings, to people, and no one can read this but people. And you have hit the nail directly on the head with a huge hammer. I mentioned above that there are trillions of billions of millions of living beings on this planet alone, what about them? Most of them can’t think, or read, or write, or even know. They aren’t even aware they are alive… Are they?

Have you ever asked an ant if it is aware of its own existence? Absurd. There is no way for an amoeba to know it is alive. Or even a _______? I’ll let you fill in the blank. I am not going to insult your intelligence by saying I talk with bugs, or plants, or most animals. But neither am I going to insult their intelligence, or whatever it is that they use to direct their daily lives. I have no illusion that I am a member of the most intelligent species of beings in existence. Because I do not know how to communicate with a living being does not mean it does not communicate with itself, or others of its kind. My basis for this belief is a simple one, all of us are alive. All of us share this wondrous thing called life. And there is no reason for me to believe I am special, or people are special. Or to put that another way, I believe every living being is special, because every living being has life.

If I had my druthers, I would have called this philosophy A Philosophy of Life, but that name is already taken. I wracked my brain to come up with a name that could describe what I feel inside of me, and communicate that feeling to you, or anyone else capable of using this method of communication. Nothing fit, until one day I woke up with the name on the tip of my lips, A Philosophy for All Living Beings. Where it came from, I cannot tell you. I assume it came from my dream mind, or my subconcious mind, or maybe my unsane mind, but it really doesn’t matter where it came from. It works for me, and as far as I know, no one has ever used it before.

So, to quickly describe why I think this philosophy works for all living beings, it is because most living beings already know who they are, and how to live their lives. It might not seem thus to us, but we have no way of knowing what being a different species of life feels like to that particular species of life, or that any being within any species feels about being a living being. I wrote a verse of poetry one day, which seems to be very appropriate here. In the about to be quoted verse, I was writing about dinosaurs:

their brains were the size of peas

we are told

but the size of the brain

does not reflect

the expanse of the mind

(The entire poem can be read at http://rawgod.tripod.com/RealAdvice/id3.htm if you are interested. Look to the left side of the page. Please copy and paste if link does not work. )

This also refers to humans. No one knows what we are truly capable of. But for this work, I would like to re-write that sentence as: No one knows what you are truly capable of… At least, not yet…

So, to show you, through words, how I became unsane, you must leave this website. Go to: http://rawgod.tripod.com/4StepProgram/index.htm   (Please copy and paste if link does not work. )

There you will find an OVERVIEW of the process which I used to change myself, with an index on the right side to take you to how I actually went through the process I discovered. If you try it, I wish you luck becoming the REAL YOU! If you don’t, I hope you bookmark that page for when you decide to discover the Real You. You will decide to try, at some point. I can almost guarantee it. You’ve come this far, have you not? Why not just see if it works…

Learning How To Think “Unsanely”

Reality on Earth is many things, and is not always the same for all people as one would think it would have to be if there was nothing beyond reality.

Can there be such a thing, a philosophy for all living beings? I mean, come on now, from amoebas and viruses and bacteria to humans and elephants and whales, and who knows what kinds of living beings might exist on other worlds, or other planes of existence, can any one person speak for every other living being? That would be impossible, wouldn’t it? And incredibly egotistical! What could possess a person, any person, to make such a claim? He or she would have to be insane, right? Just trying to think of the immensity of the numbers of living beings here on Earth, the trillions of billions of millions of living beings alive right now is beyond human comprehension, and if you throw in the beings that might be alive on even one other planet somewhere in the universe, that would be doubly impossible to comprehend, so, yeah, insane is a good word that comes immediately to mind. But I, the person trying to write this insane philosophy, have a different word to describe how I feel making such a claim, and that word is unsane, or, beyond sanity.

Sanity is a condition of life that locks us inside a universal (or should I say, at this time, planet-wide?) shared concept of what reality is. Insanity, in its turn, appears to mean something like unable to live in that shared reality sane people exist in. But unsanity, as I use it, means able to go beyond the shared planet-wide concept of reality without losing that concept of reality. “I feel like I am unsane because I can see through the veil of reality while still being able to live in that shared reality without making other people think I am insane, or unable to cope with that reality in some way. As I see myself, and the reality around me, I am not locked into that reality, but able to transcend it whenever I see or feel the need. Therefore I am more than sane, I am unsane.”

[So, if you can live with that definition, whether or not you can fully understand it, or even accept it, we can move on from here. Otherwise, I think anyone who cannot live with my definition of unsanity will think me insane, and therefore find little value in the philosophy of all living beings, because it probably will not fit into their (or your) vision of sanity, and the reality in which they (you) live.]

To continue, I did not start out to discover a philosophy for all living beings, because to even have had that concept before I stumbled onto it would have been insane, even to me. All I was looking for was something I could live with, a thought or idea or maybe even a purpose about my life, or for my life. You might say I was adrift in a sea of concepts all handed down to me from the people who I thought understood the world into which I had been born. Yes, I believed what I was told, for maybe the first 10 years of my life.

I cannot say exactly what started me thinking that the authorities on life didn’t have any better clue of what life was all about than I did, but probably it was knocked into me by a physically abusive father who was determined to knock all my weird ideas out of me. He, nor anyone else, was able to answer the questions I was starting to ask, so he somehow decided that he could beat me into sanity, which was actually the worst thing anyone could have done. Instead of beating reality into me, he made me want another reality all the more, a reality where I was safe from being beaten… (I gave myself that safe reality as a 16th birthday present. I had run away from home in an attempt to find safety before that day, but this was an era when there was no legal policy to stop a parent from abusing a child, so the police always took me back to my father despite me telling them he was probably going to beat me to death one day. You can guess what this made me think of the police force, but that is another matter. There was, however, one cop who told me one day, wait till you are 16 and you can legally escape from him, and my mantra (a verbal statement that inspires its speaker) became “Only xxx more days till freedom,” and I counted down the days till I turned 16.) None of this, of course, is important to this work, but I thought you might like to know how my life started, and how I became so determined to find something that was different from the insane reality that was destroying me.

 

Reality on Earth is many things, and is not always the same for all people as one would think it would have to be if there was nothing beyond reality.

 

That thought was the first clue I had to realizing that there might be something different from what I was being told reality was. So this is where I really started my search…

To be continued…

ERIC BURDON 1968, AMERICA 2017

A reblog of my comment to rob goldstein who was reblogged by jilldennison

This Blog was written a while back, but apparently I forgot to publish it. So here it is in its entirety. Its a bit dated, but not that much… And it seems to just start in the middle of a thought. My apologies.

Directed to all Americans: I would be much happier to see you marching in the streets (peacefully, of course), holding rallies to impeach King Donald, DEMAND A NEW ELECTION because the farce that was held in your country in November last is a million times worse than what you allowed Jeb Bush to do in Florida refusing to count the ballots from particular areas of Miami in a previous election. How can anyone give Trump the legitimacy to be called the President of the United States of America? He obviously intends to break up that union as soon as he gets these other policies through Congress. If you let him ride out his four years as president he will do his best to change the law to allow himself to declare the Republic (not Democracy) dead and appoint himself as supreme leader and DICTATOR OF THE WORLD. Just look in his eyes to see how schizophrenic this man is. He has a mental illness and needs to start taking his meds again.

Hopefully he will send someone from the CIA to find me in Canada and assassinate me for seeing the future he is planning, total genocide of all Muslims whether they are terrorists or good people (they might have children who will become terrorists, mark my words). If I get killed in whatever fashion in the near future, it will be at the Donald’s orders. Please arrest him for my murder.
Get up off your asses and do something to save yourselves. TAKE ACTION. Otherwise it will be like Eric Burdon sang about on his EVERY ONE OF US album in 1968. I quote from memory, “Sure, they’re all good people, sitting around saying ‘Aint it a shame. Aint it a shame.’ Good people, at least they call themselves good people… but someone’s got to do something about it… get off of your big fat you-know-whats and MOVE!!!! or there won’t be anyone left”
Obviouisly Eric was not rapping about America in that song, but it’s like he gave me those words to give to you almost 50 years later. Signing a petition is nice, but it won’t fix your problem, our problem, the world’s problem. Hell, why not go all the way and say it’s the universe’s problem, because the air moved by the wings of a butterfly…
The Monarchs are dying by the millions, and soon those beautiful insects may be no more. And if they go, we will go shortly after them. SAVE A MONARCH, IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP!

I’d keep on going, but I gotta go take a shit. I’m filled up to here with all this crap!

rawgod

PS: Listen to STEPPENWOLF too…

America, where are you now> Don’t you care about your sons and daughters? Don’t you know? We need you now. We can’t fight alone against the Monster;

 

The Nuclear Family

How to destroy a world with one easy lesson

In past blogs, I have mentioned three of the worst offenders to human happiness and well-being, my Three Gs: God, Gold, and Government. By god, I mean any religion or philosophy that feels its members are better than the members of any other religion or philosophy, and will fight to the death to defend their supposed superiority, and they do it in the name of God, or Naziism, or Communism, or (and especially) Free Enterprise. Free Enterprise also fits well with the G of Gold. Gold stands for wealth, money, corporations, global industries, national or global conglomerations, consortiums, and whatever else Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels predicted would come to pass, and eventually the proletariat or industrial slaves would rise up and slay the greedy bastards. What they, Marx and Engels, failed to realize is forewarned, forearmed. They should have kept that part to themselves. But whatever, I still believe they are right and the bosses will have to one day be cut down to size, either at the ankle or at the neck. (Not that I want anyone to die for being who they are, but would I be able to stop a mob from doing what they wanted to do? I don’t think so.) The last G stands for Government, another establishment structure that writes laws and more laws, all designed, according to them, to protect the society and culture of the nation they are supposed to be guiding. But really, they are “guarding” the interests of the top 5% of their populations from the 95% of people who want what the 5% have way too much of anyway. And if the slaves of commerce start getting restless, find some other government whose industrial slaves are also getting restless, and declare war against them. The people in the government won’t have to go to fight and probably die on foreign soil, they’ll be sitting in their hideouts just in case the war blows up in their faces. The only people they want to have killed are the young men and women who are actually capable of overthrowing their government when their amount of restlessness exceeds their ability to be controlled. Meanwhile, of course, the industrialists are making fortunes hand-over-fist off making the tools and supplies for their young people to kill other young people with. It has been like this since the dawn of cavemen vs. tree-dwellers. And the only way to stop it is to get rid of all levels of government.

Meanwhile, there is another grouping of people that have existed since the dawn of cavemen and tree-dwellers that has even more influence on their societies than any government will ever have. Of course, I am talking about. the nuclear family. If you were raised in a healthy home environment, loved and kept safe from the perils of the world, not taught to hate anyone, or covet what the family down the block or across the village has, please raise both your hands in the air. (The more arms in the air, the more parents of nuclear families can feel good about themselves, right?) But how many arms are there in the air? None, you say, not even one? Well, butter my butt and call me Jed! There aren’t any healthy nuclear families in this crowd? Parents, didn’t any of you come from healthy nuclear families? Well, no wonder you haven’t raised healthy children, you don’t know how! Your role models weren’t any better than you as role models. I’d say God help us, but I don’t even believe in God anymore. He was as much a fable as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

And so it goes, generation after generation, there aren’t any instruction manuals that come with babies, and the people that try to write them all have some kind of syndrome or other to begin with. Having worked in the addiction and mental health fields could have warped my mind against the nuclear family, but what do you want to bet my father warped my mind before I even knew there were so many syndromes you could have because of the way you were treated as a child.

Just today the courts found a set of parents guilty of causing the death of their 15 year old son by denying him the insulin he needed to combat his diabetes. 15 years old, and he weighed about 70 lbs. when his body was discovered. His body was emaciated, and his pallor was the colour of the snow outside his door. He had not been allowed outside his home since he was six years old, and none of the neighbours even knew he existed, not in the province where he died. Back in the province of his birth, the authorities knew all about him, knew that his parents were withholding his insulin, knew they had to get him away from his parents, but the court ruled in favour of the parents, because surely no parent could continue to be so callous as to not give their child his life-saving medicine. And as soon as the “nuclear family” left the courthouse, they packed up their belongings and moved. The authorities that had been watching over him never told anyone he was gone, so when the family found a home in a new province, no one knew their history. The boy slipped through every crack there was to slip through, and nine long years later he finally died. This is how the nuclear family works?

Of course I’m using an extreme example, but how extreme does a person have to get before people realize the nuclear family is failing worse with every new generation? In Vietnam and in parts of the Middle East, parents gave their ten year old children bombs and told them to give the bombs to the soldiers on the other side. The kids had no idea what they were doing, and they trusted their parents to keep them safe, but when they reached the other side and soldiers came out to greet the children, to get them out of harms way, the mother or father pressed a button, and the child got blown up along with most of the soldiers in the area. This is how the nuclear family works?

This wasn’t a random act, turning children into walking bombs. It is a reasoned act of war. How can we sit back and listen to the news that tells us these things are happening? In Africa ten year old children are recruited as soldiers of god, whichever god their masters happen to believe in, and taught how to shoot a rifle and throw a grenade. Should these children be held accountable when they had no concept that what they were doing could kill people? Well, guess what, the mighty United States of America thought they should be tried for war crimes, and placed in jail for the rest of their lives. If they happen to be Muslim children, President Donald Trump will probably put them in front of a firing squad. “No damned little Muslims are going to terrorize American soldiers!” And he will probably build a wall around the Middle East, and make the Arabs pay for it. It makes me wonder what kind of nuclear family he was raised in…

I’m serious as hell when I say, let parents have children, but don’t let the parents own them. If the parents cannot pass a set of psychological tests, take the babies away from the parents, and put them into a group home where professional parents who can pass the same tests work together to raise the little tykes, where the children are taught about things, but are never told “This is the way you have to be.” Provide them with love, safety, healthy foods, proper clothing, and toys and such, and mix the genders and the races in each group home, parents and children alike, and let them learn on their own there is nothing to fear in a world made of people of many races. There can be no corporal punishment in these group homes, and the children must be allowed to play in the same area as children from other group homes so that they can learn about other children, children of all ages from baby to near-adult. Give them the tools to live a safe and happy life. As they grow up, teach them various occupations suited to their age. Don’t make gender an issue, teach boys and girls the same things, including what happens with each gender as they reach puberty. And above all else, give them the power to think critically.

If you really want to save this world and all the people in it, deconstruct the nuclear family. Keep those people who would teach their children hatred and violence from ever bringing up children. These are the kinds of parents that keep the pattern of poorly adjusted physically and mentally ill children from becoming the same kind of parents as they had growing up. Give the future generations the chances we never had, and save them from those parents who condemn their children to follow in their footsteps.

A Quick Summary of Spiritual Evolution

A personal brand of Spiritual Atheism

I come from a group, different from any group I have ever known, a group of one, me. I believe that the earth and all visible matter is not illusory, but a place of learning.  I’ll get into the “for whom” later. For now let us just say that whatever this third dimension (fourth if you include time, but for me time is just another measurement, an invention to explain how matter is able to change and NEVER return to the same state in the same combination of the same atomic particles ever again in our personal reality, and is therefore not a dimension) is made of, it is real enough because we can use our senses to perceive that some things remain the same for certain lengths of time, while other things, including ourselves, can change depending on what kinds of forces are exerted upon us. In simple language, the universe is real, and we living beings are journeyers through it.

But that begs the question, where do we journeyers come from, where are we going, and why. My philosophy, constructed by myself with help from Albert Hoffman, Tibetan Buddhism, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, and all kinds of people whose names or group affiliations I will probably never know, Sylvia Miller (my sister, a member of the Mormon faith), and a science fiction writer whose name, I believe, is James Blish, but I could be wrong. I will try to list what each of the above people or groups contributed to the building and clarification of my philosophy:

  • James Blish (or S.F. counterpart) – for giving me the designation “first life”
  • Tibetan Buddhism – the first real explanation of reincarnation I found, which I expanded on greatly
  • Albert Hoffman – inventor of LSD, which broke down the locked doors in my mind
  • Charles R. Darwin – Discoverer of “Evolution, ” but who never looked at evolution of the spirit
  • Richard Dawkins – who wrote “The Blind Watchmaker” and and gave me a feasible theory for the start of life upon our planet
  • Sylvia Miller – my sister, who asked me the simplest question of all, in all seriousness, “So what is it you DO believe in?” and I said to her aloud for the first time “Spiritual Atheism, and Responsible Anarchy.”
  • and, of course, myself, a common man known as rawgod, who took all the above clues and amalgamated them into what I believe is a consistent and viable alternative to all the great (and not so great) scientists, and philosophers, and whomever took part in disseminating their theories to the public world, where I could study them at my leisure.

Following is the story of my beliefs, from alpha to psi. I have yet to reach omega:

The Big Bang produced a living baby who spent billions of earth years in a form of solitary confinement deprived of all sensory perception until Dawkins’ crystals caught its attention, and it saw that those crystals could never achieve life until life was injected into them. But that was like a newborn baby on Earth finding a toy irresistible to play with despite not understanding the toy, or not even knowing that there was an “I” to play with that toy. In other words Big Bang Baby knew no awareness of any kind, except that the toy was fun.

Meanwhile, First Life started to put a tiny wee bit of itself into each crystal, thus providing the crystal with the previously missing force called life, and immediately the newly formed crystal came to life, and with help from that force realized life did not come without conditions, what I call the Three Prime Directives of life, for which I have no basis other than seeing these directives in most species of life around me:

1) to live as long as it can

2) to procreate as much as it can

3) to progress, or advance, or evolve into something better than it is

These one-celled beings ruled the earth for another billion or so years, then accidentally created a two-celled being where each original cell took up one purpose, that of eating, and that of eliminating the useless residue. This began the era of “cell specialization,” which has advanced and evolved into the animals and plants that live somewhere on earth today, making up all the living beings that have evolved from their very humble beginnings.

Also, for those beings that take note of such things, natural evolution is not the only kind of evolution there is. There is also a definite line you can follow called “spiritual evolution.” It is a long line to follow through the one-celled, two-celled, and even the many-celled beings that struggled through the billions of years of learning to make specialized cells for all kinds of uses, yet the evidence suggests that spiritual evolution at least kept pace with natural evolution, sometimes just behind it, sometimes just ahead. And I state this because all the while, the spirits that first inhabited the crystals that turned into living beings brought valuable bits if information back to First Life when they died. This was reincarnation’s finest hour, because the information that they brought back to the source of all life in the universe, eventually gave awareness to First Life that it was indeed alive too. And that it had a spirit, and that its spirit could grow. Try reading “The Source” by James Michener. or look into my blog at rawgodsspiritualatheism.wordpress.com. You will find there a much expanded version of some of the things I have discussed here tonight. Alternatively you can go to http://www.centerforabetterworld.com/SpiritualAtheism/spiritual-atheists.htm comment page, move order to newest first, and read my third comment down. Those two sites will give you the best insight into me and what I stand for.

In another person’s blog I was reading, that someone mentioned people taking responsibility for all parts of their lives, including civic responsibilities with the rest. I am sorry, but I don’t believe any form of government has the best intentions for all classes of people, including Canada and the States. No government has the concerns of all its citizens at heart, disregarding about 95% of its citizens, truth to be told. The only kind of responsibility that will work will come from our spiritual evolution, and that is responsible anarchy. That is what all spiritual atheists might strive for, dismantling the government in the land but not replacing it–for the first time in recorded history.