Science And Religion Aren't Friends

[Antlerman]

Well maybe the lady couldn't handle it and it WAS all too much for her. I know people so traumatised by their overwhelming feelings they can't take any kindness at all. Some people's feelings overwhelm them so much they dissociate themselves from their soul, and can exist more peacefully that way, or exist at all.

There is wisdom here. It is my belief that everyone has that same depth accessible within them, but getting to it, is a matter of growth and development. Anything can go wrong along the way that they experience dissociation, as you point out.

 

That woman was negative about everything. Another example of many was one morning coming into work, it was a beautiful spring day, the kind that made everyone else feel alive and happy. Her comment when she walked in and others talked of how nice it was out? "It's too bright". But you are exactly right. It is a dissociation that occurred somewhere for them that made their own emotions inaccessible to them.

 

Again in this life, one size does NOT fit all. Some of us have deep souls and we can handle it, some have deep souls and can't. Same applies to shallow souls. We are all different, and we are ALLOWED to be.

Of course. We all have to develop how we are able, and there are many variables at play that either help or hinder that. I for one don't believe any of us can be static within ourselves. I don't believe that is possible. That someone for any one of those myriad variables in life apprehends only what may seem surface level experience of life in mind and spirit within themselves is not any matter of value judgment. But I cannot look at someone dissociated from what is normal and healthy in all people that basic connections are broken and believe that to be simply a difference. The behaviors such as saying "It's too bright out", when looking at the world are symptomatic of dissociation, not simply a difference of level.

 

I think to my own existential crisis as a youth growing up. I had become disconnected from the world and from myself within me. It was a terrifying feeling of disconnect with the world. I looked at the world and saw everyone around me smiling, saying it was a beautiful day, acting happy. It all seemed artificial to me; that they were all plastic and fake, just acting like it but not be real - it was all a show. That's how it looked to me, because I was disconnected within myself and that's what it would be for me to act and pretend to feel otherwise!

 

I'll never forget coming to some realization within myself that things were off. When I was alone and there was no one to distract me from being within myself, what I saw was emptiness and disconnect. I talked to my mother, on one of the beautiful spring mornings, and told her how everyone seemed so phony in life, like they were all just pretending to be happy. She responded by simply pointing to the world outside and talked about what was beautiful about it. I looked outside and could see in her that she was genuine, and yet I felt nothing - it was flat, gray, and removed from me. That was my moment of crisis.

 

It was shortly following this, within a week, that I had a profound awakening of mind and soul and spirit in two existential experiences that forever changed my perception and understanding of existence itself; not just as an observer, a witness, but a fully living, fully actualized participant within it and as it itself. All that follows has been various stages of processes of growth towards that summit of existence, of Being. Each stage of our growth is within that and towards that, and within any part the whole exists. It's all simply a matter of exposure to what is.

 

But growth can distort and dissociate into disconnection. We are all interconnected, and this includes ourselves with ourselves, which is ourselves in relations to the world, and to others, and to the nature and reality of existence itself. It is an external and internal universe without us and within us. It is not "too bright", it is Life.

[DesertBob]

When I was alone and there was no one to distract me from being within myself, what I saw was emptiness and disconnect.

This raises an interesting question, which is, when is it more beneficial to be distracted? Some people really need to be pulled out of themselves and focused elsewhere in order to move forward. Yet there are times when doing that can be a disservice to them, as they actually need an existential crisis to come to a head. I get the sense that some people can get stuck navel gazing while others can get stuck in avoidance of their inner world. I generally seem to be in the former group, needing people in my life to help balance me, to force me to do for awhile and let being take care of itself. I sense that the majority of people, at least in the West, get caught up in doing and need something like a physical or relationship breakdown to force them to attend to being for a change.

[Antlerman]

When I was alone and there was no one to distract me from being within myself, what I saw was emptiness and disconnect.

This raises an interesting question, which is, when is it more beneficial to be distracted?

The simplest answer is when it yields the healthiest results.

 

Some people really need to be pulled out of themselves and focused elsewhere in order to move forward. Yet there are times when doing that can be a disservice to them, as they actually need an existential crisis to come to a head.

I think it's important to recognize the difference between the need to resolve conflicts in order to progress, which can be a struggle but necessary, and wallowing unproductively in distress. One strengthens through the effort and exercises of working your way though something, the other simply looks at it with dread and curls inward and downward.

 

I get the sense that some people can get stuck navel gazing while others can get stuck in avoidance of their inner world.

I think it's important to make a clear distinction between true introspection and narcissism. To look inward should not result in becoming more self-centered and egotistical, but quite the opposite effect happens. The greater depth you go in, opens us to what is beyond and outside us. By "staring at our naval", we move beyond a view of ourselves where the world is "about us", to understanding we are greater than our ideas of ourselves, and that we are much more connected with others.

 

This in fact is exactly what happens in normal, healthy development from childhood to maturity. It's a lessening of egocentricism, into a fully developed ego - a fully realized individual in themselves, integrated with others. That requires going beyond views of ourselves as the center.

 

If someone is "stuck" staring at their naval, then I would say they may in fact not be developing their mature self sense beyond ego, but instead simply focusing on themselves narcissisticly, either in vanity exercises or self-pity or loathings.

 

Do people avoid going in? Yes. And that comes back exactly to what I said earlier about the dread fear of facing that Self beyond self. It is terrifying. We have to die to the images we tell ourselves are us. It is facing the death of ourselves, followed by release into Self, or Spirit. It is in that comes full self-actualization, ego beyond egocentricsm. We are free to and compelled to love.

[Guest end3]

I think it's important to recognize the difference between the need to resolve conflicts in order to progress, which can be a struggle but necessary, and wallowing unproductively in distress. One strengthens through the effort and exercises of working your way though something, the other simply looks at it with dread and curls inward and downward.

 

Sometimes these conflicts can be recognized by others......and for the most part, the whole exercise is pointless without other people or relationships to things meaningful, like a god or a dog. "Don't quit meeting together" comes to mind.

 

I think it's important to make a clear distinction between true introspection and narcissism. To look inward should not result in becoming more self-centered and egotistical, but quite the opposite effect happens. The greater depth you go in, opens us to what is beyond and outside us. By "staring at our naval", we move beyond a view of ourselves where the world is "about us", to understanding we are greater than our ideas of ourselves, and that we are much more connected with others.

 

The cool thing is that within these relationships, we can, through our own maturity, influence, promote, or regulate someone elses conflict, by our own wisdom or obedience to choose a polite response. Take our wives for example. Not saying everyone needs a wife, but I think you can see the products that a relationship with trust yields.

 

This in fact is exactly what happens in normal, healthy development from childhood to maturity. It's a lessening of egocentricism, into a fully developed ego - a fully realized individual in themselves, integrated with others. That requires going beyond views of ourselves as the center.

 

Through the conflict....and "suffering".

 

If someone is "stuck" staring at their naval, then I would say they may in fact not be developing their mature self sense beyond ego, but instead simply focusing on themselves narcissisticly, either in vanity exercises or self-pity or loathings.

 

Right

 

Do people avoid going in? Yes. And that comes back exactly to what I said earlier about the dread fear of facing that Self beyond self. It is terrifying. We have to die to the images we tell ourselves are us. It is facing the death of ourselves, followed by release into Self, or Spirit. It is in that comes full self-actualization, ego beyond egocentricsm. We are free to and compelled to love.

 

To go in would mean to devulge information to others that we don't want to....that they might really know who we are. More suffering. But when you choose the harder road, it yields growth for ourselves and love and trust for others.

 

Really cool thing.

[DesertBob]

If someone is "stuck" staring at their naval, then I would say they may in fact not be developing their mature self sense beyond ego, but instead simply focusing on themselves narcissisticly, either in vanity exercises or self-pity or loathings.

Let's face it, no one in their right mind pays any attention to this stuff for the fun of it. If I encounter someone in their "death throes" over this I don't judge them for resisting, I congratulate them for pushing against the resistance.

 

I don't mean to be a one-trick pony, but my own relatively recent life experience, and that of several people close to me, plus my involvement in hospice, tends to move me to draw parallels to the grieving process. That process is also a process of suffering, letting go, and becoming, and if there is one thing we learn from this, it's that it doesn't happen on someone else's timetable. Some people move through grief and loss very quickly, in a matter of days, and some move through painfully slowly, over many years. I see no real relationship between the speed with which people move through it and their "willingness" or "openness" or even how "fractured" they are or aren't.

 

So it is with all deaths.

 

We can all be found from time to time pissing and moaning about our personal crucifixions. Being impaled isn't fun. I do my best to sit with it, in myself and in others.

[Antlerman]

If someone is "stuck" staring at their naval, then I would say they may in fact not be developing their mature self sense beyond ego, but instead simply focusing on themselves narcissisticly, either in vanity exercises or self-pity or loathings.

Let's face it, no one in their right mind pays any attention to this stuff for the fun of it. If I encounter someone in their "death throes" over this I don't judge them for resisting, I congratulate them for pushing against the resistance.

 

I don't mean to be a one-trick pony, but my own relatively recent life experience, and that of several people close to me, plus my involvement in hospice, tends to move me to draw parallels to the grieving process. That process is also a process of suffering, letting go, and becoming, and if there is one thing we learn from this, it's that it doesn't happen on someone else's timetable. Some people move through grief and loss very quickly, in a matter of days, and some move through painfully slowly, over many years. I see no real relationship between the speed with which people move through it and their "willingness" or "openness" or even how "fractured" they are or aren't.

 

So it is with all deaths.

 

We can all be found from time to time pissing and moaning about our personal crucifixions. Being impaled isn't fun. I do my best to sit with it, in myself and in others.

I full well understand and appreciate the grief process. In no way would I judge where someone is at based on how long it may be taking. What I think is the problem is the use of the term "Staring at one's naval". I just looked it up on line to see how others explain it:

Omphaloskepsis is the contemplation of one’s umbilicus in the process of meditation. However, the term navel-gazing has quite a different connotation. A navel-gazer is excessively self-absorbed.

 

I think we're conflating meanings here. In mediation, or an introspective journey, the result should be a going-beyond ones self. The fruit it bears is a greater connection with the world through a reduction of a narcissistic self-absorption. To be inwardly gazing at ones problems in life, whether in an effort to sort out and work through difficulties or grief, is very different than this.

 

That inner examination of one's life's difficulties, can be both productive or counter-productive depending on a number of things. For instance, simply picking at ones wound because it hurts and to stimulate that hurt to remind of that pain, is not productive, nor would I consider that any necessary part of any such process of moving through grief. (I know this, because I've done this many times).

 

But again, this isn't about grief processes. It's about finding ourselves past ourselves in an effort of growth. That "staring at the navel" is in the former sense. And it's in that former sense that I thought it important to show how that introspection does not result in narcissism.

[Galien]

I would argue though that being stuck is not a choice, and that self-pity is sometimes justified. I don't avoid going in, but sometimes I get sucked into a vortex which I cannot escape, I believe it to be faulty brain wiring. Time though has helped me to manage it a lot better than i used to.

 

I do agree though with the connectedness thing, and it explains why I have always been compelled to love, despite some pretty nasty circumstances and every reason in the world that I should hate. I have never believed this love comes from me. I used to think it was god. Now I don't know what it is, but i like it.

[DesertBob]

But again, this isn't about grief processes. It's about finding ourselves past ourselves in an effort of growth. That "staring at the navel" is in the former sense. And it's in that former sense that I thought it important to show how that introspection does not result in narcissism.

Yes, I see what you're getting at. I actually didn't intend a negative meaning, except that I'm not personally terribly fond of the process, and have not historically benefited much therefrom. I recognize its great value to you and many others, and potentially to myself, but it does frustrate me some days :-)

[DesertBob]

I would argue though that being stuck is not a choice, and that self-pity is sometimes justified.

If I may edge out onto the thin ice with you, I agree. If I don't give a useful damn, in my experience, no one else is going to. Some things are just sad. They need to be mourned before you can move beyond them.

I do agree though with the connectedness thing, and it explains why I have always been compelled to love, despite some pretty nasty circumstances and every reason in the world that I should hate. I have never believed this love comes from me. I used to think it was god. Now I don't know what it is, but i like it.

Love is a universal quality and it is within. If someone wants to call it god, it's understandable, but I stop short of that unless it's meant in the generic sense of "the divine".

[Galien]

If I may edge out onto the thin ice with you, I agree. If I don't give a useful damn, in my experience, no one else is going to. Some things are just sad. They need to be mourned before you can move beyond them.

 

I'm always on the thin ice Bob. There are some things that no amount of grieving, mourning or processing will fix. For some reason it irks humans to beileve that, but sometimes thats just the way it is. We can't fix everything, some things we can only learn how to manage.

[DesertBob]

There are some things that no amount of grieving, mourning or processing will fix. For some reason it irks humans to believe that, but sometimes thats just the way it is. We can't fix everything, some things we can only learn how to manage.

Well, yes ... I can verify that unpleasant fact of life, too. If a person can lose the use of their eyes or legs or lower intestine and never get them back, but just learn how to manage, it should not come as a surprise that the same thing can be true of one's mental, emotional and spiritual apparatus.

 

A dear friend of mine blew a head gasket, metaphorically speaking, a couple of years ago and doubts they will ever put it to right. You never know for sure, but I suspect they're right. Not everything heals correctly or without scars.

[Guest end3]

Let's face it, no one in their right mind pays any attention to this stuff for the fun of it. If I encounter someone in their "death throes" over this I don't judge them for resisting, I congratulate them for pushing against the resistance.

 

And isn't that the point, helping each of other resist. Resist what, suffering? Both our suffering and someone else suffering are necessary for the other to exist, IMO, being made "beautiful" in our judgement in resistance, through grace, via suffering. If one of us don't suffer, then there exists no grace for the other. It's a balance we don't care to attempt to achieve sometimes, most times.

 

I don't mean to be a one-trick pony, but my own relatively recent life experience, and that of several people close to me, plus my involvement in hospice, tends to move me to draw parallels to the grieving process. That process is also a process of suffering, letting go, and becoming, and if there is one thing we learn from this, it's that it doesn't happen on someone else's timetable. Some people move through grief and loss very quickly, in a matter of days, and some move through painfully slowly, over many years. I see no real relationship between the speed with which people move through it and their "willingness" or "openness" or even how "fractured" they are or aren't

 

I observe nature in that the entities, flowers let's say, get just what they get....no more....and sometimes it is beautiful by our judgement. So wouldn't humans be different in that we can choose what we give to other people, but still, within the grand scheme, we get just what we get. And for me, this speaks to something greater than us. The universe certainly, or God....take your pick.

[DesertBob]

And isn't that the point, helping each of other resist. Resist what, suffering? Both our suffering and someone else suffering are necessary for the other to exist, IMO, being made "beautiful" in our judgement in resistance, through grace, via suffering. If one of us don't suffer, then there exists no grace for the other. It's a balance we don't care to attempt to achieve sometimes, most times.

Actually, no, resisting suffering breeds more suffering; to resist suffering is in essence the same as resisting "what is" -- and trying to make life something it is not is the very source of suffering (which I define as this resistance, and distinct from "pain"; you can have pain without suffering and you can have suffering without pain). I was speaking of overcoming our natural resistance to reality -- ultimately, to the fact of our own mortality. Of choosing dissolution. That is ultimately where everything leads us anyway.

I observe nature in that the entities, flowers let's say, get just what they get....no more....and sometimes it is beautiful by our judgement. So wouldn't humans be different in that we can choose what we give to other people, but still, within the grand scheme, we get just what we get. And for me, this speaks to something greater than us. The universe certainly, or God....take your pick.

We humans are not really different than any other thing that exists. Flowers have more ability to act within their environment than do rocks, and we have more ability than flowers. But it is all within a constrained system. We all get what we get. That higher life forms have some limited ability to adapt or defend or elude doesn't ultimately change anything. However you paper it over, it's still "nature, red in tooth and claw" for us all.

 

This is not a statement of despair so much as one of pragmatism. If I want to know what to expect I have to look at nature. Flowers bloom (or not) where they are planted, they live out their existence (or not) and they die (for sure). This is what you and I can expect. Random windstorms, droughts, or the feet of passing animals should not be a surprise.

[Guest end3]

Actually, no, resisting suffering breeds more suffering;

 

We are saying the same thing I believe. For example, if I don't accept myself "to suffer", to adaquately feel something, then perhaps in another relationship, I show an inbalance to someone who needs empathy.

 

I was speaking of overcoming our natural resistance to reality -- ultimately, to the fact of our own mortality. Of choosing dissolution. That is ultimately where everything leads us anyway.

 

Yes, and in dissolution via retreat in learning individual suffering......you just said it, losing our own mortality, or "die to self" as Christians say. Maybe I am misunderstanding. That you might lower your IQ for me might help.

 

We humans are not really different than any other thing that exists. Flowers have more ability to act within their environment than do rocks, and we have more ability than flowers. But it is all within a constrained system. We all get what we get. That higher life forms have some limited ability to adapt or defend or elude doesn't ultimately change anything. However you paper it over, it's still "nature, red in tooth and claw" for us all.

 

I disagree. Even if you argue evolution, humans at this point have extreme capabilities that rocks and flowers and animals do not.

 

This is not a statement of despair so much as one of pragmatism. If I want to know what to expect I have to look at nature. Flowers bloom (or not) where they are planted, they live out their existence (or not) and they die (for sure). This is what you and I can expect. Random windstorms, droughts, or the feet of passing animals should not be a surprise.

 

Pragmatism would be a form of suffering IMO.

[Rev R]

...

 

Ahhh, I need not say another word ever. How relieving.

[Guest end3]

Actually, no, resisting suffering breeds more suffering; to resist suffering is in essence the same as resisting "what is" -- and trying to make life something it is not is the very source of suffering (which I define as this resistance, and distinct from "pain"; you can have pain without suffering and you can have suffering without pain). I was speaking of overcoming our natural resistance to reality -- ultimately, to the fact of our own mortality. Of choosing dissolution. That is ultimately where everything leads us anyway.

 

Let me re-try please. After re-reading, yes, we aren't talking about the same thing.....my misunderstanding. Your view is a possibility, but seems to discount the current "spirit" of humanity....a product of evolution that it may be. I just respectfully disagree.

 

This is not a statement of despair so much as one of pragmatism. If I want to know what to expect I have to look at nature. Flowers bloom (or not) where they are planted, they live out their existence (or not) and they die (for sure). This is what you and I can expect. Random windstorms, droughts, or the feet of passing animals should not be a surprise.

 

LOL, sorry Bob, when I wake up in the morning, pragmatism appears much like the flat line on the heart monitor screen. No hope. Thinking about it, if what is is what is, then why not make of it what you would like to make of it. (goes to read the parable of the talents)....teasing.

 

You are welcome to come and eat with us down here in "what is, TX" if you get bored with pragmatism. I'll try to quit picking on you, but to do otherwise would be accepting the pragmatic......I think

[DesertBob]

...

 

Ahhh, I need not say another word ever. How relieving.

Eh??

[Rev R]

Eh??

 

 

Actually, no, resisting suffering breeds more suffering; to resist suffering is in essence the same as resisting "what is" -- and trying to make life something it is not is the very source of suffering (which I define as this resistance, and distinct from "pain"; you can have pain without suffering and you can have suffering without pain). I was speaking of overcoming our natural resistance to reality -- ultimately, to the fact of our own mortality. Of choosing dissolution. That is ultimately where everything leads us anyway.

 

Been screaming this for years. Now I don't have to scream any more. You are the man Bob.

[Guest end3]

Eh??

 

 

Actually, no, resisting suffering breeds more suffering; to resist suffering is in essence the same as resisting "what is" -- and trying to make life something it is not is the very source of suffering (which I define as this resistance, and distinct from "pain"; you can have pain without suffering and you can have suffering without pain). I was speaking of overcoming our natural resistance to reality -- ultimately, to the fact of our own mortality. Of choosing dissolution. That is ultimately where everything leads us anyway.

 

Been screaming this for years. Now I don't have to scream any more. You are the man Bob.

 

Why would you think that to be the object of our existance...perpetual suffering? Sounds like hell to me. "Whack" with the stick.

[DesertBob]

After re-reading, yes, we aren't talking about the same thing.....my misunderstanding. Your view is a possibility, but seems to discount the current "spirit" of humanity....a product of evolution that it may be.

To be clear, I do not conclude from the fact that I am mortal and live in a random, indifferent universe that I might as well lie down and die. I find enough value in existence to put up with it, if only to satisfy my own curiosity. Life is fleeting, but it is known and death is not -- so might as well follow the brief thread of life to the end, at least so long as any quality of life can be wrested from it.

LOL, sorry Bob, when I wake up in the morning, pragmatism appears much like the flat line on the heart monitor screen. No hope. Thinking about it, if what is is what is, then why not make of it what you would like to make of it. (goes to read the parable of the talents)....teasing.

If you have discovered how to make of life what you wish, do let me know how you do that. I make of it what I possibly can, and let the rest go. I find it adequate, if not often compelling, and intermittently fascinating / rewarding. What I cannot do any longer is live in hope, and that is probably the main difference between us. I see hope (wishing for that which is outside the scope of my power to act in ways that actually alter circumstances) as a source of suffering, as it assumes stability and permanence and security and clarity and influence that do not exist in the real world.

You are welcome to come and eat with us down here in "what is, TX" if you get bored with pragmatism.

Thanks ... but only if you are serving up something better than pragmatism for dinner :-)

[DesertBob]

Why would you think that to be the object of our existance...perpetual suffering? Sounds like hell to me. "Whack" with the stick.

I would guess that Rev R is in fact against perpetual suffering, as am I. The question is how to be free of suffering. I say that the only way to escape suffering is to accept what is, as it is, when it is. Easier said than done, of course.

 

In Christian terms, it is essentially the Serenity Prayer -- asking god to grant you the courage to change what you can, the strength to accept what you can't change, and the wisdom to know the difference. It is in telling the difference that we encounter the difficulties. We all have a prefabricated list of things that "must never" or "must always" be. When anything in the real world runs afoul of these non-negotiables, the result is suffering, in the form of cognitive dissonance (going through contortions explaining away what doesn't agree, pretending everything is OK when it's not, living as if things were true that aren't, etc). Christianity provides a rather long list of these non-negotiables; getting away from the faith was my way of gaining flexibility to see things more as they are.

 

In the West there is a tendency to believe that all problems are solvable given sufficient persistence and heart, adherence to reductionism, etc. So we become married to our hopes, dreams, and aspirations. I am in the process of getting a divorce from them, which is why off and on you can see the claw marks from me being dragged kicking and screaming into the real world. Just when I think I've arrived I discover something else I thought I could count on that I cannot. In essence, if you are going to get rid of suffering, things have to get worse before they get better. A lifetime of living life on my terms instead of on life's terms is not undone in a day.

 

(Parenthetically, I will say that a Christian sees this as submitting to the will of God, not realizing this is a metaphor, not an actual thing ... I see it as simply acknowledging what I can't change and moving on. It's not god, it's the universe, and the universe doesn't have an agenda, it simply is).

 

Basically we have to eat whatever life dishes out, even shit, and like it. Of course calling something "shit" is a judgment and is itself an attachment to form or outcome and therefore a source of suffering. After some years at this I have become indifferent to a lot of shit and in some instances have even come to like it. Sometimes it drives me to maniacal laughter. It scares people. But I'm getting better at it, bwuh-ha-ha!

 

The other problem is finding a balance where acceptance doesn't become acquiescence and resignation. I find that I often get to acceptance through what is initially resignation, so the progression for me is resignation, acquiescence, acceptance. It's probably not the best way but I find that giving my illusions a decent funeral helps in the long run.

[Phanta]

 

Yes to all of this.

[Guest end3]

To be clear, I do not conclude from the fact that I am mortal and live in a random, indifferent universe that I might as well lie down and die. I find enough value in existence to put up with it, if only to satisfy my own curiosity. Life is fleeting, but it is known and death is not -- so might as well follow the brief thread of life to the end, at least so long as any quality of life can be wrested from it.

 

LOL, sorry Bob, when I wake up in the morning, pragmatism appears much like the flat line on the heart monitor screen. No hope. Thinking about it, if what is is what is, then why not make of it what you would like to make of it. (goes to read the parable of the talents)....teasing.

If you have discovered how to make of life what you wish, do let me know how you do that. I make of it what I possibly can, and let the rest go. I find it adequate, if not often compelling, and intermittently fascinating / rewarding. What I cannot do any longer is live in hope, and that is probably the main difference between us. I see hope (wishing for that which is outside the scope of my power to act in ways that actually alter circumstances) as a source of suffering, as it assumes stability and permanence and security and clarity and influence that do not exist in the real world.

You are welcome to come and eat with us down here in "what is, TX" if you get bored with pragmatism.

Thanks ... but only if you are serving up something better than pragmatism for dinner :-)

 

The good news Bob, in your mid 50's you still have time to bifercate back to pragmatism and hopefully return, understanding the reason you left it in the first place...(my wife has to keep constantly reminding me of the necessity of our union) due to my hardheadedness. I think it inherent in men....you excluded of course.

[Guest end3]

Why would you think that to be the object of our existance...perpetual suffering? Sounds like hell to me. "Whack" with the stick.

I would guess that Rev R is in fact against perpetual suffering, as am I. The question is how to be free of suffering. I say that the only way to escape suffering is to accept what is, as it is, when it is. Easier said than done, of course.

 

In Christian terms, it is essentially the Serenity Prayer -- asking god to grant you the courage to change what you can, the strength to accept what you can't change, and the wisdom to know the difference. It is in telling the difference that we encounter the difficulties. We all have a prefabricated list of things that "must never" or "must always" be. When anything in the real world runs afoul of these non-negotiables, the result is suffering, in the form of cognitive dissonance (going through contortions explaining away what doesn't agree, pretending everything is OK when it's not, living as if things were true that aren't, etc). Christianity provides a rather long list of these non-negotiables; getting away from the faith was my way of gaining flexibility to see things more as they are.

 

In the West there is a tendency to believe that all problems are solvable given sufficient persistence and heart, adherence to reductionism, etc. So we become married to our hopes, dreams, and aspirations. I am in the process of getting a divorce from them, which is why off and on you can see the claw marks from me being dragged kicking and screaming into the real world. Just when I think I've arrived I discover something else I thought I could count on that I cannot. In essence, if you are going to get rid of suffering, things have to get worse before they get better. A lifetime of living life on my terms instead of on life's terms is not undone in a day.

 

(Parenthetically, I will say that a Christian sees this as submitting to the will of God, not realizing this is a metaphor, not an actual thing ... I see it as simply acknowledging what I can't change and moving on. It's not god, it's the universe, and the universe doesn't have an agenda, it simply is).

 

Basically we have to eat whatever life dishes out, even shit, and like it. Of course calling something "shit" is a judgment and is itself an attachment to form or outcome and therefore a source of suffering. After some years at this I have become indifferent to a lot of shit and in some instances have even come to like it. Sometimes it drives me to maniacal laughter. It scares people. But I'm getting better at it, bwuh-ha-ha!

 

The other problem is finding a balance where acceptance doesn't become acquiescence and resignation. I find that I often get to acceptance through what is initially resignation, so the progression for me is resignation, acquiescence, acceptance. It's probably not the best way but I find that giving my illusions a decent funeral helps in the long run.

 

I don't know you Bob, and most likely am guessing your motivations incorrectly. Just wanted to say that, and will consider this post when I have time to deceifer the big words. I enjoyed the comments.

[Galien]

Bob, will you marry me?