Detour

I had plans to continue with some groundwork, but feel the need to write this today.  Recently a friend wrote me an email regarding my first blog.  As I sat down to simply respond, it occurred to me that I have a problem.  It is very difficult to just “simply” respond.  Everything is layered upon layers.  It’s kind of like the following scenario:  As I come into work, someone asks, “How is it going?”  I’m caught with my mouth open… “Cricket” sound.  Such a simple question.  Where do I begin?  In my mind, it’s like that swollen moment in An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, when Peyton Farquhar is finally sent to his death.  I contemplate all the events of the morning.  I think to myself:  ‘Well, I feel like I’ve been kicked in the shins with steel toes.  I woke up late.  The coffee grounds leaked into the pot.  Too acidic.  Especially in light of the fact that yesterday’s coffee was superlative ~ Nothing quite as powerful as disappointment ~ Then, I carried too much stuff to the car at once. The strap of my bag worked itself off my shoulder, dropped, and wrenched me forward.  It was then that I discovered I had not snapped the lid of my coffee shut. I burned my leg, and stained my pants.  I jerked so fast that I hit my left temple on the corner of the open car door.  I cussed so loud that I woke up my neighbor’s dog.  After gathering myself, I proceeded to load my scattered things into the car and turned toward the house in order to change my pants.  My belt loop caught on that cylinder part of the door latch mechanism and tore a hole in my pants.”  Are you kidding me?  What is this, Chris Farley Day?

“Dooon’t wurry,” I say to myself with an Arnold Schwarzenegger accent, “Tooooday is payday.  And yoooou have yoooour favorite coooookies in your luunch.”  Then, like Payton,” I snap back to a coworker’s crooked face, which is wondering why the question, ‘How’s it going?’ has produced sweat beads on my forehead.  I finally reply, “I’m Faaaaantaaaaastic.”  And, with a steamy hot tub smile, I blunder down the hallway.  It’s 8:07am.  The burn on my leg is rubbing against my pants.  I’ve got another twitch in my left eye.  I’m ready for bed.

“Mind travel” is not an uncommon occurrence for me.  As you will see, a simple email response turned into a novel.  But I think it sheds some light on where things are going:

-------------------------------

John,

I tried to comment on your letter but was somehow foiled in the end.

What you seem to be doing is self-introspection and you seem to have been doing it for a long time.  I remember some of our conversations and that was obvious.  Seeking Truth is an incredible journey but I wonder whether you are prepared for the results.  As you know, I think the journey takes you far from God and I wonder: Can you handle that? Can you give up quoting long dead mystics from the great books? Mystics who believed in superstitions, genies, angels and what not?

During my youth I sought Truth, found none and have, in fact, abandoned my search.    I stand naked under the sun, alone in the cosmos.   If your journey takes you there, will you join me?

Thanks for including me on your list…

-----------------------------------------

Dear “John Doe”,

Thanks for responding.  It is good to hear your thoughts.  First of all, I’m new at this blog thing.  It was recommended to me that I should set up my blog so that people have to click on the blue button on the right called “join this site” in order to comment.  It will supposedly minimize random people throwing out anonymous comments.

You are correct.  I am in a constant state of analysis and introspection.  There is a lot to unlearn.  I have found that deception infiltrates even the most sincere individuals.  Many of my teachers were, and are, misguided.  There has been so many times when I’ve put my faith into something only to be disappointed in the end, and then disillusion, alienation, and despair.  So, at times, I feel, like you say, alone in the universe, almost.  Ironically, and regardless of how lonely I get, I always find myself telling God about it.  Does that mean I’m full of faith or that I have an imaginary friend?  There could be arguments made for either.  I could be a bit of a nutcase with incoherent ramblings.  But, maybe not.

To be honest, there have been times when I have almost given up my faith due to emotional issues. (Not mine, but things like suffering in the world).  But I also study apologetics, science, and philosophy.  At this point in my research, the logical issues keep me on “the path,” even when my emotions rage against God.  Nothing else is even remotely coherent in terms of explaining things.  There are too many unanswered questions without the divine.

For instance, why do we seek meaning?  Why is there a cosmic “aloneness” to be identified and, at least connotatively, that the aloneness is sad?  Alone as opposed to what?  Sad compared to what?  Why is it that we wonder about any of this?  Isn’t there a reality out there that says we should not be alone, that we should not be sad?  I’m convinced that if people weren’t busy anesthetizing themselves, they’d gnaw off their tongues.  The question of meaning will not be silenced.  It’s what separates human beings from animals.  The question of meaning is what makes slave ships so reprehensible.  Unlike animals, people laid in their little wooden boxes wondering “WHY” am I here?  Why are these vicious white men treating me like a beast?  Why did my own black men help them capture me?  Why am I forced to defecate on myself?  I digress.  People believe they have purpose (either real or superficial), or attempt to escape purpose, or live in despair.  Sometimes it is a mixture of the three cycling through to eternity.  But it is virtually impossible to ignore the need for meaning.

As far as the uncertainty of the search goes, I’m never sure how prepared I am, but I forge onward nevertheless.  And, as you surmise, it is not as if I am at the beginning of the journey.  I’ve been rummaging around for a while now.  Fear and I are old friends.  But I’m more afraid to not know, than to know.  In my case, ignorance is not bliss.

I’m not sure what old vs. new or alive vs. dead mystics have to do with anything.  I’ve heard plenty of ludicracy in modern rhetoric.  In fact, it seems that, at times, the newer the voice, the more speculative it tends to be.  People write whole books in order to say nothing.  But how does one determine whether or not there is value in a person’s words?  What does a person use to measure whether or not something is ludicrous or laudable, superstitious or supernatural?  Or, if one does not have a measure, how does one even talk about anything?  No value can be allocated to anything.  There is no difference between eating a cheeseburger and slitting someone’s throat.  They are both just part of life.  Not good.  Not bad.  Just life.

Furthermore, it seems that there are two implications of what you said, “…I sought Truth, found none…” There either is truth that is unknowable, or there is no truth at all.  Both statements emerge as “truthful” or “absolute” statements.  I’m not sure how to get around the fact that there is “objectivity” out there.  Without it, sentences start to contradict each other.  And, if our subjectivity rules, we indirectly claim omniscience.  How else could someone say, ‘there is nothing true outside of what goes on in my own mind?’  Is that not self-deification?

If there is no truth, why try to convince someone of it?  If truth exists, where does it come from?  Why do we have this notion that we should be truthful, or honest, or honorable, or kind, or good, or loyal?  Why do we cringe at violence, or child marriage, or anything?  Atheism says that it just is.  Theology declares that one thing is right and the other is wrong.

I do seem to remember that you are more to the agnostic end of things.  I can relate to agnosticism far more than any other position.  There are many issues that lend themselves to the world of uncertainty.  But I have found things that I accept as certain.  Without them, everything starts to contradict itself.  Obviously, the law of noncontradiction is one.  Other things I accept:  gravity, birth, death, laws of thermodynamics, beauty, hate, and taxes.  One of my favorite apologists, Greg Boyd, said something that I will never forget.  ‘Start with what you know and work toward the things you don’t.’  That’s where I find myself.  I’ll follow it to wherever it may lead.

I’m glad I put you on the list too…

Sincerely,

John

----------------------------

My friend responded back with some other great observations that caused me to think of other layers and layers of responses, ad infinitum.  I realized that I would have to pick up there a little later, because I need to establish my own groundwork in order for my comments to make sense in the long run.  So, until next time…

Groundwork

Two things before I get started: 1) I plan on blogging the 7^th & 21^st of each month.  2) If you want to be notified whenever there is a new post, click on the “Posts(Atom)” button at the bottom of the page and follow the instructions.  It is an RSS feed that will send a notification directly to your email.

I’m not sure if I have ADD or Dyslexia.  Or maybe I have an undiscovered disease, like “Mid-lexia.”  It’s a condition where a person always seems to “wake up” in the middle of a story in progress.  It’s a constant exercise of waking, looking ahead, grimacing at the future, and then struggling to back peddle in order to discover the cause of this unsavory sequence of events.  It’s not unlike waking up on a loosely constructed raft, playfully drifting down a large river.  Then suddenly realizing it is headed toward a raging waterfall.  Does this sound familiar?  Maybe it’s not a disease at all.  Perhaps “Mid-lexia” is how reality plays out, but most people don’t take the time to look at it, or don’t want to look at it.

The Matrix is, in part, about “Mid-lexia.”  Neo wakes up in the middle of a story that has been ongoing for years.  The Wachowski brothers (or Sophia Stewart) did a good job capturing lives in the state of waking up to reality and trying to figure it out.  Unfortunately, their conclusion at the end of the third movie was a bit convoluted and unsatisfying.

The TV show, Lost was another beautiful example of “mid-lexia.”  When people are blasted out of their routine, they become aware of a much bigger story going on around them.  But again, the writers finalized the series with a big disappointment.  The entire program was riveting up to the cheep and unsatisfying last episode.  It was a complete and utter letdown.  It was some type of new age - we’re all really dead - but don’t realize it - moving onto the next state of reality - type thing.  There was no real answer.  Zero payoff.  Nothing.  A cheese puff with no cheese.  They may as well have said, “…And it was all just a dream…”

In addition, they also threw in the notion of a coalescence of religions.  Very apropos.  (Look at the symbols in the room at the end, particularly the stained glass window).  It is apparent to me that individuals, who suggest that all religions can just meld together like a happy little bridge club, don’t really understand the religions they try to group.  All religions discriminate and all are exclusive in some form or another.  Don’t think so?  Even a Unitarian Universalist discriminates against those who are singular in their beliefs.  Even relativists are disdainfully absolute with absolutists.  I digress.  Whatever the case may be, Lost’s ending was at the very least, vacuous.  Like, The Matrix, it was good at identifying the problem, but did not provide satisfying answers.  But it is perfectly fitting for our time.

Both the writers of The Matrix and Lost didn’t resolve their stories because they couldn’t.  Many others cannot put the pieces together either.  Teachers sit around a scratch their heads at the behaviors that manifest their ugly little heads.  Parents throw up their arms in despair.  People watch the news and ask, “What the hell is going on?”  There is so much confusion in our thinking today.  It appears that we are in a tailspin toward total chaos, and I desperately want to do my part to uncover how we got here.

(Side note):  Some skeptics scoff at anyone who seems overly concerned with the problems of the world.  With the wave of the hand they dismiss it as alarmist.  “Here comes Chicken Little,” they say.  It’s a nice way to discredit someone and avoid dealing with real concerns.  I think alarmist types are just as kooky as anyone else, but, based on my experience, I would have to error on the kooky side rather than be grouped with “the anesthetized masses.”  But a person doesn’t have to be either alarmist nor aloof, just, Awake.

(Side Side note): “Uniformitarianism.” is typically used in scientific circles.  It is a notion that the universe has remained constant throughout all time.  It is necessary to support the theory of Evolution.  This principle can be applied to the sociopolitical realm as well.  You can hear people say, “The economy is down, but it will recover.”  Or, “Politics will ebb and flow, but things will basically remain the same.”  Or, “We’ve had catastrophes, but we’ll always recover.”  It is comfortable to believe that life will always be “business as usual,” a notion kept by people with a drink in their hand and their back to the waterfall.  They sink back into the easy chair and start clicking the remote.  They’re looking for shows that will please their itching ears.  Status Quo is much more palatable than a world that requires our discomfort in order to do what is right.  Like Cyper from The Matrix says, “I don’t want to remember nothing.  Nothing.  You understand?” I, on the other hand, am not satisfied to remain in the little pod of goo and be a battery for the “machines” or any human entity.

Com’on John, are you getting a little carried away?  The Matrix is just a movie.

Is it hard to believe that there are powerful people out there who are never satisfied?  Can you imagine people who want it all and will stop at nothing to get it, who believe everyone is expendable?  Heck, I knew people like that in high school and at the “Christian” colleges I attended. These powerbroker types are on my street, at work, and in my church.  They’re everywhere.  Just look through history.  Watch the news.

(Side notes ended).

So, as I was saying, I want to do my part to uncover how we got here.  The confusion in our world is due to the journey away from rationality and reason.  Once that is gone, everything else crumbles.  Sit back and listen to other people talk sometime.  They might as well be saying, “blah, blah, blah.”  We throw around axioms (basic propositions assumed to be true) like terms of endearment.  They are full of relative meaning, which is relatively meaningless to everyone else.  Our airwaves are filled with pop psychology and pop theology and pseudo-hybrid-eclectic-hedonistic-infused-psycho-spiritual-philosophy.  It’s like eating a fart.  It has no substance, and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Do we ever think of the implications of what we say?  Here’s one:  “As long as it makes you happy…” What?  Are you kidding me?  Have you ever been around someone whose moral guide is “Happiness?”  They’re either a baby or a criminal.  Both of them need their hand smacked.  Our prisons are filled with spoiled brats who never learned restraint. (So is the government, for that matter).  So, to make themselves “happy” they take whatever they want: a purse, a car, a body, a life.  Don’t you think they think it makes them happy?  What do people actually mean when they say happy? I’d guarantee you that criminal’s thought their crimes would make them happy at the time.  I believe Hitler was trying to make himself happy.  I believe Charles Manson was doing what made him happy when he raped his first young man, in prison, with a knife to his throat, or when Sharon Tate’s baby was ripped out of her stomach.  “As long as it makes you happy?”  Are you kidding me?  Do people think of where their words lead? 

(Side note: Someone might say, “As long as it makes you happy…and it doesn’t hurt anyone…” OK, now we’re talking about morality.  Where exactly does that morality come from?  And why should I accept your morality?  That opens up another whole can of worms.  More on that later).

Back to the topic, where do the axioms come from?  Where do we get our pop philosophies?  I dare you to start digging.  It’s like pulling up an ivy vine.  The more you pull, the further the root travels.  When you get to the end of it, you are in a completely different place than you imagined.  I’ve had conversations like that.  The more it progresses, the more the conversation twists and turns until I don’t even know what we’re talking about anymore.  It’s like we don’t even have the same vocabulary.  I converse for 30 minutes before I realize that my counterpart and I have virtually no common ground upon which to stand.  There is a reason for that.  It is imperative that we look beneath.  What is the foundation upon which our confusion is based?  Only then can we talk intelligently.

As I sort through hundreds of my scratchings that I intend to post, I realize that I have to establish a common vocabulary and common epistemology (theory of knowledge).  Do we exist? Can we really know anything?  Are their absolutes?  However unqualified I am to unpack all of these philosophical quandaries, it is crucial that I lay some groundwork.  Otherwise people will back into the no man’s land of relativity where a person can always escape behind statements like, “We can never really know…” or “You can have your own truth, I’ll keep mine.”  Ironically, that is one of those underlying principles that lead to a large waterfall.

Relativity, like much of philosophy, is a word game.  One interprets and reinterprets, hypothesizes, analyzes, synthesizes, and reinterprets again.  It is often what people do when they get caught in the act of steeling a cookie from the cookie jar.  They just try to talk until they get the desired outcome.  ‘I misunderstood…she gave it to me…I thought you meant no cookies while you were in the room…I forgot…’ Kids squirm to get out of trouble, and so do philosophers and kings and immoral men.  If you talk long enough, anyone can make a molehill out of a mountain.  You can call “up,” “down.”  You can debate over what the meaning of “is” is.  You can make God into a Myth.