It might have been an adaptation to my Baptist upbringing, when I was lambasted at an elementary school age, that all who were made of flesh were also sinners, yet feeling this accusation considerably devalued when I also took into account the dreamlike descent into physical awareness that I had experienced as an infant (documented in: "The Hall of Light"). Then, with the discovery of certain Eastern philosophies as a teenager, I was also pulled towards a justification for reincarnation as an attempt to cleanse our bad Karma over the ages.
I had my brushes with being "holistically" aware in other adjacent New Age philosophies. They led me to contemplate why "lifestyle changes" were supposed to be justifiable when it seems that life's "deck of cards" would have had to been handed out on an individual basis. Then, whomever the person was, would simply have to "make due" with "the honor" of having what nature had dealt to them.
To me, everyone has an entirely different experience and reason for having been given a life in the first place. The alternative would be that humanity itself would be nothing more than a group of android drones destined to behave and to think identically. Which, in my mind, is the same as surrendering our free will to someone else's - (anyone else's) - "clashing" philosophy. You see, I prefer to reconcile with such things in my own time, and not in someone else's.
What this added up to, in "all of my frames of reference", was that no "one philosophy" or religion could adequately explain to a full and certain depth, the perception of reality that I had been witnessing. Whether it makes me courteous enough - or benevolent enough - to do so, I would rather give each one their hypothetical "benefit of the doubt" instead of negating one over another altogether. After all, it seems reasonable enough to assume that any philosophical view must be including some partial, or otherwise, subtly complementary fragment to a much larger truth, if for no other reason than it's own "continued persistence to bubble up into consciousness" throughout time. The nature of such "partialness" or "complimentarity" to all the other philosophies, religions, or sciences is due to the self inclosed condition of an infinite realm of possibilities, but observed through the eyes of an isolated individualized perspective.
What my experiences with humanity has always revealed is that it never actually begins to see for itself that all things are interconnected. Whether by nature of an enclosed physical universe alone, or by nature of a larger enclosed "self-reassuring" intelligence - that doesn't necessarily have to be an organic one - we are always, inescapably "interconnected". We operate under the rules of all inclusivity with a unique mobility that is owed to our own freewill. Where others might opt for the natural order of science and physics, or all those laws of matter, I prefer to focus less on the intelligence of the design, but more on the intelligence of the designer behind all of it. I see consciousness not as an epiphenomenon of our matter, but as a coexisting necessity in the monism between both.
Yet, in giving consciousness equal significance in reality, in lockstep, I began to scrutinize why so many human relationships in a civil society were so corrosive, vile, incongruent, negative, offensive, or unjustifiable. When I thought in terms of our so-called "ethical dilemmas" and all the "feuding with our moral compasses" and such, it occurred to me that there had better be higher forces at work seeking to heal rather than destroy. What purpose is there in a self destructive reality anyway, when reality obviously had begun as a "unified" work in the first place? If it weren't a unit, it could not exist. Ergo : humanity itself, wouldn't exist either; for humanity is a component within reality.
Eventually, it occurred to me that reality was based upon a myriad different "factoids" - the condition where one person's truth is another's falsity. I knew there were many things "afloat" that reached well beyond the immediate, the cardinal, or the solid and tangible factors of physical interrelationships alone. And when they appeared in the philosophies of people, they all just seem to be categorized on exclusive and personalized lists that usually end up as irreconcilable incompatibilities.
In an effort to rationalize this conclusion, I knew there were higher forces at work, and I knew that there was no "one recipe" in mortal hands that would apply to all the circumstances of every individual - even though many individuals presume there should be "only one" recipe for each of them. In time, I was guided to various reference materials that put me on a path of comprehending my self, my soul, the mind and how all that relates to influences having been around far longer than I had. I felt a connection to infinity; to the mortal ability for gathering increasingly complex information, and then piecing it together with my own sense of satisfaction.
If the universe was a product of "Intelligent Design" (a perfect term with a bad reputation, thanks to the Creationists' misguided perception of what constitutes our physically "instantaneous" reality), then everything we experience or express is a product within that very same infinite realm of all origins too. On the other hand, Evolutionists view the process as "chance" instead of "intelligent circumstantial arrangements". Personally, I cannot see something as manifesting from "chance", when there can be no sentient means of escape from its enclosed nature, anyway. There is just "sentient displacement". When you introduce physical manifestation, then you introduce multiple dimensions of time and space. When that occurs, everything else becomes a progressive reflection of some attribute that this "unknowable" and "invisible" Absolute Influence transforms into its "multiplicity of phenomena".
It never did sit well with me, to find many a new age spiritual practitioner touting the ability to change an individual's vibration in order to deliver to that person such things as a "better" life, "improved" circumstances, "successful" experiences, or "profitable" business undertakings, and such. To me, most any changes of this nature being requested of the higher forces is only a plea to remove oneself from very specific learning experiences, an admission of inadequacy, or the simple inability to cope with the "world mix" our soul has obligation to attend to. Or, at least, I figured these to be the reasons why I couldn't - or "shouldn't" - be delivered from my own emotional and psychological suffering.
It was never a matter of "not finding" the right practitioner, nor the "paying for" that possibility either. I am just more inclined to accept my lot and clean up those heart felt short comings of my soul in a more personally meaningful way. After all, for being addicted to smoking for twenty years and finally "quitting by attrition" within one week's time, I figured that all it takes is a decision & some determination. This just seems to be the only legitimate route for evolving towards a finality that wouldn't involve a temporal reinvention of earthbound false emotions all over again for me. I view those things that revolve around the ego and the flesh as falsities, if for no other reason than their attachment to something impermanent and finite.
Yet, just as importantly, such philosophies as Buddhism, the Tao, or "Zen," offer nothing more to me than the denial of one's existence through the removal of all things that feed the ego or stimulate the senses. I'm sorry; but I do exist. I have existed with various sensory organs since birth, and my goal is in using them "sensibly" with room to allow and admit the other less visible - or "non sensible" - input too. I couldn't live a life ignoring those signals. The way that I see things is like this: "If there were a thread of connectivity at all, as to why such possibilities were presented to me in the first place, then there must be a reason for them to fit somewhere in reality". Doesn't necessarily have to be "integral" to my own reality - but someplace therein, that particular interpretation makes a "completeness" in the expression of an Absolute Intelligent Designer. So I always give it some thought before adjusting my course. Humans have but one perspective. It's the way we are designed. But there are no laws that say how broad or how far ranging one perspective may be limited to. I'm still reaching for my limits.
It might have been an adaptation to my Baptist upbringing, when I was lambasted at an elementary school age, that all who were made of flesh were also sinners, yet feeling this accusation considerably devalued when I also took into account the dreamlike descent into physical awareness that I had experienced as an infant (documented in: "The Hall of Light"). Then, with the discovery of certain Eastern philosophies as a teenager, I was also pulled towards a justification for reincarnation as an attempt to cleanse our bad Karma over the ages.
I had my brushes with being "holistically" aware in other adjacent New Age philosophies. They led me to contemplate why "lifestyle changes" were supposed to be justifiable when it seems that life's "deck of cards" would have had to been handed out on an individual basis. Then, whomever the person was, would simply have to "make due" with "the honor" of having what nature had dealt to them.
To me, everyone has an entirely different experience and reason for having been given a life in the first place. The alternative would be that humanity itself would be nothing more than a group of android drones destined to behave and to think identically. Which, in my mind, is the same as surrendering our free will to someone else's - (anyone else's) - "clashing" philosophy. You see, I prefer to reconcile with such things in my own time, and not in someone else's.
What this added up to, in "all of my frames of reference", was that no "one philosophy" or religion could adequately explain to a full and certain depth, the perception of reality that I had been witnessing. Whether it makes me courteous enough - or benevolent enough - to do so, I would rather give each one their hypothetical "benefit of the doubt" instead of negating one over another altogether. After all, it seems reasonable enough to assume that any philosophical view must be including some partial, or otherwise, subtly complementary fragment to a much larger truth, if for no other reason than it's own "continued persistence to bubble up into consciousness" throughout time. The nature of such "partialness" or "complimentarity" to all the other philosophies, religions, or sciences is due to the self inclosed condition of an infinite realm of possibilities, but observed through the eyes of an isolated individualized perspective.
What my experiences with humanity has always revealed is that it never actually begins to see for itself that all things are interconnected. Whether by nature of an enclosed physical universe alone, or by nature of a larger enclosed "self-reassuring" intelligence - that doesn't necessarily have to be an organic one - we are always, inescapably "interconnected". We operate under the rules of all inclusivity with a unique mobility that is owed to our own freewill. Where others might opt for the natural order of science and physics, or all those laws of matter, I prefer to focus less on the intelligence of the design, but more on the intelligence of the designer behind all of it. I see consciousness not as an epiphenomenon of our matter, but as a coexisting necessity in the monism between both.
Yet, in giving consciousness equal significance in reality, in lockstep, I began to scrutinize why so many human relationships in a civil society were so corrosive, vile, incongruent, negative, offensive, or unjustifiable. When I thought in terms of our so-called "ethical dilemmas" and all the "feuding with our moral compasses" and such, it occurred to me that there had better be higher forces at work seeking to heal rather than destroy. What purpose is there in a self destructive reality anyway, when reality obviously had begun as a "unified" work in the first place? If it weren't a unit, it could not exist. Ergo : humanity itself, wouldn't exist either; for humanity is a component within reality.
Eventually, it occurred to me that reality was based upon a myriad different "factoids" - the condition where one person's truth is another's falsity. I knew there were many things "afloat" that reached well beyond the immediate, the cardinal, or the solid and tangible factors of physical interrelationships alone. And when they appeared in the philosophies of people, they all just seem to be categorized on exclusive and personalized lists that usually end up as irreconcilable incompatibilities.
In an effort to rationalize this conclusion, I knew there were higher forces at work, and I knew that there was no "one recipe" in mortal hands that would apply to all the circumstances of every individual - even though many individuals presume there should be "only one" recipe for each of them. In time, I was guided to various reference materials that put me on a path of comprehending my self, my soul, the mind and how all that relates to influences having been around far longer than I had. I felt a connection to infinity; to the mortal ability for gathering increasingly complex information, and then piecing it together with my own sense of satisfaction.
If the universe was a product of "Intelligent Design" (a perfect term with a bad reputation, thanks to the Creationists' misguided perception of what constitutes our physically "instantaneous" reality), then everything we experience or express is a product within that very same infinite realm of all origins too. On the other hand, Evolutionists view the process as "chance" instead of "intelligent circumstantial arrangements". Personally, I cannot see something as manifesting from "chance", when there can be no sentient means of escape from its enclosed nature, anyway. There is just "sentient displacement". When you introduce physical manifestation, then you introduce multiple dimensions of time and space. When that occurs, everything else becomes a progressive reflection of some attribute that this "unknowable" and "invisible" Absolute Influence transforms into its "multiplicity of phenomena".
It never did sit well with me, to find many a new age spiritual practitioner touting the ability to change an individual's vibration in order to deliver to that person such things as a "better" life, "improved" circumstances, "successful" experiences, or "profitable" business undertakings, and such. To me, most any changes of this nature being requested of the higher forces is only a plea to remove oneself from very specific learning experiences, an admission of inadequacy, or the simple inability to cope with the "world mix" our soul has obligation to attend to. Or, at least, I figured these to be the reasons why I couldn't - or "shouldn't" - be delivered from my own emotional and psychological suffering.
It was never a matter of "not finding" the right practitioner, nor the "paying for" that possibility either. I am just more inclined to accept my lot and clean up those heart felt short comings of my soul in a more personally meaningful way. After all, for being addicted to smoking for twenty years and finally "quitting by attrition" within one week's time, I figured that all it takes is a decision & some determination. This just seems to be the only legitimate route for evolving towards a finality that wouldn't involve a temporal reinvention of earthbound false emotions all over again for me. I view those things that revolve around the ego and the flesh as falsities, if for no other reason than their attachment to something impermanent and finite.
Yet, just as importantly, such philosophies as Buddhism, the Tao, or "Zen," offer nothing more to me than the denial of one's existence through the removal of all things that feed the ego or stimulate the senses. I'm sorry; but I do exist. I have existed with various sensory organs since birth, and my goal is in using them "sensibly" with room to allow and admit the other less visible - or "non sensible" - input too. I couldn't live a life ignoring those signals. The way that I see things is like this: "If there were a thread of connectivity at all, as to why such possibilities were presented to me in the first place, then there must be a reason for them to fit somewhere in reality". Doesn't necessarily have to be "integral" to my own reality - but someplace therein, that particular interpretation makes a "completeness" in the expression of an Absolute Intelligent Designer. So I always give it some thought before adjusting my course. Humans have but one perspective. It's the way we are designed. But there are no laws that say how broad or how far ranging one perspective may be limited to. I'm still reaching for my limits.