MÄÄTism

ANOTHER LAST ATTEMPT

(11-11-01)

- OR -

DON’T READ THIS!

(IT’S NOT WORTH THE BOTHER)

I. INTRO (4/26/00)

There’s not much point in your bothering to read this, you know (and you probably won’t).

And, come to think of it, having said that, there’s not much point in my bothering to write it, either (and I may not).

So, why?

Why, despite the fact there is not much point in either of us doing so, would I bother to write and you bother to read this anyway?

Well, that’s the whole point of it, don’t you see!?

By the time we get to the end of this, maybe we’ll all understand why any of us bothered with it at all. Perhaps this will explain (well, sort of) why none of this was worth bothering with in the first place, for any of us, and yet we’d go ahead and do it anyway.

(Okay. It might just be challenging and therefore engaging - even fun? - along the way and thereby redeem all the time we put into it for those reasons alone - which, as we’ll discuss, is probably the best reason for doing anything at all, including bothering with this).

So, here’s the deal.

I’m going to go ahead and write this and, who knows, you might even go ahead and read it (maybe even all the way through? - It could happen).

I hope it to be informative and edifying, for both of us, but you may not see it that way at all. (And by the time I get to end of doing this - if I get that far - I may not see it that way either).

If I can’t accomplish that purpose, then I hope this will at least be entertaining - a good read.

And if it isn’t at least that, well, then, it probably wasn’t worth my writing it in the first place, nor worth your time and effort in picking it up and even starting to read it (and if so, sorry ‘bout that).

In case you’d prefer getting some ‘nutshell’ idea of what this is all about before wading through it in depth, here’s a hint. Life is theater. That is what it is, all that it is, and it’s ultimate purpose. Period.

Now, if you already know this idea is poppycock and would rather not waste any more time on it (or if you are afraid it just might be true and would really prefer not knowing - or even thinking - any more about it for that reason), well, like I said, there isn’t much point in all this in the first place. So, maybe this is an excellent place for you to bail out right now and go on to more rewarding pursuits.

< >

And, I guess I’d better warn you right now that this will very much be an exercise in the use of a dictionary - or at least a process quite similar to that.

If you figure the torture you underwent in Miss Grumblebug’s sixth grade class involving having your nose physically forced into the creases of a dictionary (and those impossible spelling quizzes and incomprehensible sentence diagrams and parts of speech?) was more than any decent, innocent human being should ever have to endure in a single lifetime, and if the mere mention of the requirement of yet more of that has had the immediate result of reviving those now all but forgotten sensations of your eyes starting to glaze over and the beginning of that knot starting to form in the pit of your stomach, well.....like I said, this probably wasn’t worth bothering with in the first place.

Just lay this volume back - gently, if you please! - wherever you managed to find it (in that moldy cardboard box of worthless old books at that yard sale or packed away in Uncle Melvin’s attic along with the Christmas fruitcakes Cousin Hillary sent him every year and he didn’t have the heart to just toss in the dumpster), and walk away, unabashed and unashamed, as though it’s no big deal - because it won’t be.

< >

<<DIGRESSION>>

In order to communicate clearly and accurately in writing, words are necessary. And if those words aren’t accurately and clearly used and understood in their meanings, well..., so much for clear and accurate communication.

The idea here is not to impress the educationally sophisticated with my knowledge, nor to dazzle the less well educated with my brilliant vocabulary. The idea is to accomplish as clear and accurate communication between us as we can.

Two mitigating aspects in this regard.

First, every necessary definition is already handily right here in your hand either in the main text itself or in the appended glossary (or on your screen by way of hyper-links - if I ever get that far along with this).

Second, there are many terms used by philosophers, scientists, religionists and metaphysicians (and doctors and lawyers and politicians?) which I simply won’t use at all, and therefore you won’t have to bother looking up and I won’t have to get a hemorrhoid trying to figure out how to use. Many of these terms represent concepts which aren’t necessary to, and may even be distracting from, the concepts presented here - cosmology, cosmogony, ontology, irenic, heuristic, stochastic ...... Whew! There’s a load off all our minds right there, huh!?

<< >>

Even this early on you have already encountered things like “<ESCAPE POINT>” followed by “< >” and “<<DIGRESSION>>” followed by “<< >>”, and, a thought something like “What the hell...?” has no doubt already popped into your head. Well, you will be finding even more such, shall we say, ‘eccentricities’ before too long here.

Although there are reasons for including such elements in the style and formatting of this presentation, those reasons may not be nearly as good as I now happen to think they are, and you may find the inclusion of these elements to be simply confusing and unnecessarily distracting, perhaps even to the point of being intolerably annoying.

Well, it’s not going to get any better. This is the manner in which it has come to me to write this at the moment. And that’s the way I’m going to do it, even though I realize it may well turn out to be so off-puttingly dumb as to render the reading of this to appear to be more bother than it can possibly be worth.

If that is how it appears to you at the moment, you could very well be absolutely right. (Like I keep saying, I myself am still wondering if it was worth the bother of even beginning to write any of this in the first place). And if so, well, you know what to do.

< >

<<DIGRESSION>>

Having now irrevocably committed myself (and you?) to having to deal with these eccentricities of formatting, I suppose I should at least try to explain what they are about.

And, speaking of, such attempts at explanation are what the “<<DIGRESSION>>” “ << >>” elements - such as the one you are in the middle of right now - are for. (“<<DIGRESSION>>” marks the beginning and “<< >>” marks the end of each such explanatory digression).

<<DIGRESSION>>

(Wow! We have now just begun a Digression within a Digression. Fun, huh!?)

You see (or at least I hope you do - and me too), what I am trying to do in this whole writing is something that is so inherently illogical, something involving such inherently inconsistent and even inherently contradictory paths of development, that it can’t possibly be done. And yet I’m trying to do it anyway.

I am trying to erect and provide a logical - and succinct - presentation for the communication of something which is not truly susceptible to being communicated by way of a logical - and succinct - presentation.

Oh, it can all be stated in a logical and succinct manner. (It will take some effort and bother to do it, but I believe it can be done, and I will try valiantly to do it here).

But if that’s all that is done, nothing of any value would be accomplished.

Yes, everything would be logically and succinctly stated, but the essential meaning of what has been stated would not be communicated.

So, in addition to the logical and succinct presentation I will try to provide here, numerous (interminable?) ‘digressions’ will be overlaid upon that logical and succinct structure. These digressions will attempt to provide explanations, expansions upon, anecdotal examples, and anything else which might pop into my head for providing further illumination deemed useful in order to accomplish the communication hoped for.

Mask out the ‘digressions’, and you should find (I hope) a logical and succinct outline of the key points presented here.

Focus only on the ‘digressions’, and you should find the fleshy meat necessary to give the otherwise bare-bones outline the texture and meaning it is intended to convey (or perhaps just a rambling, disordered catharsis of the author’s innermost mental processes?).

Put them both together, and, voilá, you get this tome (and the ever nagging question, “why bother”?).

<< >>

Oh, and as to “<ESCAPE POINT>” “< >”.

Your ever humble author is ever mindful of the likelihood that none of this is worth the effort at all, for any of us. And, his having chosen to go ahead and likely waste his time with it, doesn’t mean he feels you should do the same. So, he has provided these handy and appropriate locations at which he figures it would be totally acceptable (even desirable?) for you to regain your sense of proportion and sanity, and forthwith extricate yourself from this ever thickening quagmire. (Just trying to be thoughtful and considerate J).

And, one more comment about formatting. Certain key terms will be uniquely formatted every time they are used [‘ESSE’, ‘MAFR’, ‘EGO’, ‘LOVE’ etc.]. This will be to reinforce the importance of the concepts they represent, and the importance of clearly understanding between us what they mean (which meanings will be specifically defined somewhere along the line as we go here).

<< >>

II. DEFINITIONS

<<DIGRESSION>>

As you begin to read this, you are entering into an attempt to convey by the use of words a concept which words do not convey very well. In fact, it has been said that words simply cannot adequately convey this concept at all, which is probably totally true. (So...why are we even bothering to try? ).

But we shall try anyway, in the simple trust and hope that those who are ready to ‘get it’, will (and in calm acceptance of the probability that those who aren’t, won’t).

What will be presented here can be extremely difficult to fully grasp and comprehend. And if it isn’t fully grasped and comprehended, it isn’t grasped and comprehended at all. There are no ‘almosts’ in this arena - it is all the way or nowhere at all. (“Close” only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and excuses to your mother).

The reason for this extreme difficulty of comprehension is not that the concept itself is so difficult, nor that any of us - including you - is so dense. The concept, itself, is amazingly simple and succinct - once one sees it, fully and clearly. And every human being with any kind of a mind whatsoever has the inborn ability to see it. It doesn’t require the brain of an Einstein or a college degree or even a high school diploma. If you’re capable of reading this, you’re fully capable of ‘getting it’.

The reason for this being such an extremely difficult concept to fully grasp and comprehend is the very ‘EGO-level theater’ this discussion will be so much about.

The EGO-level theater exists, and, being what it is, it does, in fact, delude and illude us into not cognizing it for what it is, and thus our ability to see it can be an extremely difficult task. (If this weren’t so, there would be no call for my writing this or your bothering to read it).

So, before this discussion can even have a prayer of being useful, we must first make sure we are communicating on the same frequency - that we are all talking the same language - that the words I use to convey a particular meaning to you are received by you with the meaning I intend rather than some other meaning. In short, we must define several of the terms we will be using here, and do so very carefully. If what I mean by what I say ends up meaning something else to you upon hearing it, we will accomplish nothing here other than frustration and misunderstanding all around, and time pointlessly and unpleasantly spent - a bother truly not worth having bothered with.

<< >>

There are only a few terms requiring careful definition for our purposes here at his point (there will be a few more as we get further along). Some because they are terms which have acquired connotations over the years which have thoroughly muddied their essential meanings. Some because they are new terms specifically coined for our purposes in this context (so as to avoid those muddying connotations).

<<DIGRESSION>>

It can sometimes prove highly enlightening (sometimes surprisingly - even amazingly - so) to take a close, hard and clear look at what certain words actually mean, as compared with what we have all along thought they meant. We sometimes find that a word no longer carries the meaning for us which it originally had, and, upon reflection, we can cognize that the original meaning was far more clear and useful than the one which has become overlaid upon it. Indeed, the subsequent meaning we have assumed it to have often corrupts the original meaning to the point of being the exact opposite of the original.

So what?

Well, not only are the meanings of certain words corrupted and muddied, but our very thinking and understanding processes are corrupted and muddied right along with those meanings.

That’s ‘so what!’

Quite often whoever coined the original term put a great deal of intuitive thought into coming up with the term and its meaning. And that depth of intuitive thought can provide a wealth of understanding to one who pays it heed. When we allow the original meaning of the term to be muddied over and corrupted by sloppier and looser thinking, what could have been a banquet of understanding becomes a grimey tin lunch bucket full of stale baloney sandwiches. (That’s not only not a good thing - that’s a bad thing).

As you proceed in this writing, you will encounter numerous examples of this process of excavating the original pristine meaning of a term out from under the gunk of connotation which has attached to it over the years. This will not be just an exercise in pedantry (pedantry? Ah.. You can look this one up yourself). There is good reason for it - as I hope I have already strongly hinted at. Yes, it may be somewhat discomforting - even painful - to go through this process (hard thinking often is), but its like lancing a boil or finally pulling an abscessed tooth - yes, it hurts, but it’s a good hurt, and feels so much better afterward.

One minor, but nonetheless useful, example of what is lost by way of sloppy word usage, is my use of the word ‘cognize’ in the first paragraph of this digression, in a place where most people would probably use the term ‘recognize’ instead.

Can you perceive the difference between cognition and re-cognition?

To cognize is to be aware. To re-cognize (recognize) is to become re-aware (to become aware again). There is a difference between becoming aware of something for the first time and becoming re-aware of it based upon previous awareness. (I could spend another page or so on this term alone, but enough for now. I am now cognizing I am tired of it for now and you probably will be, too. Maybe more later, huh?).

<< >>

It is critical that each of these terms is clearly understood between us as to what we mean by them.

Please digest these definitions carefully before proceeding any further. If we are talking past each other by way of these critical terms, we will, indeed, have no chance at all of accomplishing anything useful.

A. NEW TERMS

ESSE: The Greater Being, spiritual and corporeal, as a Unity, which consists of the totality of its parts, and to which each individual part directly belongs; Higher or Greater Power or Whole; Supreme Being; First Cause; Prime Mover Unmoved; in their broadest and fully non- particularized sense, God or Allah or Buddha or Krishna or Lord, etc.

(Each of these definitions is an approximation. All of them taken together is still an approximation. They all point in the desired direction, but none, nor all of them, is the full actuality of what is being pointed at. ESSE is the illimitable and not fully knowable quality underlying all existence, and no definition or description can be fully accurate. Any definition or description, including those herein, is to be taken as a symbolic hint rather than as a literal accuracy).

COSMICITY: The state of being and understanding which pertains when on, or at-one-with, the Cosmic (or ESSE) level.

To be clearly distinguished from the state of being when on, or operating from, the EGO level.

(Could just as accurately be called ‘atomicity’, but the term doesn’t communicate the idea nearly as well).

What ‘spirituality’ means when used without any particularizing connotations.

MAFR (pronounced ‘maw-fur’): This is an acronym for Metaphysical Assumption about Fundamental Reality.

‘Metaphysical’ means ‘beyond physical’ or more to the point here, ‘above and broader than physicality/materiality and thus beyond the ability of physical science to either prove or disprove’.

‘Assumption’ means the acceptance of the validity or reality of a concept without any clear proof of that validity or reality.

‘Fundamental’ means ‘core’ or ‘basic’ or ‘essence’; the foundation upon which all following after is built.

‘Reality’ means ‘actual’, ‘in fact’; the way it truly is.

<<DIGRESSION>>

Please see the discussion of ‘fact’ in the definition of “proof” below.

<< >>

B. EXISTING TERMS RE-DEFINED AND CLARIFIED

EGO: The sense of individuated, unique and isolated ‘self’.

<<DIGRESSION>>

Many connotations have come to be attached to this term, most of which are generally perceived as being negative - ‘selfish’,’greedy’, ‘egotistical’, etc. The qualities described by such connotations may well accurately portray many of the results of EGO, but they are not part of its definition - at least not for our purposes here - and they should be clearly seen as not being such. Consequences do flow from one’s being on the EGO level - just as with the Cosmic level - but those consequences must not be confused with the level itself. If such confusion is allowed, the ability to clearly see what is actually taking place and how it happens is lost. If that clarity is lost, the whole point of what we are doing here is lost. So, for our purposes here, ‘EGO’ means just what the definition above says, and nothing else.

<< >>

RELIGION: A societal institution whose purpose and function is to create and maintain societal cohesion among the disparate individual members of a society.

<<DIGRESSION>>

“Religion” derives from the Latin term ‘religare’, which in Latin means ‘to bind together’.

This derivation is not of minor import. In fact, it is of great significance.

As with many terms in our language, looking at its derivation can prove very enlightening as to what the common understanding was of the concept to which the term referred when it was first coined - what it represented before subsequent connotations thoroughly corrupted its original meaning.

When the term ‘religion’ was first coined, it was apparently obvious and understood by those who coined it what it was referring to - that quality in human nature which is capable of taking a multitude of individual and inconsistent EGO personalities and binding them together into a socially cohesive whole. And, it would appear, it was equally obvious and understood that a common and shared system of MAFRs was the best - perhaps the only? - quality in human nature which could provide such social glue.

Interestingly enough (or have you already lost interest by now?), the MAFRs most likely to result in the desired binding together were those of the most basic level - MAFRs regarding the elemental mysteries of life - MAFRs about the fundamental nature of existence itself and our place and role in it. In short, MAFRs about Esse and Cosmicity (as perceived from the cosmic level), which the EGO-level invariably transforms into particularized and delimited MAFRs about God or gods in one form or another.

The EGO level based MAFRs about God and gods, because of their power and ubiquity, became connotations attached to the term ‘religion’. In time, the connotations overwhelmed and replaced the original meaning - and understanding - of what religion is all about. Any modern dictionary, while it may note the Latin derivation of the term, defines ‘religion’ as having to do with Faith in God and spirituality, and makes no mention of its ‘binding together’ function.

But, with respect to ‘religion’s original meaning - and function - it really doesn’t matter what the content and substance of such MAFRs are, so long as they somehow support, and don’t undermine, social cohesion of any particular society or social sub-group, and so long as they are commonly accepted and shared among the members of that society or sub-group.

Any mutually agreed upon and accepted set of MAFRs, and faith in them, can accomplish this social binding together, and thus fulfill the essential definition, function and purpose of ‘religion’.

[EXAMPLE - The U.S.A.]

The United States of America is an excellent example of this.

The MAFRs binding the populace into a social whole are set forth in its Declaration of Independence and Constitution, together with the concepts of freedom, liberty, equality and justice those documents represent; and all the formational stories and myths about the founding fathers, the struggle for revolution, etc. These constitute the primary binding MAFRs and agreed upon elements of faith.

Yet, throughout the two foundational documents and all the various myths establishing the MAFRs which have so successfully maintained the U.S.A. as a cohesive social whole, one, and only one, reference is made to that essential fundamental MAFR which underlies the authority for all the subsequent MAFRs being set forth. That singular reference is at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence, which says:

“WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.....”

And,

“WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”

(Italics added)

This speaks of ‘Laws of Nature’, ‘Nature’s God’, ‘self-evident Truths’ and our ‘Creator’.

It doesn’t say anything about any particular view of that ‘God’ or ‘Creator’ (Christian or otherwise). It simply bases the authority for its pronouncements upon a concept, and by way of terms, for which our newly minted term, ‘Esse’, is a direct synonym.

And to reinforce the concept and point intended, the term ‘religion’ is also mentioned in only one place throughout the foundational documents and myths, in the First Amendment to the Constitution. And its whole purpose was to keep in check the divisiveness of competing faiths in particularized MAFRs by way of the more unifying MAFRs of the civil/political religion which was being established, thus allowing for a sense of a unified whole even among those whose particularized faiths could easily lead to disunion and even violent conflict.

So, the primary religion in the USA is of a civil/political nature.

And it works!

[EXAMPLE -The ‘Religion’ of science]

Much of so-called ‘science’ today is not science at all. It’s actually faith based. It does not rely on or even respect the scientific method. It masquerades as such, but it really isn’t. [More on this later - maybe].

<< >>

FAITH: The acceptance of the validity of a concept (as being ‘true’ or ‘real’ or a ‘fact’) for which the available demonstrable, credible evidence is insufficient to constitute ‘proof’ of its validity (or invalidity).

We adopt such faiths by way of a direct choice we make, whether such choice making is conscious and directly cognized as being such, or not so fully conscious and cognized, being made on the periphery of our consciousness.

All traditional ‘religious’ faiths are of this type. (So is the confidence we often place in others - and ourselves - without any particularly good reason for doing so).

‘Faith’ in one aspect is a synonym for our personal MAFRs, and in another aspect is at least the result of our MAFRs.

BELIEF: The acceptance of the validity of a concept (as being ‘true’ or ‘real’ or a ‘fact’) not just because we choose to but because the available demonstrable, credible evidence is sufficient to constitute proof of its validity.

As defined here, such ‘beliefs’ are always arrived at by the force of logic and experience, and are never the result of a choice as to what we want to accept. We believe because it appears true, as a result of demonstrable, credible evidence, whether we like it or not.

Scientific theories and courtroom jury verdicts are supposed to be based upon such proof and beliefs. (I said ‘supposed’ to be - at least that’s the idea behind them).

<<DIGRESSION>>

FAITH vs BELIEF

As you may have discerned for yourself, my selection of which of these terms to define which way was purely arbitrary on my part. I could just as easily have switched the definitions between them and still have accomplished my true purpose here.

That purpose is to point out and underline the distinction between choosing to accept the validity of a concept because one wants to accept it (faith), and being forced into accepting the validity of a concept because the of dictates of logic and experience leave us no viable alternative, even though we may very much not want to accept its validity (belief).

What does what we want and not want have to do with it? And why would we confuse our perceptions of fundamental reality by way of our wants and dis-wants?

There are reasons for this - some good, and some not so good - of which this writing will be very much about. As you will see ( if you continue with this - maybe).

<< >>

LOVE:

[a]. ESSE, in its illimitable Unity, is LOVE.

[b]. In human beings, by way of their direct and inescapable involvement and participation in ESSE, Love is a deep and abiding recognition of, and FAITH in, the actuality of ESSE, and the actuality of each individual's NEXUS with, and direct personal role in, ESSE.

[c]. In a human being, LOVE manifests itself as selfless, unconditional and total acceptance of the inherent worth of all forms of existence, however and whatever those forms might be; a genuinely selfless and unconditional concern for all forms of existence, human or otherwise, especially for individuals other than oneself, wherein any focus on the personal self is only to the end of enhancing one's ability to focus on the Greater Whole.

<< DIGRESSION >>

There is much confusion in the world today about the subject of "love". Some of the most hurtful things one person can do to another are often done in the name of "love". "Lover" injures "lover", parents and children disserve one another, and friend denies friend - all in the name of "love".

The reason for this confusing and seemingly perverse situation is that things which are not LOVE - genuine LOVE - are too often called by the same name.

Our definition of LOVE (capitalized so as to separate it from less accurate uses of the term) is one of genuine LOVE, in its essential and spiritual purity. The Gnostic Razor has been applied to it so as to maintain that essential purity of definition, and to avoid any further confusion and perversity on the subject, by keeping out anything in the use of the term which is not genuine LOVE.

Any feeling, set of feelings, or state of being which does not fully and easily fit within this definition, is not genuine LOVE, and should not be called by that name or confused with it.

Consequently, the nature or intensity of any particular relationship is irrelevant to this definition.

For example, if the state of being between two strangers is one of selfless, unconditional and total acceptance and concern for one another, then there is genuine LOVE between them.

On the other hand, if the state of being between two people, even blood kin, mates, or romantic "lovers", is in any way selfish, conditional or less than total acceptance of and concern for the well being of one another, then the relationship is not one of genuine LOVE, to that extent. Feelings in such situations may well be intense, but that intensity of emotion, if not feelings of genuine LOVE, is something other than LOVE (quite possibly the antithesis of LOVE), and should not be confused with it.

<< >>

PROOF: