I have a standing that spiritual philosophy should be encouraged to discuss more than simply gods and our relationship to them.
This following quote and subsequent response may at first appear to counter that position.
However, they show where the conceptual difference lies in how life is percieved, and thereby dictates how the philosophies follow differently.
That’s fine, but what if I don’t see my life as a mess, testing, trying, nor myself as a victim?
If I’m not looking for these things, then what I want spiritualy is going to be something other than this god.
My concern is that people cede their power and authority. Many stunt themselves in my opinion because of the nature of their relationship with God. Just read the quotation. Only God can That’s not the mantra I want in my head.
Probably because I’m sick of trying to please and always give deference to higher authority. It distracts me from my own creativity and production.
Well the only one that I’ve thought about a lot is trial. I seem to see myself as going through a series of personal trials right now. And perhaps recently I have thought of my life as somewhat of a mess, but I don’t feel like a victim in particular and I don’t feel like anybody or higher power is testing me. And I feel confident and capable of turning trials into triumph myself, with help from others, of course, though I don’t feel like I depend on others too much.
I think so. However, that’s only a tentative yes because I feel that I can be creative and productive by myself, but I don’t want to live life isolated. There is a social aspect that’s also important to me.
Of course. And I would imagine that you enjoy being creative and productive in your social circles as well.
There is you unto the ideal of it, and then there is you unto your relationships; they often share each other’s philosophies.
But the reason for pointing that out wasn’t to suggest that you are dependent, but instead that you have a series of philosophies which are based on a cardinal difference in how you view your life than how such a person as posted that on facebook views their life.
Your reverences are different because you want different things.
And you want different things because you see your life differently; you relate to it differently.
As such, trying to convince you of the other view is to ask you to feel differently about your life, which you see no reason to as you feel your life positively.
There is that old Zen cliche, which when you remove dogmatic phrasing, implies, “How can I show you my view if you will not let go of your view?”
Well…what if I have no need of your view?
What if I never came asking for your cup of tea?
What if you are asking me to empty my cup when I am eating off of a plate?
If you are in such a position of being like the person eating being disrupted by the person asking them to empty their cup of tea, then, my point in this exercise is to provoke you to tell me what it is that you are eating and why.
Further, it is to encourage you to expand what you view into a fuller version of what you view.
Pour out devotion into an emotional expression of what it is that you revere.
And then embrace that as your religion; your spirituality.
And I don’t exactly mean do this here, but instead to tell me unto yourself…endlessly.
I perfectly understand this. Without a lot of reflection, it feels as though we can’t help but project our preferences onto others. I was talking about the golden rule with someone the other day and suggested that the platinum rule might be more authentic: “The golden rule might be too simple, as people don’t like to be treated in the same ways and so maybe we should respect/honor our plurality of preferences. Have you heard of the platinum rule? ‘Treat others in the way they like to be treated.’ This might be a more authentic way to navigate socially, as it requires a deeper understanding of oneself in relation to others.” Great thread.
I’m glad you like it.
I am mostly transfixed with agitating the lighting ingredients that each person already holds in view of their life.
I would like more people to embrace their religion; not the religion they belong to. The religion of life, instead, that comes from being them.
Damn, Jayson. Succinctly beautiful. I’m going to put that in my sig. (if you don’t mind) right next to where I already have my own religious expression.
Then I suppose it would mean, to you, you are God.
Life will be a mess, full of test and full of victims. Life is bigger than just you. Very few will conquer, and those that succeed will know that the world is larger than one.
If you do not see the lessons in life, then you are not living.
Why must I replace gods?
If I am eating food instead of drinking, why am I forced to say that my plate of food is a drink?
I consider life to be about as much of a mess and trial as I see currents in water.
If you want life, then you need motion. Motion has more than one variable, and as such includes movement in spectrum.
Not seeing life as a mess or trying, or lacking any perspective with which to see myself as a victim does not mean that I do not learn from life.
I neither see a mess in water, nor see it as trying, nor see myself as a victim of water, yet I learn plenty from it.
Also of note, I have no interest in conquering life.
I do not hold a view in which I am at odds with my life in such a manner in which I must strive to defeat it or subdue it by force.
I also do not consider life to be bigger than myself.
I am my life. There is no life in me but through myself.
You might have suggested to my view that motion is bigger than a current, in which a current is an amplitude, frequency, and consistency.
They are of 1:1 ratio.
I am my life, and my life is me.
Why would an artist so great require tribute? I think it is tribute enough that we marvel at the painting, nay that we try to understand the painting. What more could anyone ask?
Jayson: I quoted you in my Facebook status and someone has already said your words are beautiful and shared my status. Oh, and another thing, now Google has your soul. Sorry 'bout that.
Oh, and another thing, now Google has your soul. Sorry 'bout that. 
