metaphysical mumbo-jumbo: 3/1/07

why god kicks your ass

One of the great parts of bean a human bean is free will. You can choose whatever tickles your fancy.

If you choose fear, if you choose to live in fear, no worries. That's fine. Nobody least of all god will criticise you for making that choice. Just one thing though, don't be surprised or complain if and when you feel afraid. Or, do complain if you want, but then don't be surprised or complain if your first complaint leads nowhere. Accept your self-created outcomes; embrace them as your truest offspring.

Some things we don't immediately enjoy, we acquire the taste over time. Anger is an acquired taste, as is blue cheese, garlic snails, witchetty grubs. When you first try anger, you’re not sure you like it. But you learn.

So if you choose anger, no problem. Nobody least of all god will hold that against you. But don't be surprised or complain when you feel angry. Or do complain if that's what you want to do, but don't then complain or be surprised when you grow tired of complaining.

If you choose love, that's fine. It's up to you, and nobody will think any the less of you, least of all god. You probably won't feel the need to complain, but if you do, then go right ahead and complain about having love. And then don't complain or be surprised if love flees from you.

You can choose. You can have what you choose. You must have what you choose. There's no other choice. And whatever you choose you will experience. Just don't bitch and moan if you don't like the outcome. Or do bitch and moan, but then don't be surprised or complain if someone, probably god, kicks you in the ass and tells you to get the hell out of there. Because some things are easier to overlook than others.

mumbo (refresh/home)

close to death

Close to death now. Real close, real soon now. Coming home, Lord. I'm a comin' home. To the other side. Tear the veil of illusion asunder. Talk to God man to man face to face. And say: "Look God, I don't wanna complain or anything, but I gotta tell ya, Life on Earth sucks, big time!"

And I did that! I took my courage in my strong right arm, I girded my loins, and I put the hard word on God, jus' like I allus said I would...

And God snickered a little, gave a high-pitched giggle, then sarcastically replied: "You 'gotta tell me'? You 'gotta tell me?' That's rich! That's truly a hoot, deluxe! Cos if life sucks for you, how do you think I feel? And if life sucks for you, I'm sorry but that's your issue not mine. Now get lost, punk! Or are you feeling lucky, punk?"

mumbo (refresh/home)

trillion zillion names of god

There are no disagreements, there is only confusion about labels. There are no arguments about meaning, there is only a failure to understand the difference between the signified and the signifier. This confusion is especially relevant and important in relation to so-called disagreements about god or gods, and the nature and meaning thereof.

Both the pantheistic position and the panentheistic position are unassailable, logically, because they are constructed on the bedrock of axiomatic definition. And the truth of any axiom is as agreed in advance of its application. (Although I've got to admit that if Godel is right and I think he is, then all positions are unassailable and assailable but only from without, not within).

By way of explanation, let us define something (X) in terms of certain attributes, functions if you will. We set up an axiom linking X inexorably to the attributes of X which ourselves set up, agree, define, create. We create the equation. We establish the axiom. We create the reality. Please let's not forget that.

Consider the following axiom (or definition): There is an X, such that Everything That Is (ETI), is X; such that Everything That Was, is X; such that Everything That Will Be, is X; such that Everything That Can Be, is X; including things, nothings, thoughts, memories, ideas, rocks, vacuums, quarks, recipes, logic, sealing wax, cabbages, possibilities... anything and everything.

So the axiom we create is: X = Everything That Is, Was, Will Be, Can Be, May be, Could Be etc

Now let's give X a name. We can name X "Jehovah", or "Baal", or "Beelzebub", or "Lucifer", or "Shiva", or "Vishnu", or "Zeus", or "Aphrodite", or "Mary", or "Gaia" or "Allah", or "My Grandmother's Fruitcake", or "A Piece of Snot on the End of my Finger". It doesn't matter what we name X. Having created the axiom in the first place, we can name X anything we like.

In fact, not only can we name X anything we like, we are also free to assign to X whatever attributes we deem fit. We could for instance assign to X attributes related to Ocean (eg wetness, tidalness, waviness, saltiness). And the name we assign to X could be "Poseidon" or even "Neptune".

We could also assign another set of attributes to another thing, Z, and assign to Z a set of attributes including the carrying of the universe upon ones back. And we could name Z "The Great Turtle" (and yes, it is turtles all the way down).

Of course, someone will inevitably say, "We call X in our language 'god', and god is wet and salty". And another person from another tribe will say, "you are so terribly terribly wrong; we call Z in our language 'god' and god has a very hard shell and can carry enormous weight". And then they will go to war. What a shame. Because they are both right.

None of it matters. There is no true disagreement, only confusion over the assignation of signifiers to that which is signified. In fact, nothing matters; only everything matters. All ways are right, always.

HOME of mumbo jumbo

attributes of my preferred deity

If I absolutely, positively, definitely had to worship a deity, I would prefer to worship a deity who does not require worship. If I were constructing a deity "from the ground up" so to speak, I would construct a deity who does not lay down commandments to be obeyed. My deity of choice would not require any sacrificial offerings from me or anyone else, would not become jealous or wrathful if I were to pray to other deities on the odd occasion. Among the attributes of my preferred deity are a sense of humour, an outgoing personality and an appreciation of the finer things in life, such as sex (in or out of marriage) and drugs and rock and roll and other edgy stuff too. Who would want a deity who hides within a burning bush, or a pillar of smoke? Not me. Who would want a deity who withers a tree that fails to fruit on demand and out of season? Not me. I choose a deity who loves money-changers as much as whores as much as saints. I choose a deity who loves me as I am, here and now, inside and out, for ever and a day. My biggest buddy, my deepest love.

P.S. Very powerful arguments can be made that Deity by definition either has no attributes, or has all attributes.

HOME of mumbo jumbo

how big is your God?

Let's start this post with the usual disclaimer about the difference between the signified and the signifier. Part of this post is about what some might call God but to avoid confusion instead I will use the signifier "Everything That Is", or "ETI" for short.

People argue and fight about the name/s and nature/s of divinity or deity if you prefer. Those arguments are about the attributes of deity (eg has a thousand arms, is found in the sea, is found in the air, throws thunderbolts, was crucified, is male, is female, is genderless, carries a large hammer, etc). So if those feisty people believed that deity has no attributes (or has all attributes, which is equivalent to having no attributes) then they would not disagree about the attributes of deity, and (hopefully, at least) would quit fighting and arguing about the name/s and nature/s of deity.

By definition ETI has all the attributes there are, have been, will be or could be. And know too that ETI comprises not just material things, and material attributes, but all things and all attributes---material, immaterial, imaginary, illusory, known, unknown, existent, non-existent and otherwise. ETI is binding: ETI is that which binds it (everything) all together.

Now I'll come clean and admit that for me, ETI is deity. This is the pantheistic or panentheistic position. And what a great position it is. Because from this position you can happily and truthfully agree with anyone about anything. If a pantheist were to encounter, for example, a person from a tribe of fisherpeople who worship the ocean, the fisherperson might say, "Deity is the ocean and my tribe calls him 'Neptune' and we worship Neptune religiously". The pantheist would smile a warm and gentle smile and respond to the fisherperson by saying, "Yes, the ocean is part of ETI, and deity is in the ocean, and yes, your tribe does call him Neptune, and yes you do worship him religiously. That's great. Keep it up. Fine by me. Absolutely no worries mate."

Another great thing about ETI, is that Ze is context-independent and values-free. Let's take 'em one at a time, starting with context-independence. ETI cannot appear before you or anyone else in Zer "true form" because ETI has no true form because in ETI all forms are true. ETI can appear as a burning bush, or a pillar of smoke, or an angel with wings, or a bloody corpse upon a cross, or a bright light, or an old man with a long white beard, or a young woman glowing with power and glory, or an innocent little child, or a bolt of lightening or or or (and yes, the Hebrew word for "light" is pronounced "or" but that's irrelevant to this discussion). The point is that ETI has no context, is all contexts, depends on nothing, depends on everything, cares for everything, cares for nothing.

And the introduction of the word "cares" brings us to another attribute of ETI (which has no attributes because Ze has all attributes), and that is that ETI has no values (has all values), and values nothing (values everything). ETI includes love, joy, trust, life, forgiveness, healing, growth, knowledge, hope, beauty, goodness, right and much more. ETI also includes hate, sorrow, evil, death, pain, sorrow, ignorance, despair, deception, ugliness, wrong and much more. Nor does ETI value any of these attributes over any other. My God just doesn't care (cares more than I can know or understand).

And if this portrait of deity offends you, answer me this: do you value diversity and 'multi-culturalism'? For the purposes of discussion let's invent two hypothetical worlds: one that is full of love, peace, goodness and joy only, and another one that is full of love, peace, goodness, joy, hatred, death, sorrow, pain, and more besides. Of those two hypothetical worlds, which is the richer, more diverse world?

In contrast to ETI, we humans talk about and think about and place and value everything in relation to its context or backdrop. In some cultures, at some times, child sacrifice is valued as a good. In some (but not all) cultures at some (but not all points in history) incest is believed to be wrong or bad. Our sun, Sol, is at the centre of our planetary system, the solar system, but is nowhere near the centre of the universe (there is no centre of the universe). Some cultures value individual achievement and flexibility of thought. Other cultures value group achievement and conformity with the norm. Who is right? Everyone. No-one.

One way to Enlightenment is through language-independent thinking. Another, perhaps faster, way is through context-independent, values-independent thinking.

But don't take my word for it. Ask God.

mumbo (refresh/home)

a sharp jab in the I

Heraclitus said: "Everything flows and nothing is left (unchanged)" ie you cannot step in the same river twice. What does that imply re the current "me" (whoever that is) taking responsibility for actions performed by a previous "me" (whoever that was)?

There are major problems understanding or defining the "self/soul". For starters, there's the issue of where the self lives. Then there's the issue of whether the "I" that I am now is the same as the "I" of ten years ago, or a minute ago, or even the "I" in another memory or mind.

And then there's the issue of what I believe and what I perceive. For example, with the speed of light greater than 186,000 miles per second, by the time I become aware of what I am looking at, it is no longer the same thing as it was before. Similarly, when we look through a telescope at, say, the nearest star to our own (Proxima Centauri), we are looking into the past. We are looking at Proxima Centari as it was 4.24 years ago.

Some believe that the only time there is, is right now, the eternal moment. And that the eternal moment is all there is, was and ever will be. And that all that "I" am, have, do, know is part of or the whole of the eternal moment, per the "Tat Tvam Asi" ("you are that"/"I am that I am") of vedantic hinduism in which the soul (or consciousness if you prefer) is wholly or partially the ultimate reality, (whatever that means).

HOME of mumbo jumbo | Heraclitus Totally Explained