First breath of belief

Thu Feb 1, 2007 5:00 pm

Dear Uncle Mxxx:

Actually I suddenly found the type a bit small to see clearly, and Chxxx happened to mention how easy Joe's email is to read because it is in a larger type. So it is my own aging process that is at fault! 

It doesn't surprise me that you found a certain affinity with the gnostic "outcasts." There is a little bit of rebel in you -- and not coincidentally in Exit Clov () -- that harbor a healthy dose of skepticism towards the status quo. It is a quality I highly respect and often times identify with.

Maybe it is that I reside mostly in the murky sludge of intellectual and spiritual uncertainty, what I strive for most in these types of discussion is clarity. And I do believe that knowledge crystallized through debates wide in participants and deep in historical time is as close to certainty and truth as we can achieve.

I also understand that any established thought or orthodoxy still needs constant and rigorous self-examination in order to remain relevant and meaningful to its purpose. In the realms of philosophy and religion, more often than not the dominant thoughts were not brought about through force nor deception, but how it appealed to the majority, fulfilling a deep need; and there is ample wisdom in long-standing traditions that may need adaptation to different ages, but should not have its core value questioned as beneficial to mankind.

And as you so eloquently pointed out, there seldom is consensus with regard to important life issues. Those with differing points of view are entitled to that right...but I am not sure if the establishment of that right entails a need to question or even discredit what the majority believes in. This is the conclusion you often draw -- to be inclusive of all perspectives and not focus on an absolute to the exclusion of others.

Which reminds me of the analogy Joanie drew a few years ago when religion was discussed: That of describing knowledge of god like blind persons describing an elephant. To insist on what one's limited knowledge as absolute truth is arrogant and often leads to tragic conclusions. It is of course more enlightened to acknowledge other view points; but to simply describe the true condition of our limitation does not bring one closer to the truth. It is mere circumstantial in that neither the description nor experience is genuine. It is like writing about or reading about love is not the same as being in love.

I dare say that the experience with God is similar in that we believe in Him because we feel it and not because there is a better argument for or evidence of. We can put together all the combined individual knowledge of God and still be wanting. Even if the entire elephant is resconstructed to the minutest detail, it remains lifeless until one draws that first breath of belief.

At some point, one may fancy being a cloud floating over earth's varying landscapes and seasons. Is is never the same, ever changing and full of wonders. One can conclude that there is no absolute because change is all we see. But what changes: the magnificent earth or a whiff of cloud? God is constant in the mountains, the sea, sunshine and rain; God is black and God is white...everywhere and at all time. I agree with Camimi, I like that!

Love, Jim