Spinoza on the Nature of God

The following is an excerpt from Will and Ariel Durant's abstract and discussion of Benedict Spinoza's view of the nature of 'God', as found in his posthumously-published work, Ethics. As the Durants point out, Spinoza's original full title of this work was (in Latin): Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata, which (if my Latin is not too rusty) is in English something like "Ethics, Demonstrated from the Rules of Geometry." This discussion is found in pages 636 through 641 of The Age of Louis XIV, in Chapter XXII, "Spinoza".

I include it here in this web-site because first and foremost I am absolutely amazed to discover (for I only read it for the first time about two days ago) that MY idea of the nature of 'God' is almost exactly the same, word for word, line for line, idea for idea, as Spinoza's. (Other previous writings of mine will demonstrate this fact.) And I developed my parallel view quite independently of having read this abstract of Spinoza (practically my only contact thus far with the ideas of Spinoza, though his name has been familiar to me for many years). I don't necessarily think that I am any great 'genius'--certainly not compared with those who undoubtedly were (or are), and I am definitely NOT anything like a MATHEMATICIAN (as Spinoza was); yet I was (somehow) able to independently develop a conception of 'deity' almost exactly identical in depth and breadth to that of one of the unquestioned greatest minds this world has ever produced. This is the source of my profound amazement. I feel much as Nietzsche admitted he felt upon first discovering the works of Stendhal and Dostoevsky.

The second reason I include this excerpt here is in the hope that by drawing attention to it here, I may help to spread the influence of these ideas (which I think need to be disseminated); hopefully this clear and concise discussion (the most clear and concise I have yet found) will be of greater benefit to others than it has even been to myself.

And the third and final reason why I include it here is that it constitutes a very apt and relevant continuation of my earlier discussion of theology and my own personal journey of spiritual, theological, and intellectual development.

Where I would differ from Spinoza is only in this: he says that 'God' contains no emotion [as in 'love', etc.]. I would, however, argue--and this argument is consonant with the rest of Spinoza's framework of ideas, I think--that 'God' does, indeed, contain or possess emotion (as in love), BUT ONLY INSOFAR AS 'HE' CONTAINS OR POSSESSES ALL THAT EMOTION (OR 'LOVE', ETC.) WHICH IS CONTAINED OR POSSESSED BY THE TOTALITY OF ALL THINKING, FEELING, 'LOVING' BEINGS--I.E., "HUMAN" BEINGS--since 'God' is (as Spinoza affirms) the sum totality of all that exists. Thus, my earlier statements that 'God' is LOVE still hold true; but we must add that 'God' is also everything else as well. The same would also hold true with the idea that 'God' also possesses 'personality', 'consciousness', and 'intelligence'--i.e., only in the sense that 'God' is the sum total of all that 'personality', 'consciousness', and 'intelligence' which exist in the entire universe. I only wonder why Spinoza apparently did not admit this, since it follows quite clearly and logically from everything else he said. And yet I want to add here--almost (seemingly) despite all of the following--that I believe that 'God' does, indeed, possess a very powerfully-strong personality and consciousness and intelligence and emotion--as the sum total of all that of the same which exists in the universe--a being or entity, indeed, comprising the sum total of all that exists in the universe (but a being or entity nonetheless), of such a power and magnitude that by comparison to it, we mere, puny humans, would indeed be completely dwarfed, absorbed, or overwhelmed by it, were we not somehow kept apart and separated from it. (In passing, I believe this has much to do with the so-called 'Big Bang'.) We, as individual conscious humans, are merely tiny atoms or corpuscles in the mind/body of 'God' himself (along with all the other mind-matter existing in the universe). All of this follows quite clearly from the basic idea that the universe itself IS 'God'. And God said, "Let there be light!" And there was light. ... And the Creation (which is 'God' himself) sprang into material/spatial/temporal 'existence' (once again), continually creating and re-creating itself anew. ...

________________________________

Spinoza began with definitions, mostly taken from medieval philosophy. The words he used have changed their meaning since his day, and now some of them obscure his thought. The third definition is fundamental: "I understand Substance to be that which is in itself and is conceived through itself; I mean that, the conception of which does not depend upon the conception of another thing from which it must be formed." He does not mean substance in the modern sense of material constituents; our use of the word to mean essence or basic significance comes closer to his intent. If we take literally his Latin term substantia, it indicates that which stands under, underlies, supports. In his correspondence he speaks of "substance or being"; i.e., he identifies substance with existence or reality. Hence he can say that "existence appertains to the nature of substance," that in substance, essence and existence are one. We may conclude that in Spinoza substance means the essential reality underlying all things.

This reality is perceived by us in two forms: as extension or matter, and as thought or mind. These two are "attributes" of substance; not as qualities residing in it, but as the same reality perceived externally by our senses as matter, and internally by our consciousness as thought. Spinoza is a complete monist: these two aspects of reality--matter and thought--are not distinct and separate entities, they are two sides, the outside and the inside, of one reality; so are body and mind, so is physiological action and the corresponding mental state. Strictly speaking, Spinoza, so far from being a materialist, is an idealist: he defines an attribute as "that which the intellect apprehends of substance as constituting its essence"; he admits (long before Berkeley was born) that we know reality, whether as matter or as thought, only through perception or idea. He believes that reality expresses itself in endless aspects through an "infinite number of attributes," of which we imperfect organisms perceive only two. So far, then, substance, or reality, is that which appears to us as matter or mind. Substance and its attributes are one: reality is a union of matter and mind; and these are distinct only in our manner of perceiving substance. To put it not quite Spinozistically, matter is reality externally perceived; mind is reality internally perceived. If we could perceive all things in the same double way--externally and internally--as we perceive ourselves, we should, Spinoza believes, find that "all things are in some manner animate" (omnia quodammodo animata); there is some form or degree of mind or life in everything. Substance is always active: matter is always in motion; mind is always perceiving or feeling or thinking or desiring or imagining or remembering, awake or in sleep. The world is in every part of it alive.

God, in Spinoza, is identical with substance; He is the reality underlying and uniting matter and mind. God is not identical with matter (therefore Spinoza is not a materialist), but matter is an inherent and essential attribute or aspect of God (here one of Spinoza's youthful heresies reappears). God is not identical with mind (therefore Spinoza is not a spiritualist), but mind is an inherent and essential attribute or aspect of God. God and substance are identical with nature (Deus sive substantia sive natura) and the totality of all being (therefore Spinoza is a pantheist).

Nature has two aspects. As the power of motion in bodies, and as the power of generation, growth, and feeling in organisms, it is natura naturans--nature "creating" or giving birth. As the sum of all individual things, of all bodies, plants, animals, and men, it is natura naturata--generated or "created" nature. These individual entities in generated nature are called by Spinoza modi, modes--transient modifications and embodiments of substance, reality, matter-mind, God. They are part of substance, but in our perception we distinguish them as passing, fleeting forms of an eternal whole. This stone, this tree, this man, this planet, this star--all this marvelous kaleidescope of appearing and dissolving individual forms--constitute that "temporal order" which, in On the Improvement of the Intellect, Spinoza contrasted with the "eternal order" that in a stricter sense is the underlying reality and God:

By a series of causes and real entities I do not understand ... a series of individual mutable things, but the series of fixed and eternal things. For it would be impossible for human weakness to follow up the series of individual mutable things [every stone, every flower, every man] ... Their existence has no connection with their essence [they may exist, but need not], or ... is not an eternal truth ... This [essence] is only to be sought from fixed and eternal things, and from the laws inscribed in those things as their true codes, according to which all individual things are made and arranged; nay, these individual and mutable things depend so intimately and essentially (so to speak) on these fixed ones, that without them they can neither exist nor be conceived.

So a single, specific triangle is a mode; it may but need not exist; but if it does it will have to obey the laws--and will have the powers--of the triangle in general. A specific man is a mode; he may or may not exist; but if he does he will share in the essence and power of matter-mind, and will have to obey the laws that govern the operations of bodies and thoughts. These powers and laws constitute the order of nature as natura naturans; they constitute, in theological terms, the will of God. The modes of matter in their totality are the body of God; the modes of mind in their totality, are the mind of God; substance or reality, in all its modes and attributes, is God; "whatever is, is in God."

Spinoza agrees with the Scholastic philosophers that in God essence and existence are one--His existence is involved in our conception of His essence, for he conceives God as all existence itself. He agrees with the Scholastics that God is causa sui, self-caused, for there is nothing outside him. He agrees with the Scholastics that we can know the existence of God, but not his real nature in all his attributes. He agrees with St. Thomas Aquinas that to apply the masculine pronouns to God is absurd but convenient. He agrees with Maimonides that most of the qualities we ascribe to God are conceived by weak analogy with human qualities.

God is described as the lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, etc., merely in concession to popular understanding and the imperfection of popular knowledge ... God is free from passions, nor is he affected with any emotion [affectus] of joy or sorrow ... Those who confuse divine with human nature easily attribute human passions to God, especially if they do not know how passions are produced in the mind.

God is not a person, for that means a particular and finite mind; but God is the total of all the mind (all the animation, sensitivity, and thought)--as well as of all the matter--in existence. The human mind is part of a certain infinite intellect (as in the Aristotelian-Alexandrian tradition). But "if intellect and will appertain to the eternal essence of God, something far else must be understood by these two attributes than what is commonly understood by men." "The actual intellect, ... together with will, desire, love, etc., must be referred to the natura naturata, not to the natura naturans"; that is, individual minds, with their desires, emotions, and volitions, are modes or modifications, contained in God as the totality of things, but not pertaining to Him as the law and life of the world. There is will in God, but only in the sense of the laws operating everywhere. His will is law.

God is not a bearded patriarch sitting on a cloud and ruling the universe; He is "the indwelling, not the transient, cause of all things." There is no Creation, except in the sense that the infinite reality--matter-mind--is ever taking new individual forms or modes. "God is not in any one place, but is everywhere according to his essence." Indeed, the word cause is out of place here; God is the universal cause not in the sense of a cause preceeding its effect, but only in the sense that the behavior of anything follows necessarily from its nature. God is the cause of all events in the same way that the nature of a triangle is the cause of its properties and behavior. God is "free" only in the sense that He is not subject to any external cause or force, and is determined only by His own essence or nature; but He "does not act from freedom of will"; all His actions are determined by His essence--which is the same as to say that all events are determined by the inherent nature and properties of things. There is no design in nature in the sense that God desires some end; He has no desires or designs, except as the totality contains all the desires and designs of all modes and therefore of all organisms. In nature there are only effects following inevitably from antecedent causes and inherent properties. There are no miracles, for the will of God and the "fixed and unchanged order of nature" are one; any break in "the chain of natural events" would be a self-contradiction.

Man is only a small part of the universe. Nature is neutral as between man and other forms. We must not apply to nature or God such words as good or evil, beautiful or ugly; these are subjective terms, as much so as hot or cold; they are determined by the contribution of the external world to our advantage or displeasure.

The perfection of things is to be judged by their nature and power alone; nor are they more or less perfect because they delight or offend the human senses, or because they are beneficial or prejudicial to human nature ... If, therefore, anything in nature seems to us ridiculous, absurd, or evil, it is because we know only in part, and are almost entirely ignorant of, the order and interdependence of nature as a whole; and also because we want everything to be arranged according to the dictates of our human reason. In reality that which reason considers evil is not evil in respect to the order and laws of nature as a whole, but only in respect to the laws of our reason.

Likewise there is no beauty or ugliness in nature.

Beauty ... is not so much a quality of the object beheld, as an effect in him who beholds it. If our sight were longer or shorter, if our constitutions were different, what we now think beautiful we should think ugly. ... The most beautiful hand, seen through the microscope, will appear horrible ... I do not attribute to nature either beauty or deformity, order or confusion. Only in relation to our imagination can things be called beautiful or ugly, well-formed, or confused.

Order is objective only in the sense that all things cohere in one system of law; but in that order a destructive storm is as natural as the splendor of a sunset or the sublimity of the sea.

Are we justified, on the basis of this "theology," in calling Spinoza an athiest? We have seen that he was not a materialist, for he did not identify God with matter; he says quite clearly that "those who think that the Tractatus [theologico-politicus] rests on the identification of God with nature--taking nature in the sense of a certain mass of corporeal matter--are entirely wrong." He conceived God as mind as well as matter, and he did not reduce mind to matter; he acknowledged that mind is the only reality directly known. He thought that something akin to mind is mingled with all matter; in this respect he was a panpsychist. He was a pantheist, seeing God in all things, and all things in God. Bayle, Hume, and others considered him an athiest; and this term might seem justified by Spinoza's denial of feeling, desire, or purpose in God. He himself, however, objected to "the opinion which the common people have of me, who do not cease to accuse me falsely of atheism." Apparently he felt that his ascription of mind and intelligence to God absolved him from the charge of atheism. And it must be admitted that he spoke repeatedly of his God in terms of religious reverence, often in terms quite consonant with the conception of God in Maimonides or Aquinas. Novalis would call Spinoza "der Gottbetrunkene Mensch," the God-intoxicated man.

Actually he was intoxicated with the whole order of nature, which in its eternal consistency and movement seemed to him admirable and sublime; and in Book I of the Ethics he wrote both a system of theology and the metaphysics of science. In the world of law he felt a divine revelation greater than any book, however noble or beautiful. The scientist who studies that law, even in its pettiest and most prosaic detail, is deciphering that revelation, for "the more we understand individual objects, the more we understand God." (This sentence struck Goethe as one of the profoundest in literature.) It seemed to Spinoza that he had honestly accepted and met the challenge implicit in Copernicus--to reconceive deity in terms worthy of the universe now progressively revealed. In Spinoza science and religion are no longer in conflict; they are one.

(This "challenge implicit in Copernicus" mentioned above, was discussed by Joseph Campbell in the beginning pages of his The Inner Reaches of Outer Space [q.v.].)

The Mystic's Desire, According to Campbell

"Another of the Sufi mystics said 'The function of the orthodox community is to give the mystic his desire, which is union with God, through mortification and death'."

From The Power of Myth [with Bill Moyers], 1988.




One of Campbell's disciples, Diane K. Osbon, in her The Joseph Campbell Companion, remembered Campbell as repeating this Sufi quotation somewhat differently:

"The function of the orthodox community is to torture the mystic to death: his goal."

Now, a little challenge to my readers, for them to prove their worthiness to receive this doctrine: when you can satisfactorily explain to me the above idea, then I will say that you are truly 'enlightened' and a 'mystic'. Although I certainly could do so (if I wished), I will not now attempt to explain the above idea; I will wait until YOU do so--however short or long that may take.

Remember what the 'Christ' said to his hearers: "He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear. ..."
(In other words, these words are meant only for those persons ABLE to comprehend them.)

Campbell quoted a very deep idea (above), and he certainly understood it fully (as do I); DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT?

Campbell on the Use of Hallucinogens to Facilitate the Mystical Experience

Below is an excerpt from Joseph Campbell's 1988 THE INNER REACHES OF OUTER SPACE, pages 90 and 152 (for the footnotes):

In the 1950s R. Gordon Wasson's investigations of the Mexican pre-Columbian mushroom cult (in collaboration with Albert Hofmann, the Swiss chemist renowned for his discovery of LSD in 1943) established beyond question the prominence of hallucinogens in the religious exercises of the whole Mayan-Aztec culture field. The same investigators in conjunction with the classicist, Carl A.P. Ruck, have lately revealed the likelihood of the influence of a hallucinogen (ergot of barley) in the Greek mysteries of Eleusis.[*]
Already in 1968, Wasson published his disclosure of the mysterious Vedic sacramental, Soma, as probably a product of the mushroom AMANITA MUSCARIA (fly agaric)[*] Aldous Huxley's THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION (1954), describing his own visionary experiences under the influence of mescaline, opened the way to a popular appreciation of the ability of hallucinogens to render perceptions of a quasi, or even truly, mystical profundity. There can be no doubt today that through the use of such sacramentals, revelations indistinguishable from some of those reported of yoga have been experienced. Nor can there be any doubt that the source of the revelations is the psyche of the practitioner--the unconscious, that is to say. They are revelations, that is to say further, of the archetypes of the collective unconscious, elementary ideas A PRIORI of the species HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS, such as may appear spontaneously no matter where. ...

* R. Gordon Wasson, Albert Hofmann, and Carl A.P. Ruck, THE ROAD TO ELEUSIS: UNVEILING THE SECRET OF THE MYSTERIES (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1978).

* R. Gordon Wasson, SOMA: DIVINE MUSHROOM OF IMMORTALITY (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1968).

Some Wisdom from Edward Fitzgerald

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about; but evermore
Came out by the same door wherein I went.

With them the seed of Wisdom did I sow,
And with mine own hand wrought to make it grow;
And this was all the Harvest that I reap'd--
I came like Water, and like Wind I go." ...

Indeed, indeed, Repentence oft before
I swore--but was I sober when I swore?
And then and then came Spring, and Rose-in-hand
My thread-bare Penitence apieces tore. ...

What! out of senseless Nothing to provoke
A conscious Something to resent the yoke
Of unpermitted Pleasure, under pain
Of Everlasting Penalties, if broke!

What! from his helpless Creature be repaid
Pure Gold for what he lent him dross-allayed--
Sue for a Debt we never did contract,
And cannot answer--Oh the sorry trade!

Oh Thou, who didst with pitfall and with gin
Beset the Road I was to wander in,
Thou wilt not with Predestined Evil round
Enmesh, and then impute my Fall to Sin! ...

O threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise!
One thing at least is certain,--THIS Life flies;
One thing is certain and the rest is Lies;
The Flower that once has blown for ever dies. ...

"Why," said another, "some there are who tell
Of one who threatens he will toss to Hell
The luckless Pots he marr'd in making--Pish!
He's a Good Fellow, and 'twill all be well." ...

We are no other than a moving row
Of magic Shadow-shapes that come and go
Round with this Sun-illumined Lantern held
In Midnight by the Master of the show;

But helpless Pieces of the Game He plays
Upon this Chequer-board of Nights and Days;
Hither and thither moves, and checks, and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays. ...

Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too into the Dust descend;
Dust unto Dust, and under Dust, to lie,
Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and--sans End!

YESTERDAY This Day's Madness did prepare;
TO-MORROW'S Silence, Triumph, or Despair:
Drink! for you know not whence you came, nor why:
Drink! for you know not why you go, nor where. ...

A Book of Verses underneath the Bough;
A Loaf of Bread, a Jug of Wine, and Thou
Beside me, Singing in the Wilderness--
Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow! ...

Ah, Love--could you and I with Him conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of things entire--
Would we not shatter it to bits, and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's desire?

Stanzas from "The Ruba'iyat of Omar Khayyam" of Naishapur (Persia),
translated by Edward Fitzgerald (1809-1883), and first published in English in 1859.

_______________________

Sometimes, when thinking of the above poem (and its ideas, with which I heartily agree), I twist and reshape certain of the lines, to make them more particularly applicable to my own personal predilections. I realize that by mentioning this fact, and by displaying my altered version to the general public, I may seem to be making light of the very serious intent (and ideas) of the original. This is not the case. I think one can show both seriousness and a sense of humour simultaneously. Many writers and thinkers before myself have (legitimately) said that it is often a sense of humour which prevents this sad world of ours from becoming unbearable (Lincoln--normally a very somber, serious man--is reported to have said, "I laugh [or tell jokes] because I must not weep ...").

Here are my light-hearted versions of two of the above stanzas (and please forgive them if they happen to offend; they are only meant to be humourous):

Indeed, indeed, repentence oft before
I swore--but was I sober when I swore?
And then and then came Nick, and Cock-in-hand
My thread-bare penitence apieces tore. ...

Oh Thou, who didst with pitfall and young men
Beset the road I was to wander in,
Thou wilt not with predestined evil round
Enmesh, and then impute my fall to sin ...

Well, I will leave this alone for now.

An Inspiring Thought

On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur.
L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.

Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900-1944)
LE PETIT PRINCE (1943), Ch.21




Here are a few different translations (which I happen to be aware of)of the above phrase:

It is only with the heart that one can see rightly;
what is essential is invisible to the eye.

(Tr. by Katherine Woods, 1945)

No se ve bien sino con el corazon.
Lo esencial es invisible a los ojos.

(Tr. by Bonifacio del Carril)

Animo tantum bene cernimus.
Quae plurimi sunt, oculis cerni non possunt.

(Tr. by Augustus Haury)

A Response to One Who Commented on this Web-Site

To "Hypnogogic Tripper"--wherever you are (out in cyber-space):

Thanks for the response. Since this reply of mine will have obvious bearing on the general intent of my blog itself, I have decided to include it as an actual posting, for the benefit of any others who may also chance to read it besides yourself.

I appreciate the time you gave to (1) reading what I had written, (2) THINKING about it, and (3) composing an intelligent response. To reciprocate, I will try to respond to your response, more or less line-by-line:

Regarding being true to oneself, and where to draw the line between THAT and one's (so-called) "obligations" to our larger society, I will begin by repeating the famous lines from Shakespeare's Hamlet (they are included, as you may remember, in the posting of my blog which you commented on):

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to ANY man.

(My emphasis)

Yes, you and I obviously agree on the idea of "encourag[ing] the challenging of established ideas and beliefs," and I too have as a goal (or more accurately a wish or desire) to "one day live in a world of open minded individuals" (your words). And I agree with you that this goal CAN be helped by the spreading of ideas--exactly as you and I both appear to be busily engaged in doing.

But, unlike yourself (or at least how you appear to me at first glance), I am more of a pessimist than an optimist--especially as regards our society and the overwhelming majority of 'average' human beings (and 'average' MINDS) which compose it. It would seem that I have less faith in their ability to be rational human beings (AND learn and grow wiser) than do you. Please forgive me, if I read you wrongly.

I agree with the late Erich Fromm (and many another wise soul) who said that this intellectual (and spiritual) advancement of the entire human race--this advancement in the direction of greater use of REASON and COMPASSION and COMMON SENSE, and less reliance upon primitive animal EMOTION and FEAR and HYSTERIA, this advancement upon which we in the vanguard of thinking human beings have pinned all our hopes (and indeed, we really have no other option, unless we simply want to kill ourselves)--this advancement, I say, may take a great deal of time to actually accomplish--even (as Fromm said) "thousands of years." For what we are really talking about here is the actual spiritual, emotional, and intellectual EVOLUTION of the human race itself, and I think we will all have to agree that this will take TIME, that--however much we may wish to the contrary--it simply cannot be accomplished in merely ONE lifetime.

This does not mean, of course, that we should simply GIVE UP trying to improve or remedy the situation--no indeed! The situation--dire as it obviously is--would DEFINITELY benefit from EVERY PERSON'S diligent, conscientious, and unfailing efforts to improve it by every reasonable means.

Now I have to agree with you that if one makes oneself into a 'squeaky wheel' (so to speak), and SQUEAKS TOO LOUDLY, one will eventually get NOTICED; and (in cases of persons such as myself) that is not always a good thing. Believe me, I UNDERSTAND what you are saying. 'Squeaking too loudly' would, in some instances, definitely seem to be self-defeating.

But I am kind of in a 'catch-22' situation: if I don't 'squeak' at all, I most definitely won't get noticed at all--particularly by the sympathetic minds I most wish to attract and with whom I most wish to communicate--nor will I ever be likely to be able (as is my wish) to contribute in any real or substantial way to the changing (and enlightening) of our society. You will undoubtedly see the quandary I'm in. It seems that if I am to contribute AT ALL (and be honest while so doing), I must accept some level of real risk along with the opportunity.

As regards your words concerning the "ESTABLISHMENT" (as you state it), I will say--once again--that I have little faith in it (or them). The 'establishment', or 'status quo' appears to me, and has always appeared to me, as extremely intransigent, extremely 'fossilized' by tradition, custom, or routine, extremely insecure, and extremely PARANOID concerning the loss of their position(s), power, or privilege, as a result. I know I'm not by any means the only one who realizes this. Persons in positions of power or authority have always been (it seems to me) like this, and probably always WILL be like this (unfortunately), until such time as the human race actually evolves away from this aspect of our animal emotional heritage. And (as I have said) that will probably be a very long time in coming. Read, if you have not already done so, Harlan Ellison's brilliant little sci-fi short-story "Repent, Harlequin, Said The Tick-Tock Man." (It is referred to within the pages of my blog.) It contains MUCH of great relevance to this discussion.

Creating a 'space' for oneself, in order to have room in which to live as a free individual (even if only for moments at a time, here and there)--yes, this is certainly possible--at times and with certain necessary restrictions (or precautions), and I have even done this myself on some occasions.

I have quoted before now the powerful words of Whitman, words relevant to this present discussion, but I will do so again now, for your benefit. They might easily be stated as my very CREDO of life itself, as if I myself had written (or thought) them--they inspire me so:

I know I am restless, and make others so;
I know my words are weapons full of danger, full of death,
For I confront peace, security, and all the settled laws, to unsettle them;
I am more resolute because all have denied me
Than I could ever have been had all accepted me;
I heed not and have never heeded either experience, cautions, majorities, nor ridicule,
And the threat of what is call'd Hell is little or nothing to me,
And the lure of what is call'd Heaven is little or nothing to me. ...

(From the poem "As I Lay With My Head In Your Lap Camerado")

My friend, you whoever you are who took the time to write to me with your intelligent thoughts and concerns (which ARE appreciated), I KNOW that because I dare to challenge the 'system' so vocally and brazenly, my days of 'freedom' may in fact be limited. But bear in mind that I am only expressing THOUGHTS, or IDEAS (as you said); ACTING upon those ideas is a different matter entirely, and I do not ever intend to give the 'Powers-That-Be' any legitimate excuse to apprehend or confine me. Of course, they may try to do just that, excuse or none. I REALIZE ALL OF THIS. I have even been through some of it before, in times past. I am very familiar with all of this, though naturally, this does not make it taste any better in my mouth. I feel sometimes like 'Jesus' must have--who, when in the Garden of Gethsemane, said that he wished he could "shrink from that bitter cup" of trial and adversity he knew he was facing, and was about to have to endure (whether he wanted it or not).

As you yourself mentioned (or alluded to), however, I do not necessarily try to INVITE this disaster by intentionally RUBBING my individualism (or specific 'questionable' individual TRAITS) in their very FACES--although it may sometimes SEEM like that, since I am only a human being, too (after all), and also subject to the same emotions of anger and impatience (though perhaps a little less so than those I call into question because of the same). No, I am not always or necessarily TRYING to anger them, or anyone. I am only trying my honest best at all times to simply BE MYSELF, without nod or apology to anyone or anything--no matter how large or threatening or terrifying it may seem (or prove to be). And I realize I may very well end up only making myself a convenient target for those who love their positions of power a little TOO much, and hate individual freedom of speech (especially my own) a little TOO much--especially when it seems to threaten their power and authority, or call into question the 'received' 'Party Line' of thinking and/or behaviour.

I know all of this, and I have accepted all of this. I have thought about all of these things very carefully and repeatedly FOR MANY YEARS NOW. I have simply decided that FOR ME, there is no other way I can actually LIVE in this soul-dominating, mind-stifling world of ours--a world which (as Housman said) "I never made", and still be--as Shakespeare said--"true to myself"--my deepest, truest, most individual, most unique and God-given, SELF--that self which is truly mine and mine alone, and which no man (or combination of men) can EVER take from me, without my consent (which they shall never have).

Thank you again for your words.

The Essence of Ethics or 'Religion'

[We] ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
If anyone has material possessions,
and sees his brother in need
but has no pity on him,
how can the love of God be in him?

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue [only],
but with ACTIONS and in truth.

1 John 3: 16-18.

Spiritual Journey: Part Five

A slightly-expanded, edited excerpt from a recent e-mail to a relative of mine--a "born-again Christian" (dated Feb. 8, 2005):

Well, this must be a very short reply. ...

I realize that mine are minority views in almost every case, no matter who or what we are talking about, and I also have to say that I never have had and never will have any intention whatsoever to think and act just like everyone else around me. I am interested in only one, basic, underlying thing: TRUTH. No matter what the cost. I don't care whether other people fear that truth, or whether it appears frightening at first even to me. I only know that if it is true, then I must accept and embrace it, no matter who it might offend or what "orthodoxies it might challenge."

My outlook is ... that of a SCIENTIST, an EMPIRICIST. I accept only what can be demonstrated and shown, or basically PROVEN. Some things, of course, cannot be shown with such firm, final evidence, and so we must in those cases rely rather on educated, reasonable, rational guesses. That for me is definitely the case with "God." 'His' existence cannot easily be shown or proven as I state here, yet I do believe in a "God" (sort of)--not exactly in the same limited and infantile manner as most people in this nation, but definitely as a 'higher power', and the creator and SOURCE of all life, energy, intelligence and matter in the universe. I believe that "God" is so immense as to be almost literally beyond our comprehension and description, though I do believe we come nearest to approaching a proper understanding when we think of 'him' as LOVE and ENERGY, and try to internalize that love and energy by showing the same toward our fellow-creatures--even when and if we feel they may not deserve it. (Who are we mere puny humans, anyway?)

I do NOT believe that "Jesus" ever had any real, physical existence. And I believe there is overwhelming historical and cultural evidence which supports this contention, though many people with their own prior religious agendas will try to belittle (or even deny) those evidences.

Having said that (controversial enough, right?), I will add that I DO believe that "Jesus" has a very real METAPHORICAL existence--both in the form of the body of his "followers" known collectively as "the CHURCH," and in the belief that--following St.Paul's ideas--each of us is capable of becoming a "Christ" individually when we act according to 'his' teachings and example.

I thus see the term "Christian" as being definable in two separate, distinct ways:

The first way is as a literal believer, who agrees that "Jesus" was born in a manger as the Son of God on Earth, lived, preached, performed miracles, died on the cross to save mankind from their sins, rose again on the third day, and will return a second time in glory to rescue the faithful and condemn the ungodly.

The second possible way that one can be a "Christian" (I believe) is to try diligently to LIVE A CHRIST-LIKE LIFE; that is--following the beliefs of St.Paul and the early Christian 'Gnostics'--to literally emulate or follow the example that 'Christ' taught and showed. (I realize I'm speaking here as if he actually existed; I do this only as a way to get the point across--as a teaching tool).

This second path--living a 'Christ-like' life--is, of course, much harder than the first (merely saying one believes). Many people CLAIM to also follow this second path to 'Christianity', but few in fact really do so (alas).

I am most definitely NOT the first type of Christian, but I do try to be the second type (even though I don't believe "Jesus" ever really existed as a distinct person like you or I). I merely believe, rather, in the ethical teachings and the (fictional) example, without believing in the historicity of the man himself. "A Christian Without Christ" is how one writer once referred to it. ...

T.J. White, 8 February, 2005.

Spiritual Journey: Part Four

A Message to All Those Who Call Themselves 'Christians'
(Which Is To Say, 'Followers of Christ'), while at the same time being

A quasi-review of Peter McWilliams' book, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do," in the form of a discussion of Jesus' attitudes and teachings on sexuality, according to his statements and example, as found in the four gospels.

______________________


Jesus advises celibacy for all people, in order that they may attain the 'realm of heaven', which, for Jesus and the early Gnostics, was an inner condition of spiritual grace and union with the Divine; but he advises this particular status ONLY for those who are ABLE to be celibate (Matt. 19:10-12). As McWilliams reminds his readers, the concept of celibacy as a means toward spiritual enlightenment and/or ecstasy was a common one in the ancient Near East, so Jesus' advice here ends up coming across as not so very unusual after all.

Jesus says that those who get married and commit to each other should STAY married and STAY faithful. He says that those who break marriage vows are guilty of adultery, and--according to then-current Jewish law--should be put to death. The aggrieved partner in the broken marriage is then free, he says, to remarry with no stigma of adultery, etc. (Matt. 19:3-9, Mark 10:10-12).

Nonetheless, Jesus STILL refuses to personally condemn persons found to be guilty of adultery: when confronted with a woman caught in the act of adultery, he verbally and formally upheld the validity of the (Jewish) law (for those for whom it was written, and to whom it applied), but in an actual, practical way, he personally IGNORED that law by REFUSING to condemn her in any way, merely telling her, in stirring words of compassion and love, to "go and sin no more"--effectively telling her not to commit adultery again, and thus reiterating his earlier advice to LIVE UP TO all the commitments one makes (John, Chapter 8).

Jesus refused--by all the evidence--to condemn pederasty (or 'boy-love')--and this will surprise and be hotly disputed by many, I know--apparently (once again) so long as true love and commitment are present: we recall the Roman centurion whose boy-slave was deathly ill, and who sent to Jesus so that Jesus might heal the boy. The centurion, by his concern for the lad's health and safety, evinced a special love for him, and showed moreover an especially strong faith in Jesus' ability to heal the boy (so strong that Jesus particularly commented thereupon, saying that not even among the Jews had he seen such strong faith). As McWilliams (once again) points out, the Greek word which Matthew used was PAIS, which of course means 'boy', whereas Luke used the word DOULOS, meaning 'servant' or 'slave'. The intended meaning here is glaringly obvious, to anyone with sufficient knowledge of ordinary facts of life in Roman times: the boy was in fact a 'body-slave', quite common in the Roman world, a slave who attended to all of his master's intimate and personal needs, including (perhaps especially) SEXUAL ones. Living in the Roman world, and aware of Roman mores as well as Jewish ones, Jesus would naturally have been aware of all this when it was staring him in the face; however, he not only refuses to negatively comment on this manifest fact, but (upon demonstration of the centurion's powerful faith) even tacitly APPROVES of (or at least ignores) the loving relationship by healing the boy via long-distance (Matt. 8: 5-13, Luke 7:1-10).

Jesus refuses to condemn either effeminacy or homosexual behavior: he tells his disciples on one occasion to seek out a "man carrying water" to lead them to the chamber where the 'Last Supper' was to be held. This act of 'carrying water' was definitely womens' work, and--for a male, then as now in the ancient and modern Near East--a sure badge of effeminate homosexuality. Since effeminate males were--and still are--outcasts in Middle Eastern society, Jesus' act of telling his disciples to have any association AT ALL with an effeminately homosexual man meant beyond all doubt that Jesus was completely OBLIVIOUS to such socio-sexual differences or concerns. What really mattered to Jesus, as we see, was having an open, pure and contrite heart, full of love and compassion toward one's fellow human beings, and having a faith and humility like that of a child. Jesus apparently never was worried about any of these other matters that we mere childish humans keep on making such a horrified fuss about.

Jesus refused to condemn fornication (sexual relations between unmarried persons): he met a Samaritan woman once at Jacob's Well, who was, as he divined, a five-time divorcee who was then living in a sexual relationship with a man who was--like her--not then married. Jesus not only SPOKE with her (which was against all Jewish and Samaritan customs), and took water from her (which made him ritually unclean according to Jewish law), but he even went so far as to reveal his Messiahship to her (which he had not yet done even for his own disciples), and moreover STAYED with her and her neighbors (all Samaritans) for TWO DAYS. All of this alone--not to mention all the other things Jesus did to infuriate the Pharisaic Jewish leaders--would have made him an unclean outcast to the ritual-and tradition-minded Jews back home in Jerusalem. But was he bothered by it? NO! He merely preached his 'good news' of love and tolerance to them, and went nonchalantly on his way, as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened (John 14: 17-26).

Jesus refused to condemn any other types of social outcasts: he sat at dinner in the house of Levi (also known as Matthew), who was at that time a tax collector, a type of person despised by the Jews as collaborators with the Romans, and therefore traitors (Mark 2:14-17).

He refused to condemn party-goers, revellers, dancers, gluttons, and "wine-bibbers" (alcoholics): plenty of these were in attendance at Levi's house that night. Jesus offers not one word of condemnation against them. In fact, one can even imagine that perhaps Jesus may have betimes joined in the festivities and thus shared with others his joy of living. What we do know for certain, though, is that Jesus forever gives toward all (except money-changers in God's holy Temple ...) only his unconditional love and toleration. He urges everyone to be the best people that they CAN be, but then never, NEVER faults them when and if they may 'fall short'.

Did not Jesus also advise everyone to "love [his] neighbor as [himself]" (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6: 31-37)? "Who is my neighbor?" the lawyer asked him once, trying to entrap him. Jesus answered with the story of the 'Good Samaritan'. Who is our 'neighbor'? Just who is it we are supposed to love with unconditional love? Jesus' surprising answer is, EVERYONE, and ESPECIALLY the person you consider to be "YOUR ENEMY" (Luke 10: 25-37). Did not Jesus also advise everyone to not judge or condemn in others what YOU THINK are their faults, unless you are ready to be condemned for YOUR faults? This is love and tolerance in the very highest degree, and Jesus' life and example amply show that he PRACTICED what he preached.

Jesus' ideal of love was supremely SELFLESS, wholly dedicated love: to love another person to the point of being willing to give your ALL for that person--even your own LIFE if necessary (John 15: 12-13). This was also the standard he set for those who wished to emulate (or be like) him--"As I have loved you, [even so should you] love one another" (ibid.). I find it noteworthy, in passing, that several of the (pederastic) classical Greek authors placed exactly this same value on self-sacrificing love: it was their supreme standard also, even (and especially) in the pederastic and homosexual senses.

In other words, the message here is that it is love--faithfulness and devotion to one's beloved--that really matters, NOT where, how, or toward whom that love may be directed. Remember this--if you take yourself to be a follower of Christ--that Jesus showed himself to be oblivious to those considerations. "How many times must I forgive my neighbor," Jesus was asked? "Seventy times Seven," was the answer. In other words, FOREVER AND EVER (Matt. 18: 21-22).

I would here gently suggest, that by virtue of the almost universal condemnation which so-called "Christians" heap upon the above classes or categories of persons, they may not really know so very much about the message and example of the man they claim to follow. As so many before me have said, they seem rather to be following St. Paul (or the modern version we have of him), and the many medieval and modern churchmen who followed HIM, who grossly perverted and re-interpreted Jesus' peaceful, healing message of love and tolerance to suit their own narrow, repressive 'moral' agenda. Thomas Jefferson was not alone in decrying the resultant loss to the world; many others have echoed his words. Said he:

They [the priests] have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man. ... Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.

(Letters, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814, and to Benjamin Waterhouse, June 26, 1822.)


T.J.White, January 23, 1995.

Spiritual Journey: Part Three

The Nature and Purpose of Existence

The universal mind, which we may term the collective totality of mind or consciousness, reason, intelligence, or GEIST, having desired to experience everything that can be experienced (or imagined), formed or pushed itself into materiality as such (to borrow Cayce's phrase), into the MAYA, or holographic ILLUSION of reality, physicality, and materiality (which even modern quantum physics tells us is the case). This would have been at the moment of the so-called 'Big Bang', and would have been a form of condensation or ordering--at the same time that it was a vast expansion, similar (and this is the only way I can think to describe it, though it is not very accurate) to the manner in which a crystal forms itself out of a matrix or field.

This includes all forms of life and matter--the forms being merely vehicles for experience. This is why life and matter exist in such numberless and diverse forms--to exponentially increase the possibilities for experience, the opportunities to gain knowledge, etc.

Thus we may say that it is eminently reasonable for the conscious universe (as far as it is conscious) to desire to experience EVERYTHING--including seemingly UNREASONABLE emotion and seeming chaos.

The universal mind, being rational, or having an ordered basis or pattern, can also be described as existing both as a whole AND simultaneously as parts or subsets WITHIN the whole. You and I, as seeming separate human beings, are actually merely ordered or organized subsets of the whole: part and parcel of the greater universe or mind (to which we also contribute experience), and yet discretely organized or set apart unto ourselves, so as to increase the chances for gaining experience, which (once again) merely adds to the total experience and knowledge of the whole universe; for by existing as a seeming separate entity, we accrue valuable, unique and individual perspectives or experiences which others may from time to time partly share, but can never wholly duplicate. This is the glory and purpose of individuality as such. And ALL life, ALL matter, contributes to this totality of experience--each entity or form in its own special chosen way, until it has experienced all it can in that particular form, and is thus ready and able to move on to a more advanced form, so as to (again) increase the opportunities for experience. (This is a form of reincarnation.) ALL forms are thus infinitely (or almost infinitely) valuable for purposes of accruing experience.

All are necessary--all are important--even the seemingly insensate bare rock has its story and experience to contribute--as important a part of the jigsaw-puzzle of the whole as anything else, because IT, TOO can BECOME, and because it is--like everything else--a SINE QUA NON: without which nothing would exist or have value.

How else can I attempt to explain this--how else attempt to clarify it? Existence (mind, Geist) is eminently varied and constantly seeks to evolve into new and more advanced forms precisely BECAUSE it is conscious (however subtly or diffusely) AND SEEKS EXPERIENCE--the experience which only this illusion of materiality (space/time) and diversity can afford.

I realize, of course, that this idea seems to presuppose LINEARITY.
But the answer to this is "Eternal Recurrence"; thus, existence may SEEM to be linear, but only because of our present limited perspective: step back from it in your mind, and existence becomes a CIRCLE--it repeats itself. One way to state this which might be more accessible to some is to imagine the universe after the 'Big Bang' expanding to a point of equilibrium, then gradually contracting back in on itself to an infinitesimally small point filled with all the material of the universe; then, when the point has taken more than it can sustain, rebounding back into materiality and space with the glory of a new creation. An endless cycle of this, on so grand a scale that we can scarcely conceive it.

T.J.White, 21 March,1996--21 January, 1999.

Spiritual Journey: Part Two

Thinking Spurred by Reading Freud's CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS
(though the germs of some of the thoughts were present previously)

In the beginning ... was God ... [and] ALL things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

I John 1: 1-3

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. ... I form the light, AND CREATE DARKNESS: I make peace, AND CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.

Isaiah 45:5-7

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 1:8

[emphasis added]



In other words, God is EVERYTHING--IN all and THROUGHOUT all: God is everything, AND EVERYTHING IS GOD. God is good, God is evil; God is light, God is darkness; God is man, woman, AND child, no less than that God is all sentient intelligence and insensate matter, and the glowing stars of the very heavens. God is ALL. God creates every-thing, and since everything is God, everything thus CREATES ITSELF--is its own self-directing agent or force.

We, as semi-sentient agents are not always conscious--in fact, rarely are--of the 'God' within us constantly directing and prodding us. Like the ancient Gnostics said of us, we seem to be asleep to our divine reality. The 'God' within us, if it is not simply the sum total of our entire beings, could just be a matter of our genetic programming, and thus our 'will to live', and our desires for furtherance, growth, happiness, achievement and fulfillment.

Is it not therefore possible, then, that 'evil' and 'good' do not exist at all except as CONCEPTS in the minds of men? Surely the rest of the universe (though still part and parcel of the omnipresence of 'God') is wholly and supremely indifferent to such infantile and purely human classifications.

Humans seem to be inclined to name as 'evil' only that which produces either pain or unhappiness, whether for one person or for many. But is not the larger universe (for all we can tell) indifferent to the occurrences of pain and unhappiness here on this planet? Does not 'evil', then, seem to have as much a place and legitimacy in the realms of real existence and experience as that which human beings call 'good'?

Every thing, then, simply IS--it exists. It is also eternally BECOMING--changing its forms from this one to that one over endless time. Chaos, inconstancy, and flux--ever-repeated within certain patterns sometimes, to be sure--seem to be the supreme laws of the universe (and thus of 'God').

But can it also perhaps be that, in contrast to the apparent chaos and randomness of the universe at large, life as we know it (on this planet) may simply be an example of the universe (and thus 'God') attempting to attain order and law out of chaos, to grow beyond its present confines or state, to become MORE or BETTER than before, to accrete ever-increasing knowledge and experience unto itself, and thus become ever greater than it was before?

This seems (in passing) to be especially true of humankind, but also of all other animal life, and indeed, even of the simplest single-cell organism, which seems somehow compelled to increase, to divide and grow, to REPRODUCE, and, by reproduction, make itself, through taking in nourishment from elsewhere in its universe, greater than it was before.

This, to my mind at least, seems to be what defines 'life' on this planet: a conscious--though conscious at varying levels in different forms of life--attempt at growth and experience, to become more or greater than what one was originally endowed with by the larger universe or 'God'. This would also seem to me to be the best explanation of classic 'evolution': the conscious attempt of all matter and life to expand itself, to grow, to attain power, intelligence, order and knowledge, out of what was previously random chaos.

And it occurs to me that this is what Nietzsche refers to as the "Will to Power" or the "Will to Grow" or the "Will to Be", which he says is THE major motivating force of all life: that paramount desire to grow or accrete, which means that we--and by extension all life--must consume other life forms--other "wills to grow" in order to grow or expand ourselves.

T.J.White, 25 December, 1993--8 February, 1994

Spiritual Journey: Part One

Here follows a series of writings which may serve to illustrate how my spiritual beliefs have evolved over the years. I am not necessarily posting them in chronological order, however, so to see how my beliefs have actually changed over time, one must pay attention to the date associated with each essay.

The great English biologist T.H. Huxley (grandfather of the novelist Aldous of Brave New World fame) once wrote the following often-quoted paragraph on the idea of the search of man for truth, in a letter of the year 1860 to a friend named Charles Kingsley:

"Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."

(Quoted in Seldes, The Great Thoughts [1980].)

This is exactly what I would also advise for the truth-seeker. I would add, moreover, the following two questions, or lines of thought:

Two Questions, for any honest, open-minded truth-seeker:

One: Are you afraid of the truth? And Two: What if "the truth" turns out to be something entirely different, something you did not at all expect? What if "the truth" turns out to be something that entirely contradicts most of what you previously believed? What then?

Will you accept what you now know (or believe) to be "the truth", letting go of your previously-held and previously-cherished beliefs in the process, or will you rather react with horror and fear by ignoring or turning a blind eye to these new truths--simply so that you can continue to believe all that you have previously believed, in safety and comfort?

What is truth? Jesus was asked this once, whilst being interrogated by Pilate, and we are not told what his answer might have been. The famous medieval German mystic and monk Meister Eckhard (c.1260-1327), however, completed for us what the Gospels left blank. Said he:

"What is truth? Truth is something so noble that if God could turn aside from it, I would keep to the truth and let God go. (Emphasis added)

He also wrote that

"To get into the core of God at his greatest, one must first get into the core of himself at his least, for no one can know God who has not first known himself."

(Both excerpts quoted in Seldes, op. cit.)

T.J.White, 2 February, 2005.

___________________________


And what is "the Bible"? The "Bible" is nothing other than a scattering of brilliant, priceless diamonds, embedded and hidden in an overwhelming sea of mud and filth; in order to perceive the diamonds, one must first laboriously sift through a great deal of mud, and how many ordinary people ever have the time or mental faculty to do this?

With this thought in mind, I intend over the next few days and weeks to try to help my readers extricate some of the diamonds from the sea of mud, for I have found in my daily journey that occasional pointers from other wise souls who have preceeded me have oftimes been most helpful for myself, and saved me years of seemingly fruitless study-effort on my own part. Hopefully, my own pointers will in turn help others, who, like myself, started out on their own in this search for truth, with precious few guides to point the way.

T.J.White, 2 February, 2005.

___________________________

The poet George Santayana (1863-1952) had written the following, in Soliloquies in England (1922):

"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety toward the universe and denies only gods fashioned by man in their own image, to be servants of their human interests; and that even in this denial I am no rude iconoclast, but full of secret sympathy with the impulses of idolators."

(Quoted in Seldes, op. cit., page 369.)

In The Age of Napoleon (1975), Chapter XIX "English Philosophy", pages 395-6, the Durants had the following to say regarding Thomas Paine's 1794 book The Age of Reason:

At the outset Paine gave an unexpected reason why he had written the book: not to detroy religion, but to prevent the decay of its irrational forms [i.e., 'fundamentalist' varieties] from undermining social order, "lest in the general wreck of superstition, of false systems of government, and false theology, we lose sight of morality, of humanity, and of the theology that is true." And he added, reassuringly: "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life."

Then he drew his Occam's razor:

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches ... appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. [This sounds much like Nietzsche a hundred years later. ...]

He admired Christ as "a virtuous and an amiable man," and "the morality that he preached and practiced was of the most benevolent kind"; but the story of his being fathered by a god was just a variation of a myth common among the pagans [Celsus had argued this point as long ago as the second century!].

Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of ... gods ... The intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds. The story, therefore, had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene [once again, almost Celsus' exact words]; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, ... and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God and no more, and had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited [i.e., 'believed' or 'accepted'] the story.

So the Christian mythology was merely the pagan mythology in a new form.

The trinity of the gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand; the statue of Mary succeeded that of Diane of Ephesus; the deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian mythologists had saints for everything; the Church had become as crowded with one as the pantheon had been with the other. ... The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet [i.e., 'still'] remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious ['crawling'?? 'ambitious'??] fraud.

Paine then played his searchlight of reason upon the Book of Genesis, and, having no patience with parables, fell heavily upon Eve and the apple. Like Milton, he was fascinated by Satan, the first of all rebels. Here was an angel who, for trying to depose a monarch, had been plunged into hell, there to suffer time without end. Nevertheless he must have escaped those inextinguishable fires now and then, for he had found his way into the Garden of Eden, and could tempt most sinuously; he could promise knowledge to Eve and half the world to Christ. The Christian mythology, Paine marveled, did Satan wondrous honor; it assumed he could compel the Almighty to send his son down to Judea and be crucified to recover for him at least part of a planet obviously in love with Satan; and despite that crucifixion, the Devil still retained all non-Christian realms, and had millions of servitors in Christendom itself.

All this, said our doubting Thomas, was offered us most solemnly, on the word of the Almighty himself, through a series of amanuenses from Moses to Saint Paul. Paine rejected it as a tale fit for nurseries, and for adults too busy with bread and butter, sickness and mortality, to question the promisory notes sold to them by the theologians. To stronger souls he offered a God not fashioned like man, but conceived as the life of the universe.

It is only in the Creation that all of our ideas ... of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language; ... and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.

Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the Creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is governed. Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abandon with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called scripture, ... but the Scripture called the Creation.

2 February, 2005.

Ionesco on Art as Non-conformity

A creative work of art is, by its very novelty, aggressive; spontaneously aggressive, it strikes out at the public, against the majority; it arouses indignation by its non-conformity, which is, in itself, a form of vindication.

Eugene Ionesco (b.1912),
Rumanian-born French writer,
quoted in Writers in Revolt (1963).

Where Is The Source of the "Ego" or "Self"?

Monoimos, a second-century C.E. Gnostic ("Christian") teacher (quoted by Pagels, and Freke and Gandy) said it quite well. With apologies to the translators, I have here slightly modified both translations to clarify (as I think it) what Monoimos' message really is--to make it somewhat easier (I hope) to comprehend:

Abandon this "search for God" and "the Creation" and other matters of a similar sort. Look for "God" by taking YOURSELF as the starting point. LEARN who it is WITHIN YOU who takes everything to himself and makes it his own, saying, "MY God, MY mind, MY thought, MY soul, MY body." LEARN where and what is the source of "ego", "self", sorrow, joy, love, and hate; of waking--even though you would rather not; of sleeping--though you would rather not; of getting angry--though you would rather not; and of falling in love--though you would rather not. And if you will carefully and impartially investigate these matters, you will ultimately find "God"--in YOUR SELF.

What did "Christ" say at Luke 17:21? "The Kingdom of Heaven is WITHIN YOU..." (KJV)

This is, of course, echoed by similar statements in the Gnostic "Gospel of Thomas", such as "The kingdom of the Father is spread out on the earth, but people do not see it," and "The kingdom is within AND without..."

And finally, what is perhaps THE most common statement about man's relationship with deity as found in the eastern traditions of Buddhism and Hinduism? "The self is Atman." "'God' is Brahman." "ATMAN IS BRAHMAN." In other words, "God" IS the "Self", or the "Self" is part of "God".

Many scholars (and laymen) are now asking whether Eastern philosophies might not have had a profound influence on the Gnostic form of early Christianity (and I think it probably did).

And throughout the ages since Gnosticism was brutally suppressed, many later mystics and thinkers have also affirmed that the "self" in each of us is only a "spark", "fragment" or "splinter" of God himself, that divinity or "The Divine" resides within each of us, if only we will open our sleepy eyes to see it.

Now, I don't think for a minute that this idea or belief ignores the propensities for 'evil' that seem to be irredeemably inherent in humankind; I tend rather to see both what we puny humans call "Good" AND "Evil" as being part and parcel of "God" or the "Divine'. (GASP!!!! HORRORS!!!!) Well, I have this idea on good authority: no less a person than the Old Testament prophet Isaiah said it, speaking in "God's" voice (and presumably with His Authority too):
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil." (Isaiah 45:7) I guess it could be readily admitted (by even the most hardened Evangelical) that if you really THINK about the matter, NOTHING can really exist without "God's" authority, or without "His" permitting it to exist--if, that is, "God" did in fact create EVERYTHING that exists. I, for one, think so, and I also see how this idea harmonizes quite nicely with Monoimos' (and the other mystics') teaching with which I began this little essay.

Early in the twentieth century, German writer Hermann Hesse argued that thinking human beings should move beyond the conventional dichotomy of 'good and evil', and I agree: it is far past the time when the human race should evolve and develop a more MATURE idea of the nature of "God". (Nietzsche hinted at this well over a hundred years ago ...) And here it is definitely ironic that we are being shown the way toward this new conception of deity (and our relationship to it) by the teachings of these sages and prophets and mystics whose ideas have literally been around for two thousand years (and more), but which have been cleverly and deviously kept from the knowledge and awareness of most of us during that time.

"Even so, Lord JESUS, come ..."

T.J.White, 25 January, 2005.

The School For Geniuses

"The Voice of One crying in the Wilderness ..."

St.John 1:23

Audite vocem meam, Domine.

It seems to me that the growth or development of the 'genius'--his growth through experience--is akin symbolically to the act of relentlessly climbing a mountain--the mountain of experience, of knowledge, of life. And it is a struggle indeed! But when one has finally reached the 'top'--assuming in the first place that one actually does reach a 'top', all things being relative, one gazes around from the top of the moutain-peak of life, and soon notices that there are certain others also situated upon mountain peaks of their own--some higher, some lower than one's own--shining or burning with as bright and visible a luminosity as one feels radiating from within oneself, and also enjoying the rarefied atmosphere of pure, strong, emotional and intellectual experience.

One also notices, however, with an immediate feeling of profound despair and terror, the enormous degree to which one is forever cut off from the multitudes of the so-called 'normal' people--those many still trapped and dwelling blithely and ignorantly in the atmospherically-dense valleys of comfort below. One both wants to be with those in the valleys of ignorance--because one LOVES, and cannot bear to be alone, and yet does not want to be where they are, because--even moreso--one cannot abide the somnolent mediocrity, boredom, and aimlessness of that existence; nor can one trade one's hard-won, immensely-valued knowledge and experience for the ignorance one formerly possessed (and which the vast majority below and around one still possess); one somehow feels, with all one's soul, that this is a negative end to be avoided at all cost.

Thus it is that, because of this profound, terrifying isolation and loneliness, one feels an imperative need to cry out desperately toward those other few souls one glimpses in the distance who have also successfully climbed their mountains of experience. For how else is one to survive where one is? For having only recently arrived at one's new level of experience, one feels much as a newborn child must feel, though unable to articulate or understand it--an acute disorientation and the terrifying fear of the new and unknown, not having had the benefit of any sort of guide in this long uphill struggle--not one single human soul who might have calmed one's fears, who might have explained the true significance of one's sorrows. What else can one do, except call out toward one's fellow-travellers for (if nothing else) the occasional comforting word?

For to be long isolated in such manner from other feeling human souls must lead inevitably to either insanity or suicide, given our present emotional limitations and instabilities; and therefore, since we are loath to return to the valleys of sloth, indolence and ignorance, we find that--simply to survive--we truly MUST seek communion with others of our kind.

So runs my dream: but what am I?
An infant crying in the night:
An infant crying for the light:
And with no language but a cry.

--Tennyson.


T.J.White, 10 February, 1995.

Nietzsche on the Philosopher as Outsider

It seems to me more and more that the philosopher, as a NECESSARY man of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, has always found himself, and always had to find himself, in oppposition to his today: the ideal of the day was always his enemy. ...

Today, conversely, when only the herd animal is honored and dispenses honors in Europe, and when "equality of rights" could all too easily be converted into an equality in violating rights--by that I mean, into a common war on all that is rare, strange, or privileged, on the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty, the higher responsibility, and on the wealth of creative power and mastery--today the concept of "greatness" entails being noble, wanting to be by oneself, being capable of being different, standing alone, and having to live independently; and the philosopher will betray something of his own ideal when he posits: "He shall be the greatest who can be the loneliest, the most hidden, the most deviating, the human being beyond good and evil, the master of his virtues, he that is overrich in will. Precisely this should be called GREATNESS: to be capable of being as manifold as whole, as wide as full." And to ask this once more: today--is greatness POSSIBLE? ...

from BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL (212), transl. Walter Kaufmann
(as hereafter)

_________________________


Revaluation of All Values

This book belongs to the very few. Perhaps not one of them is even living yet. Maybe they will be the readers who understand my ZARATHUSTRA: how COULD I mistake myself for one of those for whom there are ears even now? Only the day after tomorrow belongs to me. Some are born posthumously.

The conditions under which I am understood, and then of NECESSITY--I know them only too well. One must be honest in matters of the spirit to the point of hardness before one can even endure my seriousness and my passion. One must be skilled in living on mountains--seeing the wretched ephemeral babble of politics and national self-seeking BENEATH oneself. One must have become indifferent; one must never ask if the truth is useful or if it may prove our undoing. [One must have] The predilection of strength for questions for which no one today has the courage; [One must have] the courage for the FORBIDDEN; [One must have] the predestination to the labyrinth. [One must have] An experience of seven solitudes. [One must have] New ears for new music. New eyes for what is most distant. [One must have] A new conscience for truths that have so far remained mute. AND the will to the economy of the great style: keeping our strength, our ENTHUSIASM in harness. [One must have] Reverence for oneself; love of oneself; unconditional freedom before oneself.

Well then! Such men alone are my readers, my right readers, my predestined readers: what matter the rest? The rest--that is merely mankind. One must be above mankind in strength, in LOFTINESS of soul--in contempt.

from the preface to THE ANTICHRIST. (Editorial additions by T.J.White)

______________________


...As for your principle that truth is always on the side of the more difficult, I admit this in part. However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 is NOT 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots--what is considered truth in the circle of one's relatives and of many good men, and what, moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one's feelings and even one's conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? Is it decisive after all that we arrive at THAT view of God, world, and reconciliation which makes us feel most comfortable? Rather, is not the result of his inquiries something wholly indifferent to the true inquirer? Do we after all seek rest, peace, and pleasure in our inquiries? No, only truth--even if it be the most abhorrent and ugly. Still one last question: if we had believed from childhood that all salvation issued from someone other than Jesus--say, from Mohammed--is it not certain that we should have experienced the same blessings? ...Faith does not offer the least support for a proof of objective truth. Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. ...*

from his LETTER TO HIS SISTER (1865)

*He was quoting Heine: "If you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then enquire. ..." (Letter to his sister, 1817)

____________________


THE CRIMINAL AND WHAT IS RELATED TO HIM. The criminal type is the type of the strong human being under unfavorable circumstances: a strong human being made sick. He lacks the wilderness, a somehow freer and more dangerous environment and form of existence, where everything that is weapons and armor in the instinct of the strong human being has its rightful place. His VIRTUES are ostracized by society; the most vivid drives with which he is endowed soon grow together with the depressing affects--with suspicion, fear, and dishonor. Yet this is almost the recipe for physiological degeneration. Whoever must do secretly, with long suspense, caution, and cunning, what he can do best and would most like to do, becomes anemic; and because he always harvests only danger, persecution, and calamity from his instincts, his attitude to these instincts is reversed too, and he comes to experience them fatalistically. It is our society, our tame, mediocre, emasculated society, in which a natural human being, who comes from the mountains or from the adventures of the sea necessarily degenerates into a criminal. Or almost necessarily; for there are cases in which such a man proves stronger than society: the Corsican, Napoleon, is the most famous case.

The testimony of Dostoevski is relevant to this problem--Dostoevski, the only psychologist, incidentally, from whom I had something to learn; he ranks among the most beautiful strokes of fortune in my life, even more than my discovery of Stendhal. This PROFOUND human being, who was ten times right in his low estimate of the superficial Germans, lived for a long time among the convicts in Siberia--hardened criminals for whom there was no way back to society--and found them very different from what he himself had expected: they were carved out of just about the best, hardest, and most valuable wood that grows anywhere on Russian soil.

Let us generalize the case of the criminal: let us think of men so constituted that, for one reason or another, they lack public approval and know that they are not felt to be beneficial or useful--that Chandala feeling that one is not considered equal, but an outcast, unworthy, contaminating. All men so constituted have a subterranean hue to their thoughts and actions; everything about them becomes paler than in those whose existence is touched by daylight. Yet almost all forms of existence which we consider distinguished today once lived in this half tomblike atmosphere: the scientific character, the artist, the genius, the free spirit, the actor, the merchant, the great discoverer. As long as the priest was considered the supreme type, EVERY valuable type of human being was devalued. The time will come, I promise, when the priest will be considered the lowest type, OUR Chandala, the most mendacious, the most indecent kind of human being.

I call attention to the fact that even now--under the mildest regimen of morals which has ever ruled on earth, or at least in Europe--every deviation, every long, all-too-long sojourn below, every unusual or opaque form of existence, brings one closer to that type which is perfected in the criminal. All innovators of the spirit must for a time bear the pallid and fatal mark of the Chandala on their foreheads--NOT because they are considered that way by others, but because they themselves feel the terrible cleavage which separates them from everything that is customary or reputable. Almost every genius knows, as one stage of his development, the "Catilinarian existence"--a feeling of hatred, revenge, and rebellion against everything which already IS, which no longer BECOMES. Catiline--the form of pre-existence of EVERY Caesar.

TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS, 45.

The School of the Prophets

Those that want [i.e., "lack"] friends to open themselves unto
are cannibals of their own hearts. ... The parable of Pythagoras
is dark, but true; Cor ne edito, 'Eat not the heart'. ...

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626)



To wish to feel 'normal' and 'accepted', loved and wanted--is this not an indisputable facet of the human condition? Hence the often overwhelming appeal of the 'herd', or 'popular' peer group. The 'normal' mainstream majority appeals to us because we receive 'positive reinforcement' from most members thereof when we have successfully ingratiated, or conformed, ourselves to it. This, in turn, causes us to feel 'normal' and 'accepted' ourselves. And of course, this feeling of acceptance causes us to desire ever more and more to conform ourselves to the dominant, stasis-loving majority. And behold how many of us are veritable slaves to this basic human need, this condition which is so very difficult to completely turn one's back on!

And yet, to escape from this tunnel-vision way of life (and thinking!) is imperative, if one wishes to grow through experience to discover the ultimate truths and ends of life. Unfortunately, there is just no other way presently seen. One must be willing to become a non-conformist; one must be willing to turn one's back on the society of one's fellow-beings, to spend years (if necessary) in the solitary deserts, like John the Baptist; to climb the mountain alone, as did Moses, before bringing down to humanity a new vision of reality or the Divine. One must be willing to forego the feelings of normalcy and the acceptance of one's peer society--hence one's peace of soul--if one is to follow truth to wherever it may lead. As Nietzsche truly knew and said, to be devoted to truth, one must be prepared for the painful, jarring feelings of dislocation that come from feeling oneself set apart and isolated from all that is or ever will be 'whole', 'normal', 'healthy', or 'popular'. And this is, of course, the paramount task of every real philosopher--this relentless questioning of life and its perceived values, and one's relationship therewith. As Nietzsche also said, one must re-evaluate all values--that is, question everything, take nothing whatsoever for granted. And how many people are able and willing to consistently do this? How many of us run for shelter the minute the storm threatens!

And the end of all this is predetermined: this isolating dislocation, if pursued to its bitter, lonely end, can lead only to either genius, insanity, or suicide, or perhaps all three at once.

"Ours, my boy, is a high and lonely destiny. ..."

C.S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia


T.J. White, July 1st, 1994

Concerning a Liberal or Free Society

An Excerpt from the 1973 textbook, An Introduction to Moral and Social Philosophy,
edited by Jeffrie G. Murphy (pp.413-414):

What form of government would a moral man choose for himself and others? The position of liberalism holds (1) that freedom or liberty is the most important value[*] and (2) that democratic forms of government are most likely to maximize this value. According to this position, freedom or liberty is to be understood as the ability, without hindrance from others, to gain satisfaction for one's wants and desires, insofar as this is compatible with a like liberty for others.

John Stuart Mill is generally regarded as the most persuasive spokesman for this kind of liberalism. And one of his great strengths is that he perceives some of the pathologies to which democracy is susceptible. One of these pathologies, which Mill calls the "tyranny of the majority," results from the power that a majority has in a democracy to coerce an unpopular minority. To cure this pathology, Mill suggests that democracies should subscribe (in a legal constitution perhaps) to the following principle: society is justified in coercing any one of its members only to prevent harm to others. Only if the democratic principle of majority rule is limited in this way can the tyranny of the majority be avoided.

Herbert Marcuse [1898-1979], a contemporary Marxist, believes that even a democracy so limited will still have grave defects. Modern technological societies, even those calling themselves democracies, have subtle and terribly dangerous ways of repressing their citizens. This kind of repression is dangerous just because it does not seem repressive at all, since a substantial number of people in the population have most of their needs and desires satisfied. Suppose, however, that those needs and desires are artificial--that is, manufactured and satisfied by the power elite in a society to ensure that citizens remain pliant and cooperative. This supposition forms the basis for Marcuse's disquieting commentary on contemporary Western democracies. To use the language of Marx, the evil of these societies is that, despite the wants they satisfy, they have failed to reduce alienation. Indeed they rest on it. ...


[*Comment by T.J.White:

Notice that he nowhere mentions the value of security or safety, which is so much trumpeted about today. I hold that complete (or near-total) security or safety is wholly incompatible with a free society, one that cherishes the liberty of the individual. One cannot have both. Freedom necessarily entails risk, and it seems that nowadays, our society is (tragically) increasingly unwilling to take that risk to be truly free. Many people in our society would much rather (it seems apparent) give up those freedoms which their forefathers most cherished (and fought and died for) in the name of and for the sake of safety and security, rather than continue to be a truly free people, but constantly risk another "terrorist attack." And even more tragically, it seems equally obvious that there are many in our current government who are attempting to use the threat of "terrorism" and "terror attacks" to stampede the fearful American people (like a herd of buffalo over a cliff) into giving up those freedoms. And it appears clear that they are succeeding. How many more years before Americans will have lost all their basic (worthwhile) freedoms, and will be reduced to the level of serfs or slaves (albeit perhaps happy and contented--if brainless--ones)? How many more years (if we are to be honest) before we must call America the "United Fascist States of America"? I am stating this really somewhat tongue-in-cheek, for I feel that the time is already upon us, and our future condition can differ from our present one only in a matter of degree, not substance.]

Society Neglecting Those It Considers Less Valuable

An Excerpt From Erich Fromm's 1965 book Escape From Freedom

The term normal or healthy can be defined in two ways. Firstly, from the standpoint of a functioning society, one can call a person normal or healthy if he is able to fulfill the social role he is to take in that given society. More concretely, this means that he is able to work in the fashion which is required in that particular society, and furthermore that he is able to participate in the reproduction of society, that is, that he can raise a family. Secondly, from the standpoint of the individual, we look upon health or normalcy as the optimum of growth and happiness of the individual.

If the structure of a given society were such that it offered the optimum possibility for individual happiness, both viewpoints would coincide. However, this is not the case in most societies we know, including our own. Although they differ in the degree to which they promote the aims of individual growth, there is a discrepancy between the aims of the smooth functioning of society and of the full development of the individual. This fact makes it imperative to differentiate sharply between the two concepts of health. The one is governed by social necessities, the other by values and norms concerning the aim of individual existence.

Unfortunately, this differentiation is often neglected. Most psychiatrists take the structure of their own society so much for granted that to them the person who is not well adapted assumes the stigma of being less valuable. On the other hand, the well-adapted person is supposed to be the more valuable person in terms of a scale of human values. If we differentiate the two concepts of normal and neurotic, we come to the following conclusion: The person who is normal in terms of being well adapted is often less healthy than the neurotic person in terms of human values. Often he is well adapted only at the expense of having given up his self in order to become more or less the person he believes he is expected to be. All genuine individuality and spontaneity may have been lost. On the other hand, the neurotic person can be characterized as somebody who was not ready to surrender completely in the battle for his self. To be sure, his attempt to save his individual self was not successful, and instead of expressing his self productively he sought salvation through neurotic symptoms and by withdrawing into a phantasy life. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of human values, he is less crippled than the kind of normal person who has lost his individuality altogether. Needless to say, there are persons who are not neurotic and yet have not drowned their individuality in the process of adaptation. But the stigma attached to the neurotic person seems to us to be unfounded and justified only if we think of neurotic in terms of social efficiency. As for a whole society, the term neurotic cannot be applied in this latter sense, since a society could not exist if its members did not function socially. From a standpoint of human values, however, a society could be called neurotic in the sense that its members are crippled in the growth of their personality. Since the term neurotic is so often used to denote a lack of social functioning, we would prefer not to speak of a society in terms of its being neurotic, but rather in terms of its being adverse to human happiness and self-realization.

(pp.159-161)

The Purpose of Suffering

A Private Meditation on the Purpose and Necessity of Suffering,
and the Frivolity of the General Idea of Being 'Saved' (in the Religious Sense).


Do you not realize that suffering is necessary for the cleansing of the Soul?--that it cannot ever happen any other way? 'Baptism' may be symbolic of the cleansing, but the real thing comes from actual suffering.

Suffering saves us, not 'Jesus' or some other far-off fictional deity. That is the 'old lie'--that Jesus will save us from (from!!) our suffering and sin.

To believe in the 'Jesus' of the religionists is, after all, nothing other than to be weak, unmanly, and effeminate, not to mention disappointing and disgusting. (And I am referring here not to any actual person named 'Jesus' who may or may not have actually existed, but rather to the generally-held Twenty-First Century Western/American idea of the same, which is not by any means an identical thing.) The words of Beethoven are appropriate here:

O Freunde, nicht diese Tone!

You are capable of so much better than this! Live up to your potential as human beings--even, as children of the Living Father!

"There is nothing in your creed," said an astute and wise Roman Emperor once, "beyond the one word believe." And he (Julian) probably knew the early Christians much better than we, especially as he was their contemporary.

Learn to behold the 'God within you'! Your soul is a vehicle for the divine! 'God' is not "out there"--God is here, within you! Salvation comes not from without (as in the idea of "Jesus will save me"), but rather from within. You must save yourselves!

The fact that so few of you realize this (or accept this, which is far more important), is precisely the reason why so many of you live and die lost--"perduto." "Sons of Perdition" are you--banished to outer darkness, except that the 'darkness' is, once again, not "out there", but here, inside your own benighted souls.

And you have the power to redeem and save yourselves, but yet you don't use it!

Instead, you look to an all-powerful, mammoth father-figure, that is entirely the product of your own (and your ancestors') fancy and fear, to save you from yourselves and your own guilt and fear.

The incredible, sad, ironic fact is, that by placing your belief and trust in a 'Jesus' who will save you from your suffering (which is only a product of your guilt and fear), you thereby block yourselves from ever achieving true salvation, true cleansing, which cleansing indeed can only come about through the embracing or acceptance of your own suffering.


T.J.White, 4 September, 2002


_______________________


An Unrelated Addendum


It is their pathetic, pathological need for approval and acceptance from a 'father-figure' or an 'authority'-figure, which causes most Americans to give up their freedoms, and embrace an authoritarian, dictatorial form of government--a fascist-type government by Bureaucracy or Oligarchy. This is exactly what we see occuring even now in America--the one nation in all the world, with its heritage of respect for individual liberties and rights, precisely at the expense of government, where such a thing is most disheartening and dismaying to observe.


T.J.White, 8 September, 2002