The Seed of Individualism Was an Appleseed

I’m not a psalmist, but I like the lateral-logic character of a psalm. This post requires both linear and lateral thinking. Written as more of a political lamentation in reaction to the apparent disconnect between a person & a job.This post is divided into two main sections: the foundation for me-ism and a political manifestation.

I think the root of all evil is selfishness. After all, why did Adam & Eve even want to bite into the forbidden apple from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil? It represented a sin (a deviation from the harmony of living within the Grace of God) because of the necessity to take one’s eyes off the divine whole and assume the mantle of harmony into the self: God’s-eye knowledgeability without the knowledge of good & evil.

Suddenly they realize they’re naked. They hide themselves in shame.

Naked: the self looks upon itself and applies an evaluation based on criteria that judges self-worth, worthiness, appropriateness.

Naked: unfinished, incomplete.

Naked: exposed to [judgment, the elements].

Naked: me vs. not me.

Naked: just me.

New-borns with themselves as the measure of themselves.  A circle with a spiral focus animated by free will and the will to be divine without knowledge of what that means.

Meaning: significance of, import of, purpose of … reference to Continue reading

Walking off a Cliff: the Progress Blindfold

While watching CNN International, I saw a commercial for a program  “Planet in Peril” that was going to have a discussion about vanishing species, which discussion was taglined (a verb?) “Planet vs. Progress.”  Not unlike the name “Planet in Peril,” which really isn’t the case — it’s life in peril or life system in peril — something about that tagline didn’t sit right in my head.  Part of the commercial talked about “balancing” the needs of a system where layers upon layers of living things depend on each other in order that the system actually be viable…or should I have understood that as balancing the needs of the natural system with the economic “needs” of a human society?

Not too long ago, I wrote a post on this, wherein I pondered (using basic things as examples) how humans, having conceptually divorced themselves from nature, could rationally think that we aren’t harming our environment. I also mused over how humans have institutionalized the conceptual divorce, officially boxing in our perspectives: our economics, cultural institutions, religion*, laws, ways of life have all been inextricably codified and form the basis of all that we seem to know. We can’t easily re-align our consciousness to be part of nature without destroying what we view as indispensable to human society. The notion of “progress” is a significant problem to overcome.

Here now again, I wonder: how can we call anything “progress” if it really isn’t?
I suppose we have to lay out in the open what it is we mean by “progress.” Continue reading

For where your stewardship is, there will your politics be also

I do not understand the push-back on being responsible stewards of the garden we call our Planet. Here’s what I’m thinking, and I could sure use some help in sorting it out.

“Common Sense” vs. Responsibilities

I’ve read tons of articles on the pros & cons of greenhouse-gas and global-warming science in order to round out what comprises the debate. And I can sympathize with looking on some conclusions as suspect, although I can’t agree with fallacious reasoning for rejecting everything because of some suspect reports — throwing the baby out with the bathwater. To do that, to me, suggests underlying motivations that either resist or undermine logic. I suspect the A-word: agenda. Continue reading