The Creed

flickr photo by Eric Perrone

These statements form the bedrock of my personal philosophy. They make sense of my world. If they are proven untrue, then at the very least they must be replaced with something truer! 

• I am a manifestation of eternal spirit.
• Spirit only exists in physically manifested forms.
• Spirit expresses itself through innumerable acts of will.
• Spirit defies entropy.
• Spirit and matter are co-eternal and eternally commingled; separate yet inseparable.
• Infinite spirit manifests through finite consciousness.
• Infinite spirit knows itself through individuated experience.
• Spirit can neither be created, nor destroyed.
• Spirit is simple, uniform, majestic.
• I am an essential illusion.

Empathic Civilization

A friend has loaned me a copy of Jeremy Rifkin's The Empathic Civilization. I haven't got very far into it yet, but the premise is that as creatures we care for one another, that the apparent brutality of the world is aberrant to some degree, and exaggerated to a large extent. If you measured the rate of empathic interactions to that of aggressive and destructive ones, the indicator would overwhelmingly point in the direction of a world that is kinder and more gentle then we have imagined.

I am opening my mind to Mr. Rifkin's thesis. I want to believe what he's saying, and insofar as it's within my realm of influence that's the kind of world I strive for. Nor is that striving in vain. I believe that transformation occurs one mind at a time, gathering momentum and speed as more minds are aligned in a certain ideal. The world can be a more empathic place, and believers in an empathic world have a responsibility to live that belief.

But has the world been an overwhelmingly empathic place until now? I have not been convinced so far.

I am nothing, and everything

Ego has me convinced that 'I' am a discrete, tangible being, separate from the world around me. But this is illusion. I am the sum total of sensations, feelings and thoughts which have occurred since I was born. I will cease to exist when I die. There is no 'I' separate from these streams of experience. In other words, I am what I have perceived, felt and thought, and those streams of consciousness are rooted in my physical being - they are in fact three aspects of the Tetrahedron: the Physical, Emotional and Intellectual.

What then of will, the very essence of ego?

Will has to do with the fourth node of the Tetrahedron, the Spiritual. In short, will is the movement of the eternal and infinite - or the undefinable - spiritual force within me. Will responds to and interacts with the sensations, feelings and especially the thoughts that are generated in the physical me and in-so-doing shapes the person I become and the types of experiences it will encounter. In other words, will is to some degree self defining.

So how can I even use the word 'I' in this context. This is the dichotomy or contradiction that is ego. Spirit cannot manifest except through what is called 'incarnation' in some traditions. Incarnation occurs in the form of discrete, physical entities. So spirit must take on finite forms in order to exist, but in doing so it never loses its connection to eternal and infinite reality (again, the undefinable from the perspective of 'I'). In other words, spirit does not exist outside its incarnate forms, but the incarnate forms do not limit spirit except in an illusory way.

Does this view lessen my appreciation of self? Not at all. Individuated spirit is God expressing him/er self and experiencing his/er world. God does not exist without the illusion of individuated spirit, which makes each and every one of us a miraculous spark in his/er eternal state of becoming.

Layers and Meaning; Crime and Punishment

Flickr Photo - HA! Designs

When we are perceptive our experiences overlay one another in such a way that new meanings emerge from proximity and context as much as from the content of the isolated events. Now that's a long-winded, pseudo-philosophic statement if I ever heard one! Let's get down to an illustrating case study, which is unfolding for me right now.

It involves three seemingly distinct experiences, which have overlain one another to create a new filter through which I can interpret my world. I'll list the experiences. See if you can figure out their relationships before I get back into my long-windedness:

• I am presently struggling with debilitating pain caused by a groin injury, which I incurred playing the beautiful game - that's soccer for anyone out there who may be entertaining varient visions;
• I recently attended a book launch for a volume called Educating for Peacebuilding, written by Catherine Bargen, BC's Coordinator for Restorative Justice. Catherine has been instrumental in implementing a Restorative Action programs in schools all over the world;
• I am currently reading Romeo Dellaire's agonizing account of how child soldiers are recruited, trained and abused by military regimes in destabilized regions throughout the world.

Take thirty seconds or so to see if you can identify the connecting strand between those disparate streams of consciousness. Then, if you are interested, read on.

The consequence of Evolution

I have always believed in the persuasive power of friendship and reason, and rejected the application of coercive force as a means of getting people to do my bidding. My aversion to the use of force has blinded me to just how pervasive it is as the mechanism in human affairs. Threats and intimidation in one form or another underlay the vast majority of human interactions.

Often the brute nature of our dealings are masked by a show of cordiality, but if that sham is tested it evaporates and the true nature of our relationships comes to the fore. The kindly boss, who treats his staff to an occasional tray of Tim Horton's coffee - and genuinely believes in his own congeniality - will just as quickly fire the staffer who contradicts him in a serious way or costs too much during a period of economic decline. The enlightened parent, who has smiled upon his sons and daughters in their younger years, becomes harsh and dictatorial if his children do not live up to his moral and social standards later in life.

We resort to an arsenal of punishments to get recalcitrants to do things the way we want them done. Emotional, physical and intellectual weapons are brought to bear on the target of our displeasure, and the anti is upped the longer our enemy - for that is what opponents become - refuses to do what we want the way we want it done. Unless the recalcitrant has no power or influence of his own, in which case he or she is simply ostracized - cut out of the social fabric.

I hate this brutal dynamic and have always sought interstices in the social structure that would give me genuine freedom. I resent it when people want me to participate in the hierarchy of tyranny that constitutes so much of human behaviour: the schemata of use and abuse, the quashing of daydreams. I would rather risk failure than succumb to what amounts to a betrayal of my very nature.

I am discovering today - as I vacuum and tidy up in preparation for a guest - that I am primarily intellectual. That doesn't mean I discount the physical, emotional and spiritual facets of being. They are essential contributors to my intellectual power. But my fulfillment will come mainly in the intellectual realm, and primarily as a philosopher. Therein lies the heart and soul of me.