Love, Dad

Just thought I’d add that to our prior discussion.

Einstein was a Nobel-prize winning theoretical scientist who unequivocally recognized “strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies” between religion and science. However, I am not moved by the truth of his observations. Rather, I am moved by his observations of the truth.

WHERE
DOES
NOW
CREATE
HOW

After submitting “WHERE DOES NOW CREATE HOW” to Google (AKA:God), the 1st website from the aptly named http://www.eurekalert.org (AKA: Science) tells us:

“Prosperity is neither the answer nor the cause of satisfaction”
and
“It has been assumed that money increases well-being and, although money can be measured with exactitude, it is an inexact surrogate to the actual well-being of a nation. In a 1985 survey, respondents from the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans and the Maasai of East Africa were almost equally satisfied and ranked relatively high in well-being. The Maasai are a traditional herding people who have no electricity or running water and live in huts made of dung. It follows, that economic development and personal income must not account for the happiness that they are so often linked to.”

I think you have it right when you said, “I do not ask these questions because I do not know the answers. I ask these questions because the asking is part of the answer.” The answer will appear, according to the Law of Detachment, when you release your attachment to the need to know.

Purpose in life or the Law of Dharma will become apparent as you incorporate all seven of these spiritual laws into your “Being” over time. At 60, I am still not certain what my purpose is in this life, although I am becoming suspicious. It may have something to do with the search for happiness, the process and journey, not the destination.

Love, Dad

I suppose I would explain myself best by saying I do not know what is meant by the term “spirituality.” I just plain don’t. This lack of knowledge is based upon my complete lack of belief in deities, religions (which I judge are dangerous foolishness at best and dangerous venality at worst). I guess those who choose to discuss “spirituality” are unwilling, at least in the context of that discussion, to ascribe their views to religion itself–but are yet unready to abandon the supernatural completely, and are looking for another manner of speaking about what is on their mind. I don’t necessarily object to it, but my mental “eyes” tend to glaze over.

I think Einstein was just plain wrong in stating “Science without religion is lame . . . ” Just because he was smart about some stuff doesn’t make him an expert on everything. In fact, he was not even always right about things in his area of expertise.

So, my translation of the question “Who Am I?,” is this, more or less: “What will I do when confronted with a decision involving moral implications, and why do I sometimes respond in a way different than what, on reflection, I thought/wished I would have?” As for “Why Am I Here,” I translate that to mean: “I’m alive, although I didn’t choose to be, and, absent committing suicide in any given moment (any “now”), what am I going to choose to do next?”

I still say I don’t bother much with those musings, but I honestly would like to have some way of understanding those questions when people I care about utter them, so that I can engage in meaningful dialog with them, or at least put the appropriate look on my face so they know they are not talking to a Sphinx!

I say we are defined (by the World outside us) by our actions, not our thoughts and self-examination. Our actions are the result of our thoughts and self-examination (see further below). Outsiders can interact with us by understanding this: Want to know what Gerry wants to do? Watch and see what he does. (I take no credit for this, I read it somewhere, probably in a pop psychology psychobabble book). To leaven this conversation with a bit of silliness, the following: I am not consciously aware of preferring, as objects of love and affection, brown-haired women over blond-haired women. However, when I look back, all of my serious relationships with women have been with the brown-haired variety. Translation: what a person wants may not be consciously known to them, that’s why their actions tell us the answer.

So, how is it I say our actions are the results of our “thoughts and self-examination” if we don’t actually know we prefer one course over another? Because we have thoughts, make decisions, and then make those part of our “structure of self.” We then, over time, forget we made those decisions, but our “structure of self” motors on, irregardless (yeah, I used that non-word on purpose!) of our forgetfulness. I suppose one could analogize it to programming a computer, and then forgetting what we programmed into it, and being amazed by what it “decides” to do.

Here’s something I think about: I love someone and am glad to be with them. They decide to move on, severing all ties. I become (forgive that passive word for the nonce) really sad, depressed. Is it built into our DNA to have that reaction, or, do we, from birth, accrete experience and make a set of incremental decisions which become buried in our self-programming, so that being left by a lover feeling overwhelmingly painful seems as though it comes from a law of the universe (DNA) and not our own decision-making? The death of a person one loves, and the response, could be similarly examined (as could anything we respond to emotionally, I suppose).

Decisions, decisions, we are protoplasm and decisions.