A Journal: Chapter 5

March 12, 1998 *************************

. . . . . Well, back again. I've been rather pressed for time of late, and haven't done any editing of this year's entries (not any reading of them, actually) and certainly haven't look back at earlier years, but I feel constrained to elaborate a bit on what might have come across on these pages (if anyone's reading) as a pet theory of mine, i.e., the "attention is energy" maxim that I've presented before. I've marveled lately at some of the things I've done, not just recently (and i think i've done some things marvelously devoid of thought, believe me, 'cause I'm not stupid but admittedly have been trying to live intuitively because it seems to me that that is marvelously devoid of my pet peeve of ordinary mind) but long ago as well. I really am afraid I've been so passive in my approach to life that I've allowed other people's attention (read 'ordinary mind' for the most part please) to manipulate my life in no small degree. (i'm really not stupid. ;-( )

. . . . . Someone might be following this closely enough to recognize the validity (perhaps 'importance' would be a better word, though if it is in fact valid, then certainly it is important as well) to which I have ascribed this theory: I've actually tried to shake the powers of heaven (like Jesus said would happen in end times in Luke 21:26) by way of this (would-be) missive, and I reckon that's what I'm trying to do now, 'cause I've given a lot of contemplation to what I've written on these pages (and realize just how ludicrous i come off in some of them) and I basically want to stand by them, but in particular I want to address now the II Corinthians 15 reference I mentioned recently. Again, please recognize that I've generally just written what came to me and prayed (as i've said) that I hope it was God moving me to so write, that the light in me isn't darkness, but I haven't been able to get anything (yet) to document this as The Truth <small smile>.

. . . . . What I've come up with is (aside from a major case of incredulity, no doubt shared by some who've encountered me here and there along my journey) nothin' but the blues. I mean, none of this seems to matter at all. Say that the Jesus of the Bible is the fallen angel who started it all who found favor with God by way of His development of character (have i said about C.S. Lewis writing that "people judge people by their external actions; God judges people by their moral choices"__selfishness [ego] and selflessness seem to me to be at the ends of this spectrum which is determined [the way i figure it...feedback por favor] by our moral choices). Would that matter a bit? I think it would to people who've hardened their hearts in a judgmental fashion [regarding others' external actions and/or circumstances].

. . . . . But that is far from the point I wished to make. (If anybody's reading this, try to open your mind a little__I think ordinary mind is cramping my style :-) .) What I wish to do is look at the big picture again. What I see (with what I hope is sufficient humility in God's eye) is His Son walking the earth and preferring to be called the Son of Man to the Son of God, 'cause He had the vision to recognize, (while some people no doubt called Him Daniels 'abomination of desolation') despite the fact that He was merely man, that it was every man's will to walk the earth that made it necessary for His return. Yeah, I'm goin' 180 about (wow, I can't believe i wrote that, let alone that i'm leaving it: maybe Jesus is back and He's the anti-Christ God and Jesus please forgive me for ordinary mind and thank you Jesus for saying You wouldn't hold it against me [Matthew 12:31]) And might, as I've said, necessitated His return in the form of man again. That's one of the reasons it seems so important for us to not be judgmental about indivuduals (albeit critical that we judge our actions collectively and try to redeem the times, as Paul wrote). There is a ton of Old Testament stuff, like Psalm 91:16 ("With long life will I satisfy him . . .") which I think "authorities" agree is smack in the middle of Messianic prophecy, that I've no doubt people not only used before to say nothing of after the Crucifixion in rationalizing their lack of faith in Jesus as Messiah but probably used to justify not making a decision about Him, being content to say if . . . then (probably not I'll believe but) I'll think about believing. Let me try to get back to the point: Years and years ago I had an out-of-body experience which I related to some people, and I'm thinking I wouldn't have had it if I hadn't gotten those people's attention. I have related some incredibly stupid things I've done in the past, and I really don't know if they would have occurred had I not shared them with others. Wild indeed. But consider if there is some man walking the earth who is Jesus come back to judge the quick and the dead, again like Paul wrote. Who's not to say that, today as then, He might not do many mighty works because of our unbelief (which is to say, the unbelief precludes the works, not a lack of His willingness to perform them [see Matthew 15:38]) and we might miss the chance for mankind not merely to endure (for a time) but actually prevail. "The kingdom of heaven is at hand," Jesus' regular message was, "Now is the accepted time." Our collective attention could be the key, and it just might be that all we have to do is, like Thomas Pynchon wrote in Mason and Dixon [paraphrasing the Psalmist's "Be still, and know that I am God"] is "sit quietly . . . and Christ will appear". But (again) I fear I repeat myself to the point of boring even myself.

. . . . . Perhaps I will get to the scriptural matters I referenced in my last entry at some point in the near future. It really is only God's will that concerns me (but I keep having to pay attention to the mundane matters of my [would-be] life).

March 13  *****************************

. . . . . I ran across an interesting excerpt from a soon-to-be-published book on the 'Net today and it struck me (notice how things 'hit' or 'strike' me a lot__no wonder some think i'm punch-drunk ;-( ) that it was very appropriate for my (would-be) discussion since it centers on reality. Here's how the magazine introed its cover article:

Back From Chaos The assumptions of the Enlightenment -- about the unity of all knowledge, about the potential for human progress -- were displaced by postmodern skepticism about the possibility of real knowledge and about the existence of objective truth. But now, the author argues, the promise of the Enlightenment is being renewed. The great branches of learning will draw closer -- revealing an order that underlies everything

. . . . . Two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner (for general non-fiction) E.O. Wilson wrote, in the March issue of The Atlantic Monthly, "Originators (of the Enlightenment movement) often clashed over fundamental issues. Most engaged from time to time in absurd digressions and speculations, such as looking for hidden codes in the Bible and for the anatomical seat of the soul. The overlap of their opinions was nevertheless extensive and clear and well reasoned enough to bear this simple characterization: They shared a passion to demystify the world and free the mind from the impersonal forces that imprison it." (Note: I'm hoping that The Atlantic editors and Dr. Wilson will not object to my following extensive quotations from the article, because of the non-commercial aspects to say nothing of the deadly serious reasons behind this site, but I'm also hoping nobody will enlighten them to it.)

. . . . . "(One man) laid the groundwork for the belief in the unity of learning that was to influence Enlightenment thought profoundly in the eighteenth century. (Rene Descartes) insisted that systematic doubt was the first principle of learning. By his light, all knowledge was to be laid out and tested on the iron frame of logic. He allowed himself only one undeniable premise, captured in the celebrated phrase "Cogito ergo sum" -- "I think, therefore I am." The system of Cartesian doubt, which still thrives in modern science, is one in which all assumptions that can be are systematically eliminated, so as to leave only one set of axioms on which rational thought can be based and experiments can be rigorously designed. (Note: Systematic doubt has driven my search for truth, and resulted in my saying that those who can doubt should remain in doubt about the future of their souls but certainly I don't intend by this rule of thumb to denigrate faith and hope.)

. . . . . Wilson writes, "Western science took the lead in the world largely because it cultivated reductionism and physical law to expand the understanding of space and time beyond that attainable by the unaided senses. The advance, however, carried humanity's self-image ever further from its perception of the remainder of the universe, and as a consequence the full reality of the universe seemed to grow progressively more alien. . .The cost of scientific advance is the humbling recognition that reality was not constructed to be easily grasped by the human mind. This is the cardinal tenet of scientific understanding: Our species and its ways of thinking are a product of evolution, not the purpose of evolution." (Note: What I am purposing simply is that we can logically understand reality, that we don't have to take [and shouldn't take] the stance that God is beyond our understanding [or, conversely, that He doesn't exist] and instead accept the fact that reality is kind of simple, albeit frightening to new initiates, because we hold the key to solving the great mystery. Could actually have dissolved the heavens and earth [yeah, that's our purpose, and when mankind started building that tower up to God of course He confounded us because we were so far from the mark; we now should realize the common language of love Jesus preached two thousand years ago is the key; how much we have to change the physical world in terms of food and shelter for unfortunates still seems debatable for the spiritual success which is our goal] when Jesus was here two thousand years ago.)

. . . . ."". . . Einstein is said to have remarked to his assistant Ernst Straus, in a moment of neo-deistic reflection, "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." (Note: That's the scary part, as I've been saying: God didn't do it, it was group mind putting a lot of attention [energy] into it, and He's watching [kind of; loving is better; perhaps to say He is willing to accept us if we just quit rejecting His thoughts and ways (see Isaiah 55:8) is the best way to put it] to see if we can [no, not 'can', if we will] undo it.)

. . . . . ". . . The traditional theism of Christianity is rooted in both reason and revelation, the two conceivable sources of knowledge. According to this view, reason and revelation cannot be in conflict, because in areas of opposition, revelation is given the higher role -- as the Inquisition reminded Galileo in Rome when he was offered a choice between orthodoxy and pain. In contrast, deism grants reason the edge, and insists that theists justify revelation with the use of reason.
          Most people, one imagines, would very much like science to prove the existence of God but not to take the measure of his capacity." (Note: Most interesting statement, perhaps particularly that first adjective; if most people should be presented with what seems to me anyway The Truth of Things and decide to not believe it, then I'm gonna have to stand by my war madness, because [while there might be many souls born into horrible circumstances to instill humility] the alternative seems to be a gargantuan fire instead of Armageddon [which could, God knows, be bad enough]. Yeah, there is a paradox here, but doesn't it seem logical that faith makes it irrelevant? I mean, seven years [march 19 note: no, ten years after, 'cause I've put a lot of consideration to that figure and there are lot's of hard hearts and stiff necks needing to be reborn; I just took a poll to get some numbers <smile>] after the battle between good and evil say, so the children can grow up knowing God, seems infinitely better than another two millenia when we might not be this close. Wow, have i said anything about no kids starting three years after the war? Even more incredible: Do i need to? Yeah, I can understand this being beyond belief. ;-! [i'm drooling ya know])

. . . . . Check this quote out: "One can defer reflection on the celestial spheres indefinitely, but daily matters of life and death require moral decisiveness." (Note: I'm kinda wanting you to take this out of context: rather than say 'who has been His counselor' [see Isaiah 40:13 and Romans 11:34] and agree it's 'unknowable', look at Today as life or death [believe it or not I bluntly told relatives in 1980 that "There is no time."].)

. . . . . " . . . The thrust of the Enlightenment, like the Greek humanism that prefigured it, was Promethean: the knowledge it generated was to liberate mankind by lifting it above the savage world. But the opposite might occur: if scientific inquiry diminishes the conception of divinity while prescribing immutable natural laws, then humanity can lose what freedom it already possesses." (Note: This is the argument incredibly espoused by some against even trying to discover such knowledge. In reality, the only freedom we now have is to choose good or evil and we already know that choice will not be with any of us indefinitely.)

. . . . . Wilson basically argues that around 1800 A.D. Western mind chose reason over revelation (the two sources of all knowledge, he wrote) and our civilization has not just continued along that path, but advanced the trend. Partially this was due, he says, because of the "abstruse" ('can be understood by very few' is one way to define the word) nature of revelation, though he argues we have almost come full circle to Descartes with postmodernist leanings toward a stance of we can 'know' nothing (except, by default I'm thinking, 'I think, therefore I am') Check out this quote from the magazine: ". . . The spirit enters another reality, beyond the reach of weight and measure. If the constraining universe of matter and energy cannot be denied, at least it can be ignored with splendid contempt." This is exactly where the priests and preachers of Isaiah's day, and Jesus' day, and (i claim) our day, want(ed) everyone to do:  Just accept this because it's what we tell you to accept. Those who don't accept this dogma for the most part ignore the weightier matters such as God and eternity or, even worse in my view, pretend to accept it.

"Wilson's article . . . is taken from his book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, which is to be published next month by Knopf."

March 15  *********************************

. . . . . I like to consider myself, if you haven't figured it out dear reader(?), a big-picture guy who pays at least enough attention to details to get by. Here's some big-picture stuff with details I haven't advanced (and please read this with an open mind and soft heart, 'cause I'm just a guy trying to get it right; please don't judge me by this or accept it all as fact [like I've been saying all along], especially since I know I've made enough mistakes on these pages, to say nothing of my [would-be] life, to keep that from happening; just consider it my effort to communicate nothing but what could be the important truths):

. . . . . I haven't said anything about the vision of hell referenced on the table of contents page, but that in fact was merely the end of the vision. Thirty years ago, almost, I went to sleep and when I awoke there was a diatribe, from God Himself, but I knew there's no proving that (or any of this, for that matter) and that's why I leave it open for debate. We're collectively blowing it, is what the voice told me. "Materialism" is a word repeated over and over. I saw the world, and the picture was abysmal. And then, wide awake I thought, I was visited with this immense possibility that I could control the material world. Really. I could make changes in space and time that would have made life easier for me. I remember shaking my head. Then I was underwater (or maybe this was before), and there was nothing there but my mind, unable to think, but aware that there was nothing but my mind . . . no light, no love, no hope, no peace, no time. . . just an empty eternity of mental anguish. (The last line of my Behold A Pale Horse, as I recall, was the protagonist, who had been hearing voices [only very slightly autobiographical, really] a lot, as he died and his spirit left his body and started falling, faster and faster, to the earth on its short journey to hell, and the line goes like this: And the last thing he heard was the voices, laughing and screaming and crying out their lonesome welcomes.) I heard heaven maybe a year later but God and that night changed my life. I'd wondered a lot, like most people I guess, but after that I knew something. I obsessed, and obviously keep obsessing, but the principles ('a big truth that leads to other truths' is a definition I like; how about 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'?) are easy. And even today, realizing it might have been somebody or some group of people reading this and that attention making it all happen, I have no doubt about the truth of it. (And speaking of reason and revelation, by the way, what could be more logical than Jesus being in the world and God revealing His truths through Him? And what could be more reasonable than Him making mistakes; think of all the people back then paying all of that negative attention, since the bottom line was their lives as they knew them would be dirt if He panned out and they simply liked things the way they were.) I kept searching. (I keep searching.) Mostly I looked for other truths, 'cause try as I might, heaven keeps escaping me. (Some of the old sayings took on big new meanings for me: Cowboys liking to die with their boots on [that's all heart, while dying in your sleep is a mental thing], only the good die young [unbearable compassion for a relative asking why I was crying as a child when it was an older relative getting the whippin' might have been heaven's door I lamented for ages many years later; Isaiah 57:1 could reference this situation actually], reap what you sow bothered me for a real long time 'cause for the longest time I didn't feel like I had anything to sow [and then the complications of doing unto others seemed to almost over-ride the commandment, though the title of Dave Mason's album "Shouldn't Have Took More Than You Gave" could be insight into the big picture for lots of people], ignorance is no defense [Lao Tsu's three lines on people dying certainly seems to cover that base adequately], and the road to hell is paved with good intentions [actually I think people with soft hearts will find hard actions covered in some instances]. The longer I live, the simpler it gets, the fewer gray areas. The bad news, of course, is that the possibility has occurred more than once in different guises (kind of forcing the logical deduction from time to time <smile>) that I might even be close to John the Baptist, who Jesus said was the highest of humans, but still less than the slightest angel. Get my drift? Logically I don't expect anybody to believe me; intuitively I'm sometimes afraid everybody ought to. Maybe i'll write more later.

March 20  ***********************************

. . . . . I'm really getting behind in relating Bible studies, so back by popular demand <smile>, here we go again: Let me try to remember oh yeah; redistribution of wealth will be the focus here, but I'm gonna have to check my notes. First let me mention that I don't remember if I put this on the web site I've been saying it for so many years, but I think no one will argue that free enterprise is the freedom to stab your neighbor in the back. And with that, let me mention again that though it's a figurative statement, I believe that financial oppression is spiritual violence. And yeah, it's pretty complicated when you start talking about even so simple a thing as supplying shelter and just staple food-stuff to the world (although that would provide incentive for people to work in order to get furniture, say, and bacon or beef). But surely the majority of people in the world spend most of their energy just trying to put a roof over their head and food on their table; just last week cable TV news reported that twenty-five percent of American children under the age of six live below the poverty line (which I'm afraid is way over the poverty line in a whole lot of the world). That amazes me. So does the fact that people over fifty-five years old in this country control seventy-seven percent of the wealth. And let's not forget what the preacher said about six percent of the population controls over fifty percent of the wealth. Anybody who thinks this is God's way better look out, 'cause a hard rain's gonna fall (like Dylan said, though maybe it'll be fire). Like I think I've been saying, I don't think people in Amerika would be hurt maybe at all in terms of lifestyle (if you keep that concept simple) when you talk about making life easier on the masses. 'Cause making it easy on everybody would put a lot of belief in the universe, and then it should be easy (yeah, call me a dreamer [anybody out there? :-) ]) to channel that belief and maybe it'll be like unifying heaven and earth with no time and no ordinary mind and peace and love will reign triumphant over mind and death and stuff. 

          Anyway, I want to endure to the end, like it's written all over important books say, and I have been and remain willing to do what I must, whether it's ordained by ordinary mind or God.  (2021 note:  God! Here's where i'm gonna mention that i started reading SAFE's journal not too long ago and discovered sentences, even paragraphs that i didn't write, the result of what i called a subtle hack years ago but like i said, i've been seeing stuff like that last sentence [which was hidden at the end of the preceding paragraph] and it could influence a reader into thinking i'm just looney tunes haha so take everything with a grain of salt.)

. . . . . I haven't forgotten the study I keep mentioning.

. . . . . I me me mine, the Beatles sang on their album "Let It Be".

Top of Page
To the Journal Contents
To the Table of Contents
To the SAFE Home Page