[geolarson2]

Very interesting (recommendation, read that as Artie Johnson in Laugh-In).

I see what both Rob & Ugo both write and see validity in both. It takes guts to lay things out in those basic terms. What a way to take a stand, huh? Einstein once said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Pascal said, "The heart has its reasons which reason does not know." I know that for myself, I'm an emotional person. The guards that we tend to build up to protect ourselves from psychological injury in my case came crashing down under their own weight a few years ago. And out of the rubble, I found that unlike others in my position, I am less reliant on religion as a safeguard. To put it bluntly, I have no idea what God is, all I know is that at some level we are all bound together; we are all made of the same sub-atomic stardust.

That final collapse of ego was preceded by a number of years of searching for answers that I know I'll never get the answers to. I was raised Methodist which was good in a way because I still like John Wesley's rule ("do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can") even if the trappings of organized religion now seem hollow to me, less comforting, more imposing of a single idea rather than freedom of choice, free will or whatever you wish to call it. I broke from Christianity, but still haven't "bothered" to tell most of my family just how far I've "strayed." Maybe, I wonder, if that's what draws me to folks like Danielle, Lia and every other person who chooses a different path than that their parents or "polite society" expect? I find it more welcoming here, and more comforting here, and more open here than I do in my own family most of the time. Here I feel okay to be who I am, there I feel the need to close myself off and keep my mouth shut.

A decade ago, when I first finished grad school I was at a cross-roads--did I want to take the LSATs and head off to law school to study international law? I'd laid the groundwork with courses in comparative political systems and civil liberties & the constitution, and a section of my thesis had been a comparative study of European constitutions. Or I could take my GRE scores and apply to Berkeley Theological Union, but there was a problem there. Of the associated schools, you had to apply to one, the one that formed the heart of your own theological beliefs--Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Jewish or Buddhist (I think those were the options). Well by then I'd already broken with organized Christianity and had serious questions about the foundations & provenance of the religion as a whole (I mean, who celebrates the birth or crucifixion of Jesus, a Hebrew, with ham?). I was a lot closer to Buddhism by then, but I'm not Buddhist. There's this story that describes the three Eastern philosophies succinctly, I think. Its called The Vinegar Tasters. Three wise old men gather around one vat of vinegar, each taking a sip. One man shows a bitter look on his face, the second a sour look, while the third smiles. The first man is often interpreted as a representative of Buddhism because the Buddhists view the world as bitter, filled with trials and tribulations that prevent man from attaining Nirvana, a state of "no wind" where all the wants and desires fall away allowing the individual to rise out of the muckety-muck and understand from a position outside of all that swirling dust called Brahman. The second man represents the teachings of Confucius. In this world-view, the universe is highly structured and organized, with a place for everything and everything in its place. The problem is, to the Confucian, is that a lot of things are out of place which makes the world sour. The antidote, of course, is to put things right which means adhering to structure and ritual. The third man represents the teachings of Lao Tzu, the founder of Taoism. Tao means the way, or the middle way. In this philosophy, which I tend to follow myself, there is neither good or bad, per se; what there is, is the inner structure of each thing. Discord comes from denying that nature or trying to force it into something else. The old fellow smiling as he drank his vinegar was smiling, in one interpretation, because, quite simply, he was drinking vinegar, not wine, so what else was he supposed to be tasting? By accepting things and people for who they are, by not trying to impose your will on me, or mine on you, but rather accepting our differences as a "good thing" and not a "bad thing" we aid each other and ourselves in becoming better people.

Take it or leave it, its your choice. Rob is who he is, and that's a good thing. Ugo is who he is, and that's a good thing. Danielle is who she is, and that's a good thing. Standing in their way from pursuing their dreams, creating themselves out of the raw materials or raw talents they possess, that's where problems arise. That seems reasonable to me. I "sometimes" react emotionally to something, usually what I see as a denial of someone's basic right to be who they are and what they want to be. Frequently, after a good night's sleep, taking a step back and looking at a situation a second time, I see things in a more rational light (I wonder what I'll make of this tomorrow!). Where I am at now I'm left with one thing, based on something Jack London once said. London, speaking of what it takes to be a writer, said that a writer can only write about what he knows. I have only my perspective to see from, and I have only my experiences and relationships that I can use to relate to everyone and everything else. So, with that in mind, the only thing I can do is do my best (sometimes pitiful best) to treat each of you as I would want my nearest and dearest to be treated. As much as I want you to all figure out where your heart lies, or take that path that leads you to real freedom, I want the same for my closest friends and family. (I hope that didn't come off as too drippy to you, because it was raining treacle here!)

When I was a kid, I read a lot more than I do now. One of those books that first got me thinking about the nature of nature differently was called The Tao of Physics. That was also my introduction to Taoist ideas (duh), but it was still years later that I started catching on (its been over a quarter century now, and I'm still getting little cracks of light through the darkness from that book). When I was in high school and picking which schools to apply to for college, I was torn between my two selves--I applied to USMA, and I applied to UCSC. When I was a kid, I wanted to fly Army dust-off missions ("medivac"), then go to the CIA and work as an analyst. At the same time, I went to Grateful Dead concerts and let my hair grow long and wanted to study animal behaviour, then human behaviour, and wound up just fascinated with structures from particle physics to cosmology and everything in between, including, for that matter, metaphysics. Then again, I always loved puzzles, especially jigsaws & mazes. Neither persona fits me well anymore. Marie may have been a little bit country, and Donny may have been a little bit rock-n-roll, and I've been a little to the left, and a little to the right ("but its the pelvic thrust that really drives you insane," or so I've heard--thanks Dr. Frank-n-furter!). Now that I've lost my stream of consciousness and have left myself with even more questions to ponder, I suppose I should just wind this up with one more thought expressed by someone with a much sounder mind than I, Rousseau, who said, "Nature never deceives us; it is always we who deceive ourselves." I've grown a little more comfortable with who I am (I write with a wry smile and shrug of my shoulders), and I can only hope that each and every one of you are comfortable with yourselves. You each have my respect for who you are. Cheers all!