Browsed by
Author: Bartleby

A Standard Theory of Pure Love

A Standard Theory of Pure Love

A Standard Theory of Pure Love [From “Our Shared Something Deeperism”
The whole essay will be in First Essays: LAARP Companion Essays, assuming we finish it.]

“A Standard Theory of Pure Love”. A silly sci fi plot! And yet, how to make progress in our individual or collective thoughts without acknowledging that we all need “truth” and “goodness” and “meaning” (not those words or concepts so much as that inner direction to which they imperfectly but not therefore meaninglessly point)? Who can stand any of their own thoughts or actions without first understanding that we humans are all fundamentally the same and in the same boat? Who can understand, believe in, or care about anything said or done that does not adhere to our inborn drives towards productive thought: awareness, clarity, honesty, accuracy, kindness, shared overflowing selfless joy.

[We’ve moved an expatiating page to Outtakes (I can’t find that expatiating page right now)]

Let’s accept the necessary and possible nature of these basic spiritual values (“spiritual”: Absolute / more than a perspective, opinion, or anything relative / for sure — we are certain not of any given exposition of these values, but of their general existence and of our ability to—with open minds and hearts and good intentions—relate our feelings, ideas, words and acts adequately well to these Truths) as the background of public debate. Together accepting the need for awareness, clarity, honesty, accuracy, kindness, and shared joy is something of a shared vision about what matters, a shared reality where we can all meet together to work on shared concerns; it is something of “A Standard Theory of Pure Love”, something of a shared starting point for collective progress.

We have different philosophies, theologies and attitudes; but can’t we all agree that no philosophy, theology, or attitude means anything to human beings unless it helps one gain more and more whole-being (ideas, feelings, and the Light/Truth within [that alone is beyond prejudice, speculation, and ego-drives, and thus alone truly knows and cares about what’s really going on and what should really be done] all working meaningfully together) understanding both that aware clear honest competent kind shared joy is actually correct and how/in-what-way such wise joyfulness is to be understood and lived? And so why not all admit we agree on this much? On individually and collectively respecting and pursuing basic standards for thought and action. Why not agree to agree upon awareness, clarity, honesty, kindness, gentle and thoughtful speech and actions centered around a constant effort to understand what is really going on and what we should really do? Without satisfying those inner directions and boundaries our thoughts and/or feelings jumble meaninglessly within us and we can make no sense to our own minds/hearts, which prevents us from journeying with our own thinking and feeling to our own conclusions. To the degree we ignore and/or misconstrue—either alone or in groups—, these basic spiritual values we—as individuals and/or groups—have no meaningful connection to our own
thinking and acting. To the degree a human’s conscious attentions loses meaningful traction in her or his own thoughts and actions, s/he cedes control to mindless and ultimately-directionless animal urges (including the urge for perfect intellectual solutions to the human reality, which of course has a scope much wider than can be addressed in purely intellectual terms). Into the ensuing confusion steps desperate lunging power-, pride-, and etc-lusts that push our thinking, feeling, and acting chaotically and oft evilly about.

Agreeing to these universal values (“universal” here = any coherent thinker will agree that a religion or philosophy that does not prioritize them is meaningless/useless to human beings) is about all the Standards of Thought and Action we should have—so as to avoid the dangers inherent in demanding people agree on religious and other sacred-to-somebody dogmas. Such demands tempt both individuals and groups to insincerity in the most profound and serious matters. Plus, combining political and spiritual authority is a dangerous, and oft corrupting, consolidation of power. Anyway, surely we can all agree that faith without insight is worse than useless, and human experience is wider and deeper than any human dogmas; all of which means not that we should have no dogmas (for we need some principles about how to think and act—a big part of the human experience involves using ideas and without accepting some basic intellectual assumptions, one’s ideas slip and slide all over the place), but that we should always remember that dogmas are there to help us find our way meaningfully forward in life—they are not themselves the meaning of life.

Friends, let’s not get carried away! I’m not proposing Something Deeperism as a state religion! I seek merely to, in the space of this unobtrusive and smooth-flowing little essay, direct our shared attention to our need for a shared reality, while also encouraging the shared realization that we already basically have one: we just need to stand back, catch our breaths, accept that we all do have some sense of and preference for “clear” and “true” and “good” and “honest” and “meaningful” and “not corrupt” and “competent” and “kind” and “fair” and “fun” and “joyful” and “fellowship”—and have fun together thinking, feeling, creating, debating, building, choosing, growing.

Signed, Pudd N. Tane, President of the “We can do it!” Society of North America, A chapter in good standing of the the “We can do it!” International Body of Optimistic Realists.
“We’re optimistic, because we believe humans are capable of doing good!”

Currently this essay lies in the “A Few Essays” section of “Love at a Reasonable Price, Volume 1: First Loves”. Previously it dwelt higher up, within the “Theories of Purest Love” section. But then the editorial team, God bless them! God keep them!, decided it best, Oh they have their reasons!, to replace this essay with one they deemed “simpler”.

A Note on Self Deception

A Note on Self Deception

A Note On Self-Deception

There are no guarantees that one won’t deceive oneself about how wise one is. Indeed, the necessarily imperfect relationship between ideas and feelings about what-is-actually-the-case and what is actually-the-case guarantees that everyone (whatever their worldview) will to some degree succumb to that error.

And yet deep inside we know when we are deceiving ourselves. Unless, perhaps, if we are completely crazy. There are no guarantees in life. We just have to do the best we can.

[Etched into a wooden beam in a pizza restaurant famous for wooden beams where customers can write whatever nonsense they want to write, and thus make their mark—however embarrassing.]

A Simpler Shared Something Deeperism

A Simpler Shared Something Deeperism

We human-things are not going to agree on everything. We’ll argue philosophy, worldview, religion, politics, style.

But we are all still human-things and can thus all agree that to the degree a worldview fails to help an adherent develop more and more aware, clear, honest, accurate, competent, respectful, kind, joyful, loving thought and action; that worldview is useless to that adherent.

Because those are the ways we must think and act in order to understand, believe-in, care-about, and participate-in our own thoughts and actions. To the degree we are not aware … loving, our thoughts and actions clang meaninglessly about: we cannot travel with our own thinking and acting, and so rather than being steered by the clear light of conscious awareness, our bodies/minds are steered by the chaos of competing animal-flinches (“give me!” “get away!” “I know!” “I don’t know!” etc). This is the way downward.

Bone-trembling example: Suppose there’s a !True Religion! Suppose further that you know and believe all its dogmas, but not with awareness … love. What do you then possess? Muddled thoughts desperately trying to interpret ideas that they do not understand — or even really believe in or care about.

Flesh-shaking other example: Suppose there is a sense in which things like “Real” and “Not Real” don’t even exist. Suppose further you believe this dogma, but not with awareness … love. What do you then possess? Muddled thoughts desperately trying to interpret ideas that they do not understand — or even really believe in or care about.
And so while we will continue to debate worldviews, we should agree to never pretend that our worldviews justify or even tolerate any departure from awareness, clarity, … loving kindness. When one does that, one betrays that aspect of anyone’s worldview that is actually meaningful and useful to anyone; and so one sacrifices everything worthy for a moment’s bloated fantasy about “us” versus “them”.

Let us therefore work diligently together to fight for more awareness, clarity, accuracy, competence, kindness, shared joy and real togetherness.

Why do we fight to establish and maintain just principles, norms, procedures, and laws within ourselves, our families, our communities, our groups secular and parochial, our governments, our friendships? Not to be “right” while others are “wrong”, but to all join together around our shared starting point — the one whose betrayal amounts to betraying all our worthiest (ie: most meaningful/useful to whole-human-beings [creatures consisting of ideas, feelings, and thatolsoullight all working together]) principles.

We don’t agree on everything, but we nonetheless do have the ability and duty to work together on what we do agree on: awareness, clarity, accuracy, competence, kindness, shared joy, on how we are all in this together and beholden to one another.

Let’s permanently retire the crooked daydream that we disagree so fundamentally as to preclude any common ground, any shared identity and reality. That tired trope’s already responsible for too many fetid, diseased wounds deep-tunneling through century upon lonesome century. Let’s try more interesting, more enlightening, more productive, more beautiful angles.

Everything in its place: We don’t need to agree on worldviews to agree that none of our worldviews means anything to any of us in the absence of clarity, honesty, accuracy, competence, kindness and shared joy. And we don’t need to agree on worldviews to demand these goods of our organizations and governments.

Let’s not get side-tracked by details! Let’s keep our collective eye on the prerequisites for any meaningful worldview and any workable community, system, organization, or government!

Signed,
Pudd N. Tane,
President of the “We can do it!” Society of North America,
A chapter in good standing of the the “We can do it!” International Body of Optimistic Realists.
“We’re optimistic, because we believe humans are capable of doing good!”

[Selection from “Love at a Reasonable Price Volume One: First Loves” (Actually, this version appears in “First Essays” — See Buy Our Books!]

STOP

STOP BEFORE THINGS GET OUT OF CONTROL

STOP HERE
—–

But what then?
We can probably get most everyone to give lip-service to awareness and the like. But what will that really change?
What we need is a shared starting-point.
Agreeing to the above values does suggest a collective agreement about some Absolute Standard: even if we don’t agree on all aspects of what beliefs and principles cannot under any circumstances be abandoned, we agree on some of them, on awareness and etc.
But where can we go from there?
It is an easy move to go from awareness … shared joy to anti-corruption in individuals and groups: we should fight for more awareness … shared joy; and we should work to make sure we (as individuals and as groups) are ruled more and more by states of mind that are rules by those values. OK, sure. But again: what can we really hope for here beyond lip service? Spiritual values cannot be perfectly captured in human ideas and words, but only pointed more or less meaninglessly towards. And since so many people are so unwise, there’s all kinds of room for self-serving manipulators to pretend to care about these values. Actually, many moral charlatans actually do care about these values, just not as much as they care about money, power, sex, prestige, food, drink, luxury.
What about the other half of Something Deeperism: the part that says we can relate to the Truth BUT NOT LITERALLY/DEFINITIVELY? Is that going to be more helpful? Here again, our human folly helps us to fool ourselves and others: how quickly we slide from a humble acceptance of our own intellectual, emotional, moral, and spiritual limitations to a flippant “so, I guess we may as well have a good time!” or a sly, crown-grabbing, “so, we’ll just have to guess as best we can–each to his own best guesses!”!!
Is there no hope?
I wanted a livable philosophy.
Something Deeperism’s always been there, and it is the only philosophy that can be lived:
Trying to live without the Truth makes no sense to our minds/hearts; trying to literally/definitively understand the Truth makes no sense to our minds/hearts; so let’s seek for more and more non-literal insight into the Truth: instead of trying to reason and/or feel to and from the Truth, let’s seek the Truth with our whole being and then let the Truth guide our ideas and feelings as best it can (the former strategy–which, however fancy the footwork, include existential creations of intellectual and emotional truths out of the thin air of truthlessness–goes nowhere because it tries to use ideas and feelings for a task [figuring out what is really going on and what should really be done] they are not up for; the latter strategy works because it lets the Light within do what only It can do [figure out what is really going on … done] and it allows that Light to connect meaningfully with ideas and feelings while still pushing against the tendency of ideas and feelings to overstate their wisdom/usefulness.
But of course, since it is the only livable philosophy, it is already everyone’s philosophy:
To the degree we turn our focus towards the spiritual realm within and do not over- or under-state our ability to understand, believe in, care about, and follow that spiritual realm; we can understand, believe in, care about, and follow our own thoughts and actions, travelling with them to our own conclusions.
So what then?
What can essays about Something Deeperism actually help with?
Everyone thinks they’re the ones who basically get the right balance between faith and skepticism, everyone thinks they’re the ones who do insight and humility right. Everyone is like: “Oh, yeah, I’m not quite there; but I’m muddling along as best I can”, but they secretly think, “and a damn sight better than you!”
What can essays on Something Deeperism do besides give the few interested readers (whatever their philosophical and theological inclinations) another angle on their own superiority?
I wanted to help
I wanted to have a philosophy that would help the nation and the world move away from corruption and towards more aware, honest, clear, accurate, competent, kind, joyful, fruitful discourse, decision-making, legislation and enforcement.
I can see we can’t find a common ground.
And I can see we actually have a common ground in the kind of values here sketched.
But I don’t know how to get us as individuals or as a group wise enough to actually gather around those values and live them.
On the other hand, I know very well that to some degree people always do that.
And so the failure I’m admitting is just this: I don’t know how to make things better.
At least not with essays.

Well, if you could set aside for a moment the question of whether or not you know how to sell Something Deeperism: what about just finding the principles within Something Deeperism: what does Something Deeperism say about how to get rid of corruption? of how to know how corrupt a system (be it an individual human being, a small group of individuals, or a giant nation state full of interwoven peoples, cultures, ideas, feelings, laws, organizations, economies, businesses, etc) is? of how to grow systems so that they naturally thrive (ie: grow away from corruption and into real Truth = Beauty = Goodness = Justice = Loving Kindness)?

Are the philosophical arguments for pursuing individual and collective Something Deeperism worth anything? Do they give our individual and collective thoughts any kind of a handle on how to best relate the experience of life (which cannot be caught in ideas and feelings, but only better or worse pointed to by them) to ideas and feelings, and to the interrelated systems (within and between individuals) that are largely built out of ideas and feelings?

Sigh

Duties of a Republic’s Citizenry

Duties of a Republic’s Citizenry

[Something Deeperism Institute]

[NYC Journal – Politics Page]

[Editor’s Note: This essay is included in First Essays and A Readable Reader, available for sale on the Buy Our Books! tab of this blog.]

If you have the good fortune to live in a representative democracy, your should work with your fellow citizens to keep an eye on the rulers of your land. Sure: engage in the policy debates of your day. But don’t let those debates and the oft accompanying excitations and divisions separate you from your most fundamental duty: serving as a final check on madness and corruption. To the degree we let our leaders sacrifice good-government (open, honest, fair, without favoritism or bias following the laws, rules, and protocols) for political expediency, we let corruption and madness in.

What is corruption? Indifference to the basic rules of right thought and action: awareness, clarity, honesty, accuracy, competency, selflessness, kindness, generous fearless overflowing joyfulness. What is madness? Incompetency as regards those same basic rules. Corruption and madness encourage each other, are interrelated, and generally go hand and hand. To the degree madness and corruption rule, it is easier to succeed and/or gain and keep power while being bad (dishonest, underhanded, cruel, foolish, selfish, arrogant, incompetent, clueless) and harder to succeed and/or gain and keep power while being good (honest, transparent, kind, wise, selfless, humble, competent, aware). To the degree we let madness and corruption in, we let folly rule; to that degree, we harm ourselves and others.

Madness and corruption (in either an individual’s conscious space or within a group or organization) is when decisions come not from clear, honest, informed, accurate, competent, kind, thoughtful consideration; but rather from confused, dishonest, clueless, incompetent, cruel, mindless violence. It’s maybe sometimes kind of fun to watch movies about gangsters and rulers weaving their way through corrupt states; but it is neither fun nor helpful to live under such conditions; and it is beyond reckless to let politicians reduce the openness, honesty, accuracy, clarity, competence, and good-will in our government.
“They’re all the same!” There is no perfection, but there are better and worse directions; and if we are not consciously engaged and gently pushing towards the better, we are sliding towards the worse and/or risking chaos — which is itself a worse, and out of which generally arises a much worse.

“It’s all the other side’s fault!” OK, then, stop talking to them: that will help us to all better fulfill our shared responsibility to our shared nation. (No it won’t; that was sarcasm; not sure if one can use that in a serious essay; maybe it’s OK now that we’ve clarified that it is not meant seriously, but rather to point out the hopelessness of taking it seriously / at face value. Blame may not be divided equally in all conflicts, but when does shutting yourself off from a sizable portion of a shared democracy ever help the situation?)

“The history and/or structure of this nation is such that it cannot but destroy itself, and that’s what it deserves anyway!” Wait!: at least from this merely-human vantage, there’s no a priori knowable rule for the way history must unfold; and if this ship sinks, we all go down with it, drowning in the same old stupid boring vortex of cruel chaoses birthing cruel orders birthing cruel chaoses … ; so let’s work together to acknowledge where we’ve been, where we are, and where we want to get to; and to simultaneously seek a newer world together.

I mean:

The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
‘T is not too late to seek a newer world.*

There’s only one hope: let wisdom rule.

And we all know what wisdom looks like: aware, honest, clear, competent, accurate, kind, selfless, sharing joy, knowing how to help and putting that knowledge into action. Let’s think, speak, act, and vote accordingly.

This public service announcement paid for by:
The Community For A Better USA: Come, On, Let’s Succeed Together For Real: From The Inside Out!

And Again Our Refrain:
Everything in its place: We don’t need to agree on worldviews to agree that none of our worldviews means anything to any of us in the absence of clarity, honesty, accuracy, competence, kindness and shared joy.

[Editor’s Note:
*The Lights begin to twinkle …
See Alfred Tennyson’s “Ulysses” (written 1838, published 1842 in the second collection of Poems.]

[Editor’s Note: This essay is included in “First Essays”, available for sale (or free — write us at Editor@PureLoveShop.com and we’ll email you a copy) on the Buy Our Books! tab of this blog.]

[Something Deeperism Institute]

[NYC Journal – Politics Page]

[NYC Journal]

The Wisdom Is Attainable Text Messages

The Wisdom Is Attainable Text Messages

The Wisdom Is Attainable Text Messages:

The “True Good” (not so much that concept; more the inner sense of things to which that concept imperfectly but not therefore necessarily meaninglessly points towards; most towards what that inner sense of things can itself imperfectly but not therefore meaninglessly interact with) exists and is within each person’s conscious experience at a place prior to (but shining through) ideas, feelings and notions. These other elements of conscious experience can relate poetically but not literally to the TG, which should never be confused with ideas and feelings about the TG (that’s the error of a literal understanding of the TG). (Poetic = Not perfectly clear, concise, or verifiable (like math is), but not therefore inadequately p, c, or v.)

Ideas, feelings, and thought-tools like language can relate imperfectly but still meaningfully to the TG—similar to how words can relate imperfectly but still meaningfully to feelings, making it possible for humans to meaningfully think and speak about feelings. Just as you can relate your ideas and feelings to one another better (ie: with more mutual understanding between these two aspects of thought) by thinking and feeling aware, clear, honest, kind, generous, joyful, open-hearted/minded; you can relate your ideas and feelings to the TG shining through each conscious moment by thinking and feeling aware … open-hearted/-minded. Not only that: but as you get better at listening, the TG will help you to think and feel more aware … open-hearted/-minded.

Result: wisdom is possible because an aspect of your conscious experience is both Reality and Knowledge and thus has the stamp of !Truth! within It, and the other aspects of our conscious moment can relate meaningfully, though not perfectly to It. Wisdom is self-critical, aware of its limits and cautious not to overstep itself; while also constantly seeking to better itself—all this wisdom pursues for the sake of everyone and the Light that is common to us all.

Wisdom will never fit perfectly into dogmas, but some dogmas point better towards the TG than other dogmas. The path of wisdom is to coordinate your various aspects of conscious experience better and better so your thought-as-a-whole (ideas [including dogmas], feelings and TG all working together) understands and follows the TG better and better (ie: ideas and feelings are led better and better by the TG).

The path to more progress is also the seed of any progress: Our inner sense of and preference for awareness, clarity, and honesty in thought, for “truer”, “better”, “kinder”, “more loved and loving”, for “what is really best for me and others”, for competent giving joy. To the degree you doubt the reality or preeminence of any of these goods, your thought doubts what it cannot do without and so makes no sense to itself. But blind faith in the Truth of your ideas and feelings is faith without insight and thus misplaced and misleading faith. Therefore the path to more progress is to work everyday to better and better understand that and in what way it is “True” and “Good” that one should think aware, clear, honest, kind, loving, selfless, everybody-wins. We must all keep pedaling.

[This textable philosophical serenade was taken from the “Theories of Purest Love” section of “Love at a Reasonable Price Volume One: First Loves”]

Not Wise Authors–Authors Seeking More Wisdom

Not Wise Authors–Authors Seeking More Wisdom

On Writing Books of Purest Love [from a portion of “Intro to the Project” that we sent to !!Outtakes!!]

Stories about Pure Love: the eternal spiritual Good that all earthly loves imperfectly-but-not-therefore-necessarily-inadequately partakes of; a Great God shining through our day-to-day, saturating—or, I guess, being—the background of each conscious moment; the kindflowing that’s ultimately all there really is—!—? Really?! Who do I think I am to speak openly of Pure Love?

Am I here, all swagger and cajole, telling you there’s a Pure Love and you gotta believe—‘cause an’ if ya don’t, you’re a fool and a traitor with two boots?

No!, c’mon! I’m just saying that we each need a path that is actually meaningful, worthwhile, and interesting to us. We all need a love that’s better and more powerful than anything else; and we all seem to feel such a superhumanly wise, effective kindness somewhere in and through: so why not admit to ourselves and our fellows that we need to value and reach for that love, to get better and better at understanding and following that ineffable yet to some degree meaningfully known inner Light? Only to the degree our thoughts and actions are grounded in that Light are they meaningful-to-us, allowing us to think and act coherently—so it’s worth the effort.

I’m not saying anything but what we all already know deep within: we humans are all in this together and can and should meet ourselves, one another, and the joyful Light within and between us all with awareness, clarity, honesty, kindness, and respect; and when individuals and groups let any other notion come between them and that more fundamental insight, they self-destruct. So let’s push back on those kind of mix ups. Let’s share clear-minded/-hearted kind joy no matter what! We all have notions, but don’t we all most deep down know that our only chance is kind joy?


I think good poetries sink in and prove themselves more and more true while explaining more and more in what way they are true. And I consider the phrase “Pure Love” such a poem. Beyond that I claim only that I’m a human being, or at least a fictional creation born of human experience, or at least a sometimes evoked daydream woven through other daydreams.

So that’s all: We’re talking about weighty spiritual matters, but we are not prophets or even theologians—just would-be-if-we-could-be artists and philosophers who reckon the topic of “Pure Love” interesting and important.

I guess an enlightened person can point towards the Truth safely and assuredly. As for the rest of us (and, wisdom being a thing of degrees, that means all of us to a greater or lesser degree), our talk of God, of Light, of Truth and Goodness: such talk from us is more a pleading than a testimony. Still, we should try. Right? Surely!

[This Impassioned Introductory Speech by BW can be found moved to the copious “Outtakes!!” section of “Love at a Reasonable Price Volume One: First Loves”]

Are You a Something Deeperist?

Are You a Something Deeperist?

Dear Reader,

Are you a Something Deeperist? Do you believe that we human beings can have insight into the Truth (aka: the Light, the Holy, Absolute Reality, etc: we’re pointing–imperfectly, but not therefore necessarily inadequately–with words and ideas towards what is ultimately beyond words and ideas); but an insight more poetic than literal (like how a good poem read well recreates the essentials, though not the exact details, of one human moment within another human moment)?

Do you believe that, for example, the various world religions can help practitioners relate their ideas and feelings adequately to the Truth/Light shining within and all through each moment; and that, further, said practitioners reach this laudable goal to the degree they focuses on that Truth/Light–which knows / is the Meaning of life–more than they focus on ideas and feelings about the Meaning of life?

How could you not?

We all know we need dogmas (assumptions about what’s going on, and how we should think and act) to help us steer through this human world (of which idea-based thinking and acting is a necessary part); and we need those dogmas to connect us to a guide that actually knows what’s what (otherwise we flail helplessly about, caught up in xyz not-understood enthusiasm about the meaning of our life and/or xzy not-understood pout about the meaninglessness of our life). But we all also know that ideas and feelings about meaningful/meaningless are not at all identical with what is really meaningful (we know it, but still we have to work constantly to keep that knowledge front and center: look at the way we allow swells of emotion to convince ourselves that this mate, career path, group identity, religious or philosophical answer, pleasant and/or secure arrangement is THE TRUTH; no, but you take a good long look at that!).

Due to this indelible knowledge both of our need for spiritual values (like “It is actually True that we should treat ourselves and others with kindness and respect”) and the danger of confusing ideas and feelings about the True for the Truth Itself (which is deeper and wider than ideas and feelings), we are all fundamentally Something Deeperists. The only work left is to admit where we find ourselves within our thought (in Something Deeperism). To the degree we admit where we are, we are at a starting-point within our own thinking and acting, and we can make progress. What is sadder than a conscious moment unable to perceive and/or admit where within thought and action it finds itself and thus more lost than it even knows, wandering wide but going nowhere?

And so we all pray as one: “Help us make progress in the only possible progress–the only one human minds/hearts can understand/follow/stand: aware, honest, clear, kind, compassionate, effective, selfless, and joyful thought and action centered around the Light/Truth within that alone understands what’s going on and what should be done, and what properly constitutes aware, honest … and what should be done. Help us grow in the one True Faith: the middle way between faith in ideas and feelings and skepticism towards ideas and feelings. Make our ideas and feelings constantly self-evaluating and -evolving ladders to and from the Light–forever mindful their duty to seek and follow that which alone Knows (ie: What Matters / the inner Light / etc), and ever wary of their weakness for imagining themselves identical with Knowledge.”

[Cataloger’s Notes:
Definition of Something Deeferism /Something Deeperism definition/
All religions point to same Light /fundamental agreement between religions/
Theory of the meaning of life: /meaning of life/
“let the spiritual guide your feelings, ideas, words and deeds” theory of the meaning of life: /spiritual should rule/
“translate the spiritual into life” theory of the meaning of life: /translate spiritual into life/
Necessity of dogmas: /necessity of dogmas/
Error of confusing Reality with ideas and feelings about Reality: /Reality vs ideas and feelings about Reality/
We are all Something Deeperists: /everyone a Something Deeperist/
Inborn Indelible Self-Knowledge makes us all Something Deeperists: /indelible self-knowledge = everyone a Something Deeperist/
Only question is how thorough a Something Deeperist to be: /only decision: how thorough a Something Deeperist/
A Something Deeperism Prayer: /something deeperist prayers/
No progress in thought and action unless our hearts and minds can understand, follow, believe-in, stand our thinking and acting: /must understand own thoughts and actions/
We can only understand thoughts and actions that are aware, honest, clear, kind, compassionate, effective, selfless, and joyful, and that are ultimately grounded in insight into the Truth/Light within: /prerequisites to understand own thoughts/ & /prerequisites to understand own thoughts = aware …/
Ideas and feelings as self-evaluating and -evolving ladders to and from the Truth: /ladder to and from Truth/

/no progress without internal honesty/

[Anthologists Notes:
Pretty readable, short.
Somewhat persuasive example of the standard arguments for a more committed and thorough Something Deeperism.
Why didn’t the author(s) give a more careful explanation for why we need dogmas? The fact that we need ideas to steer this human reality is not enough: to show we need dogmas we must show that we need fixed ideas that we accept as adequately-true. Something Deeperists usually give support for that latter claim by pointing to how our ideas slip and slide unmanageably about if we refuse to accept any premises as “adequately true for belief”. And/or they’ll note that as far as they can tell, we cannot help but put faith in some ideas, and either pretending we can suspend all faith or pretending we believe differently than we believe cause one to lie to oneself about where one is, and thus lose any kind of starting point for coherent thought and action.
This could go in sections like: “we’re all something deeperists”; “introductions to something deeperism”; etc]

All these Something Deeperism essays are BW & AMW collaborations. Occasionally other fictional authors (besides BW) participate. On those occasions, we generally mention them at the essay’s close.

The Structure of Human Thought & Purpose of Human Life

The Structure of Human Thought & Purpose of Human Life

A human conscious moment is structured something like this:

It starts out with soullight (aka: the Light; God; Buddha Nature; the Something Deeper, etc.)
Then (perhaps via some shading from a universal spirit into a more localized spiritual energy) feelings, vague notions and ideas.
Then the world outside and other people.
And of course the Light shines through all things; so it is not just at the beginning of each conscious moment, it is also all through everything, including every other aspect of consciousness.

Our task is to fill all aspects of our conscious moment with brightest awareness, creating and maintaining a coherent whole: to translate the spiritual into everyday life by letting soullight overwhelm and lead our bodies and minds.

The greatest commandment is to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and soul, and your neighbor (ie: everyone) as yourself”. In this way you see things as they really are: the point is that kind joy glowing through you, and that raison d’être shines through through everyone’s conscious moment: we are all bound together in and through the Light.

An artist’s work should be a meditation on the whole space of human consciousness; from the spirit out, through ideas and feelings and into words and deeds. Everyone’s work should be getting better and better at understanding that and in what way it is true to say: “Love is all: we are all in this together: clear honest accurate joyful effective kindness is the way, and anything that prevents clear honest joyful effective kindness is an error.” In this way we can get better and better at letting the Light within (which alone knows what’s what) guide our feeling, thinking, and acting.

Authors: Oh the many, the throngs, tattered and worn

[Cataloger’s Notes:
Theory of human consciousness: /explanation of consciousness/
“Divine through feelings, notions, and ideas, out into words, deeds, world and others, back into Divine” theory of human consciousness: /divine through feels and ideas out into actions/
Theory of the meaning of life: /meaning of life/
“translate the spiritual into life” theory of the meaning of life: /translate spiritual into life/
“let the spiritual guide your feelings, ideas, words and deeds” theory of the meaning of life: /spiritual should rule/
Greatest Commandment explanation: /Greatest Commandment/
“see things as they really are” explanation of Greatest Commandment: /see things as they really are/ & /gc = see things as they really are/
Theory of artist’s job: /purpose of art/
“meditation on whole space of human consciousness” theory of artists job: /art = meditation on whole moment/
Theory of meaning of life: /meaning of life/
“find a way to understand that and in what way it is true to say ‘Love is all'” theory of meaning of life: /prove to self that and how/ & /prove to self that and how ‘Love is All’]

[Anthologists Notes:
Pretty readable, short, no real proofs or reasonings.
The piece attempts to sketch out the human conscious experience. It invites the reader to observe their own conscious experience and see if they can map the sketch onto their own experience. From there, the reader can also see if the conclusions about what one should do with that conscious experience follow. How can they see if they follow? Again, the essay lets them try the sketch on over their own conscious moment and see where all and how well it seems to them to fit.
This could go in sections like: “experiential proofs”; “/sketches of Reality to try on/ and contemplate”; “theories of consciousness”; etc]

Getting Older

Getting Older

Getting older and you’re in the wrong
Wasting life, bored on childish fun
Burning slower but the time has come
Fall so fast as the night is long

Now we’re wiser but here oh dear too late
Now we’re clearer but not all through
Watching flowers spin turn the screw
Feeling monster some swollen stolen fate

All mistakes come down to this:
In the wrong and don’t want to quit
All nonsense healed by a wish:
For joy

Wounds without an audience

Wounds without an audience

Like you’re being smashed by a car door that the Hulk removed from a car and then, taking you by surprise as you walked down American Street, swung into you full on, flinging you back a football field.
But did he hit you with the flat end across your face/belly/sex? Or did he swing the edge into your gut?
Hard to say. It feels like somehow both.
And did he let you land upon the far-off sidewalk or get impaled upon some errant twisting rusty rebar? Or did another Hulk leap into the air and catch you broadly on the backside, beginning a lusty, fun-spirited game of swatting you back and forth across the stalling, honking, hazy traffic? Again, somehow both, somehow all those acts of violence wake you up and carry you along into the day.
Who can you tell this to?
There’s no one who can make out what you are saying.
It sounds like a clang to them, the clang of the little red trolley clacking up the track, bending with the good old upward-yearning boulevard, picking up 1950s work-ready commuters from within a short walk of their narrow, three-story brightly-painted sharp-roofed homes, merrily escorting them to the brick and bustle.

You wake up to this more and more lately.
And Hulks attack you with doors more and more. Hatchets too. Doors on all side. Hatchets from just below the neck through the chest, tugging strong and confident into your gut and then slipping beyond, to where bowels give way to hippy longings.
Strange world.
You’d tell someone, but all they hear is the twitter of birds outside the picnic they’re either at or missed or weren’t invited to or skipped or are seriously considering attending.

What can you do?
Go to work, pay rent, politely nod, have a witty shiny moment, tell the darkening muggy you can’t take it anymore–as if it hasn’t heard that before.

You’ll have to drop it all, start over again from the center, pushing out from within.