1. Pure Love 2. Something Deeperism Quickest Sketch 3. Continuing The Overview of Something Deeperism 4. Flushing The General Position Out A Little More 5. Ideas to Motivate Adherence to Something Deeperism

You don’t need to read every entry now. Maybe just the first two. That would probably be best for now. In fact, I implore you: just quickly read over the first two sections and go back to the Introduction. If they bore you, just skim them! This is supposed to be a nice fun work of fiction: don’t let the obsessiveness of certain elements within the authorship take that away from us!!

1. Pure Love is the infinite and eternal love that all earthly loves partake of to the degree that they are actually love (to the degree they don’t partake of just Pure Love, earthly loves are tainted by non-infinite, non-eternal aspects of experience). Pure Love gives, supports, lifts-up helps, understands, loves 100%—for free. Human loves to some degree pull-towards and push-away. To the degree they are Pure Love, they do not pull-towards or push-away, but only beam brightly buoyantly effectively through.

2. Something Deeperism is the general position that we humans have insight into the Absolute (the Absolute is what is actually going on / what actually matters / what one should actually do–as opposed to mere opinions-about/perspectives-on what is going on / etc), but not literal / definitive / exclusive insight.

Something Deeperism seeks to clarify the confusion caused by the false debate between faith and reason. Sure: we cannot perfectly translate the Truth into human ideas and feelings; but that doesn’t mean we cannot relate human ideas, feelings, words and actions meaningfully to the Truth; and since the we cannot make sense of, believe in, or care about our own ideas without intellectual and emotional rigor, as well as spiritual (ie: non-mutable, non-relative/perspectival/debatable) Love, we have no choice but to work to better and better translate between ideas, feelings, words, deeds and the Truth.

Something Deeperism posits via clear thought and feeling one’s ideas and words can imperfectly but still adequately relate to feelings even though feelings are wider/deeper/vaguer than ideas and words, clear thinking and feeling can allow one to

If the Truth shines through the human conscious moment and we can through clear thinking and feeling coordinate our ideas, feelings, words and deeds better and better with the Truth, and if the Truth supports our sense that we are all in this together and must be kind to one another and that shared joy is the way: if all that is the case and a person can discover that and how it is the case, humans have a method for choosing one thought over another that is meaningful/interesting/stand-able to human beings. Otherwise, we don’t and we will make no progress in thought and action. So groups should accept those essential dogmas and we should all seek the Truth: the Truth would be both Knowledge and Reality and thus have the stamp of “True!” within it; thus endarounding the problem of the divide between ways of knowing and Reality; of course, the Truth cannot fit into our ideas, feelings, words and deeds, so what we need is not intellectual and emotional assent to the essential dogmas so much as insight into that and how they are the case–indeed confusing ideas and feelings about the Truth actually pushes one into dogmatically clutching ideas and feelings one doesn’t understand, which is antithetical to growth in wisdom: the continual improvement of one’s whole-being coordination of ideas, feelings, words and deeds around the Joy within that alone knows what is going on, what matters, and what should be done.

[A Note on Interchanging Different Descriptions of the Absolute:
We’re here positing that the Truth shines through all things, including each human conscious moment, and that It is prior to ideas and feelings, so we can only point imperfectly [but not therefore necessarily meaninglessly] towards It; so “Love”, “Truth”, “God”, “Light”, “Buddha Nature”, “Joy” can all be used interchangeably–not necessarily as indicating exactly the same thing, but as generally pointing adequately enough towards that which can only be pointed towards, since it is prior to ideas and feelings.]

{A SOMETHING DEEPERISM WITHOUT METAPHYSICS?

Or does that go too far? Sure, that’s the Something Deeperism of this author, but it is not the Something Deeperism of every Something Deeperist. All that is needed to qualify as a Something Deeperist is to agree that that inner sense that I like to call the “seed of wisdom” is actually onto something, and so one shouldn’t fart around in either radical skepticism or blind faith: one should seek to understand that and how this “seed of wisdom” is onto something. Right? Can’t this be done without metaphysics? I dunno: what does “actually onto something” mean? Doesn’t it point towards “actually the case”, towards True? I think humans cannot help but use ideas and feelings in their thoughts and actions; but they also cannot understand, believe in, or even care about their own ideas and feelings without grounding those ideas and feelings on whole-being insight into what is actually going on (the fact that people often delude themselves about what is actually going on is no argument against this position: the whole point is that our insight needs to be adequately based on Truth for it to guide us meaningfully forward–that we often lurch incoherently in one direction while it becomes less and less meaningful to us only points out how we struggle with this task); therefore, I think we humans must accept (necessarily imperfectly) translating inner insights into ideas and feelings, from which it follows that it is wiser to say “I should think clearly” than to say “I have no idea about what is going on”: both are imperfect translations of inner senses of things ultimately prior to ideas about them, but the former includes a path forward and the latter is completely self-defeating. Of course, if you cannot find any Truth in the former, you shouldn’t announce it, but the latter makes no sense, so saying it amounts to forcing confusion into the center; that’s why Something Deeperists suggest working to find a way to gain whole-being insight (ideas and feelings working with and under the adequate guidance of the Absolute–that which alone Knows because It is both Knowledge and Reality) so that you know both that the former is True and in what way it is True.}

So why squawk on and on about how cool you are because nobody knows shit or because you know the Truth. Seems better to relax, say nothing, and try meditation, prayer, loving kindness, maybe even pick a religion that fits where you are and so join a community of like-minded people who can help keep you on track. But, hey: whatever? Right? I’m taking off, I’m heading out the door, I’m going for a walk. These questions slice so deep and what’s down there anyway? I’m afraid I’ve found a bunch of squeaking mice madly dashing into walls and into and over each other while the cleaver breaks them apart and sends their writhing bloody pieces here and there in the general sprawling mayhem.

Another failed introduction to Something Deeperism!

[Back to Intro of “Love at a Reasonable Price”]

3. Continuing the Overview of Something Deeperism Has been moved, for everyone’s sake, to Outtakes!

[Back to Intro of LaaRP]

4. A Few Principles Of Something Deeperism:

Wisdom is possible—at least as a direction. Growing in wisdom is the never-ending process of better and better—through the clear thinking and feeling outlined above—organizing one’s feelings, ideas, words, and deeds around the Truth within (so the rest of one’s experience better and better syncs up with and so understands and follows the Truth at the core of one’s experience).

True dogmas (here “dogma” means a statement about Absolutes—like what is actually going on, what actually matters, or how one should truly live) are not literal, definitive, or exclusive. They point poetically (not perfectly clear, precise, or intellectually verifiable; but not therefore inadequately) toward the Truth, which after all is prior to ideas and feelings about It (ie: “true dogmas” point one’s conscious experience toward adequate insight into the Truth the way a good poem recreate’s the writer’s experience adequately though not literally/definitively within the reader: it is not a mathematical formulation, but the essential has still been communicated).

When one’s thought-as-a-whole is properly organized around the Truth at the core of each human conscious moment, one’s thought-as-a-whole can use the intellect to sketch adequate intellectual pictures of the Truth and how the Truth relates to everything else, and such sketches can help others to get a better sense of the Truth. But they are still just sketches, and unwise conscious moments are still very much able to woefully misunderstand them. So no matter what the source, one must be careful to expect any goodness to come of mindlessly “yessing” the dogma. What is most fundamentally needed is insight; dogmas are only supposed to help people gain, share, and build a shared language for insight into what is really going on, what really matters, and how we should really live—a language for together contemplating questions whose answers are deeper and wider than any ideas, and thus than any dogmas.

Humans with the same stated dogma (examples of stated dogmas: “secular humanist” or “born again Christian”) are never 100% on the same page; and those with different dogmas are still somewhat on the same page; and both people with identical and those with different dogmas can—with good intentions and real effort—get more and more on the same page.

We humans all share the same most fundamental value: seeking and choosing truly better ways of thinking and acting via clear and honest investigation of our inner and outer experiences, with the whole process orchestrated by a deepening insight into that sense within that knows our thoughts and actions truly matter and in what way they truly matter, and the entire process guide-guardrailed by the knowledge that joyful sharing kindness is the way and everything else baloney.

Something Deeperism cannot be intellectually proven, but it can be intellectually motivated. For an attempt at a quick sketch of that see below (#5)

[Back to Intro of LaaRP]

5. Ideas to Motivate Seeking in Individuals and Assuming Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Justice, and most of all Love in groups:

Note that no matter what our outlook, we cannot help but accept/assume some intellectual ideas about what is going on, what matters, and what should be done that we cannot prove intellectually. {In fact, insofar as one doesn’t adequately answer those questions, we can’t really understand, care about, or believe in one’s own thought process (which cannot help but assume insight into those fundamental questions is what it is ultimately working on).} Therefore, we are going to have to accept some dogmas (unproven beliefs accepted as “true enough”) about what is going on, what matters, and what should be done. The only choice available to humans is between dogmas that lead to more coherency and dogmas that lead to less, so we may as well pick dogmas that lead us to more coherent thoughts and actions (ie: thoughts and actions that are more meaningful to the thinker/actor).

Then note that for any idea about what is going on & etc to be coherent, the basic premise of Something Deeperism must be true.

…..

The basic premises of Something Deeperism:

“Truth” and “Goodness” (not those concepts but what they imperfectly but not therefore necessarily inadequately point towards) actually exist and, though they are ultimately prior to ideas and feelings about them and thus not liable to literal/definitive insights, our inborn sense that we can improve our insight into them via clear, honest, pure-hearted thought, contemplation, conversation, and action bounded by valuing kindness, respect, and shared-joy for all is correct. If that premise isn’t True or I cannot find a way to demonstrate to myself that and how it is True, how can I understand, care about, believe in, or otherwise participate in my own thoughts and actions? I can’t. My thought needs insight into that and how that sense of things is True to be meaningful to itself: that is simply the way we humans are constructed {some say you can’t go from your own fundamental experience to the experience of all others, but I can’t make any sense of my thoughts if other people are not essentially like me and [otherwise how can I make sense of all I’ve learned by interacting with them?], so the belief that others are basically like me is also undoubtable: I don’t know that it is True, but I do know that to the degree I do not gain insight into how and that it is True, my own thoughts and actions are meaningless to me.}

But don’t forget that ideas and feelings about what is really true, worthwhile, and preferable are only meaningful to you if you actually understand them; so what is needed is not so much literal answers as whole-being (ideas, feelings, words and deeds under the guidance of the Truth shining within and through each conscious moment). Even supposing literal understanding of the Truth were possible (and how could it be? The Truth is not the same as an idea about the Truth!), merely forcing feelings of certainty atop intellectual assents to literally true dogmas would just lead to misunderstanding those dogmas. What is needed is a whole-being organization around the Light within that alone knows that and how we all matter—an organization that must be self-aware enough to not pretend it can ever consider itself definitive/finished.

…..

Radical skepticism is self-defeating because there’s no point avoiding error unless accuracy is real and actually matters. Blind dogmatism is self-defeating because “what is actually the case” is not the same as ideas and feelings about “what is actually the case” and so belief in a dogma without insight into the way in which it is True actually points you away from meaningful whole-being engagement with “what is actually the case” [regardless of how true the dogma is a dogma can never be “True”; dogmas can only be more or less “true”, though insight can show you the way and degree the dogma points towards what is True]. To avoid the extremes of blind doubt and blind faith, Something Deeperism seeks insight into “what is actually the case” with one’s thought-as-a-whole: the intellect and feelings need to contemplate “what is actually the case” (to notice that they need to relate to “w i a t c” and to consider how to best do that and how to best guard against misunderstanding “w i a t c”) and they can and should also keep working to sketch better and better descriptions of “what is actually the case”, but they must always remember that these sketches are not themselves “what is actually the case” and the process of growing in wisdom must continue, refreshed each moment, until the moment of death.

Everyone is already something of a Something Deeperist. We all realize that to the degree we lack insight into how life is actually meaningful, we cannot understand, believe in, or care about anything we think or do. (Even the most dogmatic skeptic must admit that there’s no way to know how to be a skeptic and no motivation for being one unless there’s something to one’s inner push for accuracy—unless in some sense avoiding error is actually attainable and worth pursuing.) And we all also realize that it is possible, tempting, and self-defeating to get so focused on ideas about why our lives matter that we miss out in engagement with that within that alone understands that and how our lives matter. (Even the most fundamental religious believer will agree that of course they are trying to follow not human ideas about God, but God; and that whenever human ideas and feelings get involved, there is some danger of spiritual misinterpretation and mistake, since, after all, human ideas and feelings are not perfect, but spiritual Truth is.) And we all know that to the degree a society sacrifices accuracy, honesty, kindness and shared joy for anything—including xyz religious or secular dogma—that society works against any meaningful philosophy, religion, or attitude.

Arguing for Something Deeperism is not so much arguing as gently reminding everyone that we all are already to some degree Something Deeperists, and we should remember that, remember that we are all basically the same and in this together, remember that pretending we are not alike enough for respectful communication and collaboration is a cruel lie that undermines us to the degree we countenance it.

We all have to keep pedaling, keep pushing for more real whole-being insight into the kind joy within that alone understands what this life is all about. We cannot never stop seeking for more clarity in thought and action, for more wisdom. We have to keep pedaling.

How great Something Deeperism is! Without it, you wander hopeless lost in meaninglessness. If you imagine you can have no meaningful relationship to the Truth, then you say things like “for all I know, I don’t know anything”, which makes no sense: insofar as you actually believe it, you don’t actually believe it. If, in the other extreme, you imagine that you know the Truth, that It is xyz dogmas that you memorize and live by, you mislabel the Truth—which is actually prior to ideas and feelings and therefore insofar as you equate It 1:1 with xyz idea—, and so you shift your focus away from an active engagement with the Truth and onto ideas that you clench with forced feelings of certainty which you can neither actually understand nor care about (and, anyway, what use is a dogma—even if it were somehow TRUE—if you don’t understand it?). And so how nicely Something Deeperism steps in! How nicely it tidies things up: there is a Truth and you have some insight into It and with clear and honest effort can get more insight into It, but as the Truth is obviously prior to ideas and feelings about It, you don’t need to worry about literally, definitively or exclusively understanding the Truth—indeed, if that’s what you think you are doing, then you are drifting into La La Land, and need to stop! and head back home, back to a whole-being insight into the Truth.]

This fun, informative article was written by Johnny Go Lightly, a terrible influence on his friends and family.

[Back to Intro of LaaRP]

Author & shame: BW
Editor & shame: AMW
Copyright & shame: AMW