Pure Love: 
Pure Love is the infinite, eternal Love that all earthly loves partake of to the degree they truly love.
Pure Love is spiritual Love, is Godly Love.
Pure Love chooses everyone and is enough for everyone.
Pure Love never lets anyone down and It never quits on anyone.
We are children of the One Light and are all brothers and sister bound in through and for the Pure Love that chooses everyone.
We sometimes speculate that Pure Love is all there is, and that a conscious moment exists to the degree that it partakes of Pure Love: To the degree we live in through and for Pure Love, we are Real and thus exist beyond spacetime and are thus eternal and infinite. To the degree we fail to do so, we are illusionary.
Let us move on to another pillar of our project: 
Something Deeperism
Something Deeperism is the general worldview that people can relate to the Truth, but in a poetic rather than a literal, definitive, or 1:1 way. It’s a very common worldview, but we’re the only ones we know of going around calling ourselves “Something Deeperists”.
How did we come to be Something Deeperists and why do we consider it to be the best and only must-have worldview?
What is our excuse?
Let’s go back a minute; or 7.35 million minutes. There I am again, fresh-faced and eager-eyed, but yet also woebegone and washed out. Worn out from bad philosophies and the foolish pride of the Western diet. Enervated from never-ending pseudo philosophical loops. A tough time. A difficult jam. A sorry sight.
I thought I should avoid believing things that were not true.
But I could not stand outside of my own thought and measure my various notions (or even my thought itself) against some objectively verifiable standard of Truth.
So of course I suspended all judgement
But of course (a) that’s not really possible, and (b) if I don’t Know that anything is true or that anything matters, why am I trying to believe only true things? Doesn’t the fact that I am trying not to be wrong imply a belief in notions like (1) some things are really going on, and (2) it really matters what I do, and even (3) it am supposed to seek out and believe only true things?
At this point, the notion of the irreducible was born.
Some notions are procedurally undoubtable because doubting them amounts to doubting indelible assumptions for taking in and organizing information, which amounts to doubting our own thought, which amounts to doubting the (as it turns out) procedurally-undoubtable notion.
Irreducibles are often primarily intellectually undoubtable; but they can also be emotionally undoubtable.
Examples of irreducibles include:
The assumption that your own thought has a meaningful path towards differentiating between more and less true statements.
The assumption that you have insight into that path.
The assumption that it matters what you think and do.
Another way of looking at irreducible assumptions is that these assumptions cannot be doubted because they are more fundamental that our doubting/affirming. For example, doubting/affirming is not meaningful unless you assume you can think meaningfully and that your own inner senses towards “more versus less true” and “more versus less worthwhile” are meaningful and actionable.
We won’t link to our 2011 “The Prophet of the Irreducible Rends his Garment” essay. The title is enough to introduce another common theme in our decade plus long project: Falling short, failing to live up to our own ideals. But more on this later.
The irreducible leads quickly and easily to a primary philosophical justification for pursuing Something Deeperism. Let’s sketch that out now:
Something Deeperism is the general worldview that we can relate to the Truth, but poetically rather than literally. 
That is to say, Something Deeperism is the intellectual/emotional position that we can relate our feeling/thinking/acting meaningfully to Reality, but only poetically (pointing meaningfully towards, but not precisely, definitively, or exclusively capturing in ideas and/or feelings).
Why assume such a worldview? And how to live it meaningfully?
Because our own feeling, thinking and acting is not meaningful to us except to the degree the following criteria are met:
1) We must abide by the universal values—aware, honest, accurate, competent, compassionate, loving-kind, joyfully-sharing. To the degree we sentient-beings do not abide by these inborn and indelible values, we cannot believe in, understand, or follow our own feeling/thinking/acting.
2) We must relate our feelings, thoughts, and actions to a spiritual Love that Knows that and in what way it is True to say, “We are all in this together”. To the degree we fail to do this, our own mental-scapes are meaningless to us.
3) This spiritual Love—which we are positing as the only Absolute/non-relative aspect of our conscious experiences—must guide our understanding and use of the universal values. The universal values assume that we can and should relate meaningfully to a spiritual Love = Reality. Our inner sense of, “I need to discover and prefer more-true over less-true” is not satisfied with relative standards of truth like “true insofar as my own unproven assumptions of thought are true” or “feels true to my animal drives”. That inner sense is looking to base our thoughts and actions on things that are ACTUALLY TRUE! And our inner sense that loving kindness is the way forward is not satisfied with relative standards of behavior like “worth pursuing insofar as my unproven assumptions of more- versus less-worthy are true” or “feels worthwhile to my animal drives”. That inner sense is looking to base our thoughts and actions on a direction towards TRUE GOODNESS! And we are not able to believe in, understand, care about or follow an Absolute Truth or a True Goodness that is not an infinite explosion of a Love that chooses everyone and is enough for everyone and will shepherd everyone back home into Its perfect Love.
4) This spiritual Love must also show us that and in what way it is True to say we are in this together, which implies insight into that and in what way we sentient beings are all the same.
[Another reason for assuming we’re all the same: Humans learn by empathy: A parent stubs their toe and their child maps their parent’s facial reactions onto their own mind-brain map, thus recreating and to some degree experiencing what their parent is experiencing. Through this process of empathizing, the meaning of basic gestures and words is learned. What then are we to make of the entire edifice of human language, thought, and culture if we humans are not all essentially the same? We can’t make sense of them; they turn to mush.]
5. In general, spiritual Love has to choose everyone and never abandon or hurt anyone. It needs to be kind to everyone always. (We all know deep inside that talk like “kind enough to be cruel” is BULLSHIT.)
Needing 1-5 to be meaningful-to-ourselves is just the way we’re built. We don’t need to and cannot advance philosophical proofs for these basic underlying human experiences. We can only say, “I dunno: Search yourself!”
Once a body/brain’s decided that as far as they can tell they do need to follow the universal values and ultimately something along the lines of Love = Reality for their own thought to be meaningful to themselves, the next step is to consider how they might realistically relate to a Love = Reality.
Love = Reality is by definition Absolute/Unlimited (otherwise It would not serve as the firm foundation for thought and action that we cannot help but to seek with every conscious moment). But we are clearly limited and prone to error. Furthermore, human history is full-to-barfing of examples of people justifying horrible behavior with notions that feel Absolute, notions like “God said I should” or “My truly-adequate philosophy proves I’m justified” or “love of country bids me” or even “The true religion (and/or true philosophy) makes it clear that I can do” … “whatever it is I here and now feel compelled to do, or maybe just have like a hankering to do”.
Hence Something Deeperism.
Consider the following:
Feelings are wider, deeper, and vaguer than ideas. And ideas wider, deeper, and vaguer than words. [Of course, feelings, notions, ideas, and words all slide together within us; we’re not claiming there are absolute distinctions between them, but are merely sketching a vague sketch of the conscious movement.] With more awareness, honesty, accuracy, competency and compassion, we sentient creatures can relate our ideas and words more meaningfully to our feelings.
Picture the following:
Pure Love—a Reality = Love that alone Knows what’s really going on and what’s really preferable—shines through everything, including each conscious moment.
And, just as the right discipline can help us better relate our ideas meaningfully to our feelings (even though feelings are wider and deeper than ideas(; the right discipline can help us better relate our ideas and feelings to Pure Love (even though Pure Love is wider and deeper than our ideas and feelings).
Of course, we cannot reasonably expect to relate our finite thoughts and feelings to Infinite Love. And confusing our ideas and feelings for the Absolute is a fundamental metaphysical error. Indeed, we cannot help but to commit this fault to some degree all the time. We cannot help but feel our own notions as REAL, TRUE, and OH-SO-SIGNIFICANT.
Therefore, our only reliable path towards more wisdom would be one that understood human wisdom as an ongoing effort to get better and better at relating our limited faculties to the Unlimited Reality. This process would require us to constantly remember that our ideas and feelings about Reality are not the same as Reality; and that insight would require us to constantly adjust as we inevitably over- and under-shoot Reality, by turns pretending that our notions about Reality are more perfect than they are and pretending that we’ve no meaningful sense of Reality and the standards for thought and action that insight into Reality = Loveimply.
Picture that scenario, and ask yourself: “Why not?”
Why couldn’t we have a poetic (pointing meaningfully towards, without pretending we can literally capture), self-observing/-critiquing/-adjusting organization of our feeling/thinking/acting around a Pure Love aspect of our conscious moment? Why couldn’t we get better and better at living in, through, and for the Love that chooses everyone? Isn’t it possible that the mystics are onto something?
Concomitant with our sense that for our thoughts and actions to be meaningful to us, they must be grounded by the universal values (aware, honest, clear, competent, compassionate, loving king, joyfully sharing) and most fundamentally in a spiritual Love that Knows the Way, is our sense of the soundness of the standard spiritual practices.
What are the standard spiritual practices written into each and every human conscious moment?
Something like this:
Prayer, meditation, reflection, study, fellowship, losing oneself in art and beauty, and practicing loving kindness, patience, humility, and selfless service—all underpinned by a faith in the primacy of the Love that chooses everyone balanced by the insight that our ideas and feelings about the Absolute are never identical with the Absolute (this fundamental spiritual humility is the foundation for our ability to constantly improve the always-imperfect relationship between our limited faculties and the Unlimited). 
Awareness of our fundamental psychological landscape (as sketched out above) does not prove that Pure Love is Real, or that the universal values are (as they claim to be) ultimately grounded in something along the lines of Love = Reality. 
However, awareness of this general mind-scape does make it clear that we have only one choice: 
We can accept our own inborn and indelible rules for coherently feeling, thinking and acting (i.e., our own inborn rules for being meaningful to ourselves) and work every day to make good use of (a) the universal values and (b) standard spiritual practices, to get better and better at living in and through and for a Love = Reality that chooses everyone; or we can slip and slide in ideas, feelings, conclusions, and actions that we don’t really understand, believe in, care about, or follow.
If there is a spiritual Love that chooses everyone shining through everything, and if we can get better and better at organizing our feeling, thinking, and acting around that Love (or, perhaps more accurately: better and better at letting It organize the rest of our conscious experience around Itself); then we have a chance at being meaningful to ourselves. We simply need to follow the path of the mystics—the path towards more and more engagement with the Love that surpasses, but that is not necessarily therefore completely inaccessible to, human understanding.
Something Deeperism is the general worldview that the mystics are onto something and we all already have that sense-of-things within us, and so we all have the ability to become more meaningful to ourselves.
The philosophy of Something Deeperism does not offer an intellectual or even an emotional proof of the divine. Something Deeperism does not believe such things are possible, and Something Deeperism does believe confusing one’s intellectual and emotional notions for the Truth is wrongheaded and counterproductive.
What the philosophy of Something Deeperism offers is a sketch of the conscious moment and an invitation to embark upon a life long journey to keep improving one’s own, whole-being (ideas, feelings, and the Pure Love we’re positing as shining through all things—all working together meaningfully, though of course not perfectly) experiential proof of Something Deeperism.
Something Deeperism envisions wisdom not as a set of literally-true ideas tied to feelings of certainty, but as an ongoing, poetic (pointing-meaningfully-towards rather than literally, definitively, or exclusively capturing) organization of ideas and feelings around, and their reaction to, a Love that is infinitely wider and deeper than our ideas and feelings. 
Something Deeperism envisions wisdom as an ongoing process: We constantly observe, analyze, critique, and adjust our inner organization and (of necessity imperfect) living interpretation of perfect Love.

Copyright: Andy Watson