What to write??? I'm terribly bored and this is the only thing i can think of doing. It's been a year since I last posted here.
There's a topic I've wanted to write about. The desire like the wind comes and goes. I shift from feeling highly confident in my knowledge of the subject to feeling my understanding is rather inadequate. I suppose I'll just have to lay my ideas out and subject them to criticism and see what happens.
I want to write about symbols. And I suppose along with it, ritual. What I intended on making a positive statement about the nature of symbols and their relationship with the ideas they represent and people's feeling of united-ness, I am instead going to make a question. I am not quite as confident in the statement as I originally believed I was. The question is this: In group identity (I suppose I'm MOSTLY talking about religion) is the shared acceptance of a symbol what is most important or is it the shared acceptance of the idea the symbol represents?
The reason I ask this question is that it has been my observation that two individuals within a faith tradition can believe such different things about God, the Universe, themselves, etc. that to say they were adherents to the same idea would be questionable. Perhaps absurd. Despite this, they will identify themselves as being of the same belief. If it is not the ideas that connect two such people, what is it? It is the shared symbolic framework that facilitates the sense of "oneness" between these two individuals. That two people can share a symbolic frame and hold different ideas about what that frame is supposed to be related to is evidence of the ambiguity of symbols.
I'm going to stop here for now. I really should give an example, but I'll do it later. This is an idea that one of my professors has spoken of so I know I can't be totally ass-crackers about it. I witnessed this occurring and became aware of it before I heard of or read of it. I point that out to show that I'm not merely regurgitating what I've been told, though It's not an idea that only I hold.
Au revoir.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Addendum
I would like to make clear that my previous post is not a complete discussion of the subject. It should be an obvious fact that religion is not something that exists in a single form, it is transformed by each heart that takes it in. There are as many forms of a religion as there are hearts to alter it.
Also, a proper understanding of exaltation could potentially release it as a vice. Unfortunately, I feel it is too often an object that is coveted which I find to be wholly improper.
Also, a proper understanding of exaltation could potentially release it as a vice. Unfortunately, I feel it is too often an object that is coveted which I find to be wholly improper.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Will
The Stoics realize that the self, though experienced as an independent entity, is in fact only a portion of the great Whole, a part of the Body of God. This concept of God and Wholeness is shared by many ancient and modern spiritual traditions, though in slightly varied modes based on cultural context. It is the Brahman in India, the Tao in China. The idea may also exist in the original philosophy taught by Buddha and in the teachings of the Sufi of Islam. I once read about a Jewish esoteric tradition that believed Stoicism was the true meaning of the Torah. The point is that the principle of oneness with the Universe and God and an understanding that the ego is illusory exists within traditions across the world, though it doesn't seem that the concept typically penetrates the common belief. I contend that the concept exists within Mormonism as well, though implicitly, contained in allegory and buried under pretensions of egoism.
The initial ritual a convert to Mormonism partakes in is Baptism. Baptism is a symbolic washing away of an individual's sins and entrance into the church and the Body of Christ. This baptism is reaffirmed and renewed weekly by partaking of the sacrament, symbols of the Body of Christ. It is believed to bring a person at one with God and functions to bring a person into unity with the community. Mormonism also provides a means for the deceased to enter into the baptism by proxy of the living. Those individuals who have had this ordinance performed for them must accept it in their postmortem estate. It is understood that all souls (with perhaps a very few exceptions) will ultimately accept their baptism and realize their position in the organization of God. If this is understood from the perspective of God, that of eternity, all souls participate in the baptism. They always have and always will. The only difference among them is at what point in the temporal illusion they realize this status.
In partaking of the sacraments, taking on the name of Christ and asking for His Spirit to be with them, a person is offering their will to serve the purposes of God, and effectively becoming incorporated within the Body and under the Mind of Christ. The symbolism of men being a part of a single body is one shared by Christianity and Stoicism. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two allegories. In Stoicism, the self is realized to be a part of a greater moving body, the Universe. In Mormonism, the fact of the self is emphasized and entering into the body and giving of the will is an act of volition. One is a simple fact, the other choice. One an intellectual understanding of the illusion of the ego, the other a belief in the fact of the ego and the good in sacrificing it for a greater cause. However, that greater cause is often viewed as also being a means to rewards for the ego. Thus, Mormonism is a religion of the ego, keeping with the tradition of Christianity. It severs its parts and attempts to gather them all up again. I believe this to be its deepest flaw and primary departure from the truth. Though, it is more an error of emphasis than doctrine, but not one I foresee changing.
The concept of Zion in Mormonism is one of an ideal society in the form of a city organized under the highest laws of God. The qualities commonly associated with Zion is a people of "one mind and one heart." Zion is no longer designated as a physical place, but as a yearning of the heart, though it is generally accepted that it will one day be an actual city. There is an equatable concept in Stoicism, though more as an ideal than as a proposal for an actual city. This is known as the "City of Zeus" which would be populated by rational beings who hold their own well being subordinate to the well being of his fellow citizens, working actively towards the benefit of the whole. Zion believes in the common goal of building God's kingdom and working for God in His purpose (which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man) as received through revelation; the Stoic Cosmopolis believes that, through reason, rational beings can realize the good of united effort and communal good. The fundamental difference, again, is the ego. God's purpose, according to Mormonism, is to bring about man's salvation. Men unite and do good for the sake of their individual place in God's kingdom. It is simultaneously an inflation and submission of the individual. I suspect that this psychological problem of Mormonism will cause Zion to never be fully realized. In Stoicism the person no longer identifies himself as an individual, but instead as a part of the Whole. That is the reality they see. The idea of rewards in life or after it is meaningless in the Stoic ethic (which I will discuss later). Stoicism appears to be a more capable means of bringing about a society of single mind and heart than Mormonism.
That being said, I feel it necessary to point out the adaptive qualities of egoist religion. There is a reason the "western" world has dominated global politics over the past several centuries. There is a reason they innovate at a faster rate than other societies. I think a part of this is the belief in the ego and working towards its benefit. Furthermore, it could be possible that the common mind is incapable of comprehending the ideas behind Stoicism and unable to handle the ramifications of egolessness. If this is the case, the Mormon model may make more sense than the Stoic. This could be why, as mentioned in the Bible, Jesus would speak in parables instead of explicits, so that each mind can take from the words what it is capable of taking.
The initial ritual a convert to Mormonism partakes in is Baptism. Baptism is a symbolic washing away of an individual's sins and entrance into the church and the Body of Christ. This baptism is reaffirmed and renewed weekly by partaking of the sacrament, symbols of the Body of Christ. It is believed to bring a person at one with God and functions to bring a person into unity with the community. Mormonism also provides a means for the deceased to enter into the baptism by proxy of the living. Those individuals who have had this ordinance performed for them must accept it in their postmortem estate. It is understood that all souls (with perhaps a very few exceptions) will ultimately accept their baptism and realize their position in the organization of God. If this is understood from the perspective of God, that of eternity, all souls participate in the baptism. They always have and always will. The only difference among them is at what point in the temporal illusion they realize this status.
In partaking of the sacraments, taking on the name of Christ and asking for His Spirit to be with them, a person is offering their will to serve the purposes of God, and effectively becoming incorporated within the Body and under the Mind of Christ. The symbolism of men being a part of a single body is one shared by Christianity and Stoicism. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two allegories. In Stoicism, the self is realized to be a part of a greater moving body, the Universe. In Mormonism, the fact of the self is emphasized and entering into the body and giving of the will is an act of volition. One is a simple fact, the other choice. One an intellectual understanding of the illusion of the ego, the other a belief in the fact of the ego and the good in sacrificing it for a greater cause. However, that greater cause is often viewed as also being a means to rewards for the ego. Thus, Mormonism is a religion of the ego, keeping with the tradition of Christianity. It severs its parts and attempts to gather them all up again. I believe this to be its deepest flaw and primary departure from the truth. Though, it is more an error of emphasis than doctrine, but not one I foresee changing.
The concept of Zion in Mormonism is one of an ideal society in the form of a city organized under the highest laws of God. The qualities commonly associated with Zion is a people of "one mind and one heart." Zion is no longer designated as a physical place, but as a yearning of the heart, though it is generally accepted that it will one day be an actual city. There is an equatable concept in Stoicism, though more as an ideal than as a proposal for an actual city. This is known as the "City of Zeus" which would be populated by rational beings who hold their own well being subordinate to the well being of his fellow citizens, working actively towards the benefit of the whole. Zion believes in the common goal of building God's kingdom and working for God in His purpose (which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man) as received through revelation; the Stoic Cosmopolis believes that, through reason, rational beings can realize the good of united effort and communal good. The fundamental difference, again, is the ego. God's purpose, according to Mormonism, is to bring about man's salvation. Men unite and do good for the sake of their individual place in God's kingdom. It is simultaneously an inflation and submission of the individual. I suspect that this psychological problem of Mormonism will cause Zion to never be fully realized. In Stoicism the person no longer identifies himself as an individual, but instead as a part of the Whole. That is the reality they see. The idea of rewards in life or after it is meaningless in the Stoic ethic (which I will discuss later). Stoicism appears to be a more capable means of bringing about a society of single mind and heart than Mormonism.
That being said, I feel it necessary to point out the adaptive qualities of egoist religion. There is a reason the "western" world has dominated global politics over the past several centuries. There is a reason they innovate at a faster rate than other societies. I think a part of this is the belief in the ego and working towards its benefit. Furthermore, it could be possible that the common mind is incapable of comprehending the ideas behind Stoicism and unable to handle the ramifications of egolessness. If this is the case, the Mormon model may make more sense than the Stoic. This could be why, as mentioned in the Bible, Jesus would speak in parables instead of explicits, so that each mind can take from the words what it is capable of taking.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
A Quote
I found this quote today. I liked it.
"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive."
--Albert Einstein
I'm formulating my thoughts for my next post. Soon.
"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive."
--Albert Einstein
I'm formulating my thoughts for my next post. Soon.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
God
I was asked today, by the only person I'm aware of who frequents this blog, why I have not posted an entry in the past two weeks. I told her that I was gathering material, which is a half truth. I've begun a correspondence with a friend of mine, who is LDS and a philosophy major, concerning the compatibility of Mormonism and Stoicism. His evaluation confirmed a lot of my own feelings on the matter. That is part of the "material" I've been gathering. I've also discovered, somewhat by accident, a list of quotations by LDS Apostle Neal A. Maxwell on the subject of the omniscience of God that elucidates the subject I am discussing.
I would like to dedicate this entry to the topic that is at the heart of this entire matter and then work around it with later posts. This is the question of "what is 'God?'" A discussion of the topic of Destiny is necessary to accompany this, because in Stoicism God and Destiny are inseparable.
I must begin a discussion of God by saying that the word "God" is mostly meaningless. When the books of the Bible were translated into the European languages, the word "God" was substituted as a blanket word for a plethora of words and phrases from the original. There is Elohim and Yahweh (Jehovah) and many others. It does not represent a single concept. Furthermore, the "God" of Mormonism does not nearly constitute the same idea as that of Stoicism. To compare the two would be a gross equivocation. One is a corporeal being of vast creative power and influence, the other an abstract conception of moving fire and reason. What I believe is important about the word is that it is the label for what the user reveres as the ultimate source of himself and the world he lives in. This being said, I am not going to even attempt to avoid using the word; just understand that when I refer to either the Mormon or Stoic God, I am not speaking of equatable concepts.
A substantial problem when discussing the God of Mormonism is that, in my opinion, it is impossible to hold a clear and consistent image of what God is based off of the scriptural accounts or testimonies of individuals. The idea of God is not understood identically by all Mormons. What I have observed is that God is understood in parts and rarely as a whole concept. Growing up, I learned that God the Father was once a man like Jesus, born into the Universe and raised out of that estate into Godhood. There is no agreement on whether he is or is not the Creator of the Universe or just a select portion of it. There is a general consensus that God is now stagnant in his perfection, but there are dissenters who believe that he continues to progress. It is agreed that it is knowledge and an incorruptible flesh that makes God a God. The Mormon God does not seem to be a being that exists outside or in any way transcend the Universe. He lives in it and is a part of it, which is (though they may deny it) a major digression from the belief of the rest of Christianity. There seems to be very little real attempt by Mormons to wrap their heads around the concept (and I suspect some may not really believe) that God is Omniscient. The concept of Omniscience is central to the topic at hand.
In the LDS literature it is said that time to God exists as an "eternal now." Past, present, and future are seen by God as an entirety. In fact, there is no past, present, or future, only the whole, the fourth dimension. This is an idea that I understand as the Block-Universe model of time. The future preexists as surely as the past. If this is true (I contend it is) then it presents serious questions over whether human agency is real. If the future already exists, then a person's actions in the future must already be decided. Where then is agency? This is an especially difficult concept for the Mormon mind because Mormons are constantly affirming the existence of their free will and the non-existence of fate. The idea of Omniscience and the "eternal now" are not generally taught and watered down when they are. The Mormon (like most Westerners) are unwillingly to give up their free will and find every excuse to avoid doing so. (Actually the giving up of free will is a topic I want to discuss in a later post). Determinism (in different terminology) is Mormon doctrine. It is also the Stoic doctrine from which all of its other doctrines rely on. However, Stoics and Mormons agree that this does not wholly negate agency. Agency exists, as Apostle Neal A. Maxwell and I independently agree upon, in the fact that we are ignorant of our futures. For a comprehensive list of quotes from the Apostle Maxwell visit this webpage. The point is, unbeknown by most Mormons, Destiny is the doctrine. It is confirmed by reason and revelation.
So back to the idea of God. I have not yet adequately described the God of Stoicism. The Stoic God is the author and mover of the Universe and Destiny. It is not something outside or a part of the Universe. It exists in the Universe and is the Universe. It is the Word, reason, the physical laws governing the Creation, fate. It would be fair, as many do, to not recognize this concept as deity at all.
It seems fair to say that the God of Mormonism's power resides in His understanding of the God of Stoicism. It is what makes Him able to govern and command the elements with perfect faith what they will and must do. He knows the laws and the plan of Destiny. The label of "God" is mostly arbitrary and really only depends, as stated earlier, what an individual reveres as his ultimate source, Destiny or the Great Commander of Destiny who was the Architect of this world.
More later.
I would like to dedicate this entry to the topic that is at the heart of this entire matter and then work around it with later posts. This is the question of "what is 'God?'" A discussion of the topic of Destiny is necessary to accompany this, because in Stoicism God and Destiny are inseparable.
I must begin a discussion of God by saying that the word "God" is mostly meaningless. When the books of the Bible were translated into the European languages, the word "God" was substituted as a blanket word for a plethora of words and phrases from the original. There is Elohim and Yahweh (Jehovah) and many others. It does not represent a single concept. Furthermore, the "God" of Mormonism does not nearly constitute the same idea as that of Stoicism. To compare the two would be a gross equivocation. One is a corporeal being of vast creative power and influence, the other an abstract conception of moving fire and reason. What I believe is important about the word is that it is the label for what the user reveres as the ultimate source of himself and the world he lives in. This being said, I am not going to even attempt to avoid using the word; just understand that when I refer to either the Mormon or Stoic God, I am not speaking of equatable concepts.
A substantial problem when discussing the God of Mormonism is that, in my opinion, it is impossible to hold a clear and consistent image of what God is based off of the scriptural accounts or testimonies of individuals. The idea of God is not understood identically by all Mormons. What I have observed is that God is understood in parts and rarely as a whole concept. Growing up, I learned that God the Father was once a man like Jesus, born into the Universe and raised out of that estate into Godhood. There is no agreement on whether he is or is not the Creator of the Universe or just a select portion of it. There is a general consensus that God is now stagnant in his perfection, but there are dissenters who believe that he continues to progress. It is agreed that it is knowledge and an incorruptible flesh that makes God a God. The Mormon God does not seem to be a being that exists outside or in any way transcend the Universe. He lives in it and is a part of it, which is (though they may deny it) a major digression from the belief of the rest of Christianity. There seems to be very little real attempt by Mormons to wrap their heads around the concept (and I suspect some may not really believe) that God is Omniscient. The concept of Omniscience is central to the topic at hand.
In the LDS literature it is said that time to God exists as an "eternal now." Past, present, and future are seen by God as an entirety. In fact, there is no past, present, or future, only the whole, the fourth dimension. This is an idea that I understand as the Block-Universe model of time. The future preexists as surely as the past. If this is true (I contend it is) then it presents serious questions over whether human agency is real. If the future already exists, then a person's actions in the future must already be decided. Where then is agency? This is an especially difficult concept for the Mormon mind because Mormons are constantly affirming the existence of their free will and the non-existence of fate. The idea of Omniscience and the "eternal now" are not generally taught and watered down when they are. The Mormon (like most Westerners) are unwillingly to give up their free will and find every excuse to avoid doing so. (Actually the giving up of free will is a topic I want to discuss in a later post). Determinism (in different terminology) is Mormon doctrine. It is also the Stoic doctrine from which all of its other doctrines rely on. However, Stoics and Mormons agree that this does not wholly negate agency. Agency exists, as Apostle Neal A. Maxwell and I independently agree upon, in the fact that we are ignorant of our futures. For a comprehensive list of quotes from the Apostle Maxwell visit this webpage. The point is, unbeknown by most Mormons, Destiny is the doctrine. It is confirmed by reason and revelation.
So back to the idea of God. I have not yet adequately described the God of Stoicism. The Stoic God is the author and mover of the Universe and Destiny. It is not something outside or a part of the Universe. It exists in the Universe and is the Universe. It is the Word, reason, the physical laws governing the Creation, fate. It would be fair, as many do, to not recognize this concept as deity at all.
It seems fair to say that the God of Mormonism's power resides in His understanding of the God of Stoicism. It is what makes Him able to govern and command the elements with perfect faith what they will and must do. He knows the laws and the plan of Destiny. The label of "God" is mostly arbitrary and really only depends, as stated earlier, what an individual reveres as his ultimate source, Destiny or the Great Commander of Destiny who was the Architect of this world.
More later.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Marine Corps
In a completely different vein than the last post:
I have heard that there are those among the enemy who actually believe recruits are required to kill their mothers before they can become Marines. Whether or not that's true, it is obvious that the enemy fears the Marine Corps far more than they fear the Army. There's a detachment from my platoon at a base in Iraq that has been officially turned over from the Marine Corps to the Army. The base has gone on with few incidents of attack for quite some time, but almost as soon as all of the Marine Corps left (minus the detachment from my platoon) there were several attacks on the base and in the city included three vehicle borne IEDs targeting civilians and three sniper attacks against (army) soldiers.
There could definitely be other explanations as to why the level of attacks have increased since the Army took over other than the fact that enemy fears them less than us, but it's certainly an interesting coincidence if nothing else.
I have heard that there are those among the enemy who actually believe recruits are required to kill their mothers before they can become Marines. Whether or not that's true, it is obvious that the enemy fears the Marine Corps far more than they fear the Army. There's a detachment from my platoon at a base in Iraq that has been officially turned over from the Marine Corps to the Army. The base has gone on with few incidents of attack for quite some time, but almost as soon as all of the Marine Corps left (minus the detachment from my platoon) there were several attacks on the base and in the city included three vehicle borne IEDs targeting civilians and three sniper attacks against (army) soldiers.
There could definitely be other explanations as to why the level of attacks have increased since the Army took over other than the fact that enemy fears them less than us, but it's certainly an interesting coincidence if nothing else.
Stoicism and Mormonism
I have very little to do these days, so I figure I would take up writing here again. I'm not sure what the point is since I know of only one person who occasionally takes a glance at this page. But whatev.
My thoughts, as they often are, are on the subject of religion and cosmology. If I would spend as much time thinking on a subject of practical worth (like politics or knitting) as I do on religion, I might actually become a person with some value to the world. Alas, I have and do not. Hopefully some few ounces of actual product will result of my labor in the etherworld.
From time to time my soul will visit the possibility of a synthesis between the conception of nature and morality that my mind (whether rightly or wrongly) is determined to believe in and the religion that I was brought into the world with. If I had an extreme distaste for my parent's religion, there would be no value in such an evaluation. When reason finally tore down the last pillars of my faith, I felt enraged at the betrayal; but the realization that resulted from my friendships (one in particular) with people within the faith cured me of that bitterness. Despite its shortcomings, the Church has a tendency of producing good people dedicated to good virtues. Considering that it seems to be a human attribute to prove to ourselves what we desire to believe, I can't help but be glad there are those who desire to believe in goodness and virtue. (Of course the causes of belief are a bit more complicated than simple desire).
I am a Stoic and a Mormon. The first is what, through excessive meditation of things inward and outward, I have realized myself to be. It is what I believe. The second is what I was raised to believe. It is what shaped me. My culture. My society. A large bureau of my heart. It is natural that I would, occasionally, be drawn back to it, especially since I have yet to find a religious community with which I am a good fit. I want to belong. Call that a weakness of character, call it what you will, but I want to commune with other spirits and Mormonism is the context in which I am adapted to associate.
I hope I have begged the question: then why don't you just be a Mormon? The answer to this requires some explanation.
When I was a younger man (16 or so, if that's old enough to be a man), I stumbled upon a pamphlet written by Percy Bysshe Shelley entitled "The Necessity of Atheism" for which the author was expelled from Oxford. Though I did not agree with the ultimate conclusion of the essay (I'm not an Atheist), I did find that I agreed with the authors evaluation of the nature of belief. Essentially, it is that belief is a passive passion of the mind and not a power of volition. I must expound the character of my agreement because it is central to the subject of this entry. I actually believe the word "belief" carries with it two different concepts that are separate but interactive. The first belief is what Percy Shelley describes in his pamphlet. This is a passion of the mind. It evaluates coldly what it can and can not believe based on the evidence given to it. The second is volitional belief, the willful acceptance of an idea based on emotional desire. The etymological root of the word belief is the same as the word love. The two halves of belief are heavily interactive and not always distinguishable.
I believe in Stoicism because out of all the possible beliefs I could have according to the cold belief, it is the one the emotional belief accepts. It appears to me to be the best among all the possibilities that I can reasonably accept. I think I know it to be true as well as any man can know something to be true. It is not in my character to be dishonest with myself. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I make every effort to correct myself when it does.
So the question that remains is whether or not I can believe in Mormonism. Stoicism is not precisely a religion. It is a philosophy with religious ramifications. It existed, in its prime, both in and out of religious framework. Many Roman Stoics adapted their mythology to work with the philosophy. Some of its threads have been added to the tapestry of both Christian and Jewish heritage. As for Mormonism, I'm going to hold off on passing a final judgment for now, though I have a strong suspicion of what it will turn out to be; There's a reason I don't go to church. Ultimately, the question lies in whether or not one such as I would be accepted by the community, since that is what I am really seeking. Stoicism and Mormonism actually have a lot of very similar concepts. If understood symbolically, Mormonism provides a rather perfect framework for Stoicism, and I feel that the addition of Stoicism actually completes Mormonism. However, Mormonism, meaning the beliefs that are generally agreed upon by Mormons at large, is one of literalism, not allegory.
When I think about grafting myself back into the church body, there is primarily one sticking point that keeps me from believing it to be a possible choice. This is the temple. More specifically, the interview that is mandatory to pass before entrance is granted into the temple. Most of the questions I could answer in the desired way, no problem, or at least could if I had the conviction to live according to the church's guidelines (which wouldn't be too difficult a change). But there are two that I would have issues with. The first, whether I believe Jesus Christ to be the Lord and Redeemer of the World, I can answer affirmatively if I take the question in a symbolic context, which is probably a bit shady. But it doesn't really matter because to the second question, whether or not I believe the President of the Church to be a literal prophet of God, I simply can not rationalize to agree with. The evidence appears to point in an opposing direction.
So why not be a non-temple going Mormon? Because I am afraid that I will not be respected, and, unfortunately, I feel that I deserve it. Furthermore, I might be viewed as a heretic, which could bring the churches judgment against me. They have a bad habit of disfellowshipping members of their congregations who have unusual ideas about the church. I could keep my mouth shut, but that would be difficult for me. I want to teach.
Why do I even bother with this question? Because truth is a white light and the faiths are stained windows, and I believe Mormonism to be of a particularly beautiful scene.
I'm planning to make future entries comparing specific aspects of Mormonism and Stoicism, showing how they might work together, why they might not, how Mormonism could be reinterpreted to allow Stoicism in, and what the moral ramifications of that would be. Why? Because it could be fun and it might be advantageous to get these ideas out of my head and onto (digital) paper so my brain can reattach itself to something that matters a bit more.
My thoughts, as they often are, are on the subject of religion and cosmology. If I would spend as much time thinking on a subject of practical worth (like politics or knitting) as I do on religion, I might actually become a person with some value to the world. Alas, I have and do not. Hopefully some few ounces of actual product will result of my labor in the etherworld.
From time to time my soul will visit the possibility of a synthesis between the conception of nature and morality that my mind (whether rightly or wrongly) is determined to believe in and the religion that I was brought into the world with. If I had an extreme distaste for my parent's religion, there would be no value in such an evaluation. When reason finally tore down the last pillars of my faith, I felt enraged at the betrayal; but the realization that resulted from my friendships (one in particular) with people within the faith cured me of that bitterness. Despite its shortcomings, the Church has a tendency of producing good people dedicated to good virtues. Considering that it seems to be a human attribute to prove to ourselves what we desire to believe, I can't help but be glad there are those who desire to believe in goodness and virtue. (Of course the causes of belief are a bit more complicated than simple desire).
I am a Stoic and a Mormon. The first is what, through excessive meditation of things inward and outward, I have realized myself to be. It is what I believe. The second is what I was raised to believe. It is what shaped me. My culture. My society. A large bureau of my heart. It is natural that I would, occasionally, be drawn back to it, especially since I have yet to find a religious community with which I am a good fit. I want to belong. Call that a weakness of character, call it what you will, but I want to commune with other spirits and Mormonism is the context in which I am adapted to associate.
I hope I have begged the question: then why don't you just be a Mormon? The answer to this requires some explanation.
When I was a younger man (16 or so, if that's old enough to be a man), I stumbled upon a pamphlet written by Percy Bysshe Shelley entitled "The Necessity of Atheism" for which the author was expelled from Oxford. Though I did not agree with the ultimate conclusion of the essay (I'm not an Atheist), I did find that I agreed with the authors evaluation of the nature of belief. Essentially, it is that belief is a passive passion of the mind and not a power of volition. I must expound the character of my agreement because it is central to the subject of this entry. I actually believe the word "belief" carries with it two different concepts that are separate but interactive. The first belief is what Percy Shelley describes in his pamphlet. This is a passion of the mind. It evaluates coldly what it can and can not believe based on the evidence given to it. The second is volitional belief, the willful acceptance of an idea based on emotional desire. The etymological root of the word belief is the same as the word love. The two halves of belief are heavily interactive and not always distinguishable.
I believe in Stoicism because out of all the possible beliefs I could have according to the cold belief, it is the one the emotional belief accepts. It appears to me to be the best among all the possibilities that I can reasonably accept. I think I know it to be true as well as any man can know something to be true. It is not in my character to be dishonest with myself. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I make every effort to correct myself when it does.
So the question that remains is whether or not I can believe in Mormonism. Stoicism is not precisely a religion. It is a philosophy with religious ramifications. It existed, in its prime, both in and out of religious framework. Many Roman Stoics adapted their mythology to work with the philosophy. Some of its threads have been added to the tapestry of both Christian and Jewish heritage. As for Mormonism, I'm going to hold off on passing a final judgment for now, though I have a strong suspicion of what it will turn out to be; There's a reason I don't go to church. Ultimately, the question lies in whether or not one such as I would be accepted by the community, since that is what I am really seeking. Stoicism and Mormonism actually have a lot of very similar concepts. If understood symbolically, Mormonism provides a rather perfect framework for Stoicism, and I feel that the addition of Stoicism actually completes Mormonism. However, Mormonism, meaning the beliefs that are generally agreed upon by Mormons at large, is one of literalism, not allegory.
When I think about grafting myself back into the church body, there is primarily one sticking point that keeps me from believing it to be a possible choice. This is the temple. More specifically, the interview that is mandatory to pass before entrance is granted into the temple. Most of the questions I could answer in the desired way, no problem, or at least could if I had the conviction to live according to the church's guidelines (which wouldn't be too difficult a change). But there are two that I would have issues with. The first, whether I believe Jesus Christ to be the Lord and Redeemer of the World, I can answer affirmatively if I take the question in a symbolic context, which is probably a bit shady. But it doesn't really matter because to the second question, whether or not I believe the President of the Church to be a literal prophet of God, I simply can not rationalize to agree with. The evidence appears to point in an opposing direction.
So why not be a non-temple going Mormon? Because I am afraid that I will not be respected, and, unfortunately, I feel that I deserve it. Furthermore, I might be viewed as a heretic, which could bring the churches judgment against me. They have a bad habit of disfellowshipping members of their congregations who have unusual ideas about the church. I could keep my mouth shut, but that would be difficult for me. I want to teach.
Why do I even bother with this question? Because truth is a white light and the faiths are stained windows, and I believe Mormonism to be of a particularly beautiful scene.
I'm planning to make future entries comparing specific aspects of Mormonism and Stoicism, showing how they might work together, why they might not, how Mormonism could be reinterpreted to allow Stoicism in, and what the moral ramifications of that would be. Why? Because it could be fun and it might be advantageous to get these ideas out of my head and onto (digital) paper so my brain can reattach itself to something that matters a bit more.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Stoic "God"
From Stanford encyclopedia,
Stoics, like the Epicureans, make God material. But while the Epicureans think the gods are too busy being blessed and happy to be bothered with the governance of the universe (Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus 123–4), the Stoic God is immanent throughout the whole of creation and directs its development down to the smallest detail. God is identical with one of the two ungenerated and indestructible first principles (archai) of the universe. One principle is matter which they regard as utterly unqualified and inert. It is that which is acted upon. God is identified with an eternal reason (logos, Diog. Laert. 44B ) or intelligent designing fire (Aetius, 46A) which structures matter in accordance with Its plan. This plan is enacted time and time again, beginning from a state in which all is fire, through the generation of the elements, to the creation of the world we are familiar with, and eventually back to fire in a cycle of endless recurrence. The designing fire of the conflagration is likened to a sperm which contains the principles or stories of all the things which will subsequently develop (Aristocles in Eusebius, 46G). Under this guise, God is also called `fate.' It is important to realise that the Stoic God does not craft its world in accordance with its plan from the outside, as the demiurge in Plato's Timaeus is described as doing. Rather, the history of the universe is determined by God's activity internal to it, shaping it with its differentiated characteristics. The biological conception of God as a kind of living heat or seed from which things grow seems to be fully intended.
Stoics, like the Epicureans, make God material. But while the Epicureans think the gods are too busy being blessed and happy to be bothered with the governance of the universe (Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus 123–4), the Stoic God is immanent throughout the whole of creation and directs its development down to the smallest detail. God is identical with one of the two ungenerated and indestructible first principles (archai) of the universe. One principle is matter which they regard as utterly unqualified and inert. It is that which is acted upon. God is identified with an eternal reason (logos, Diog. Laert. 44B ) or intelligent designing fire (Aetius, 46A) which structures matter in accordance with Its plan. This plan is enacted time and time again, beginning from a state in which all is fire, through the generation of the elements, to the creation of the world we are familiar with, and eventually back to fire in a cycle of endless recurrence. The designing fire of the conflagration is likened to a sperm which contains the principles or stories of all the things which will subsequently develop (Aristocles in Eusebius, 46G). Under this guise, God is also called `fate.' It is important to realise that the Stoic God does not craft its world in accordance with its plan from the outside, as the demiurge in Plato's Timaeus is described as doing. Rather, the history of the universe is determined by God's activity internal to it, shaping it with its differentiated characteristics. The biological conception of God as a kind of living heat or seed from which things grow seems to be fully intended.
Friday, April 10, 2009
I'm feeling strangely moody. I'm thinking a bit of blogging my help me discern why.
I watched most of the LDS conference this past weekend. I didn't necessarily pay attention through most of it, but I was physically present in my downstairs neighbor's living room with my LDS friends where the conference was being streamed from the internet to to a television via a hookup with a computer. There was more than one talk that stressed faith and refuted doubt. This piqued my interest. Not because I found it spiritually uplifting. I didn't. It interested me because it taught me a lot about human nature and religious structures. I realized at an early age that truth, if it is actually truth, will maintain its veracity beneath an eye of skepticism. I also decided that if a religion were the one truth then it can be discovered as the ultimate truth by evidence that is in some way different and more legitimate than all other religions. Mormonism utilizes the same proofs as all other religions to convince its members of its truthfulness, it only does so with a different flavor. They don't realize this, and they aren't meant to.
I'm done talking about that.
I don't want to write anymore. I should be happy. I was all day until now and I have no reason not to be. It's been a good day. Despite this, I'm sad. I'm lonely, actually... It's not because I don't have friends. It's because I can't reach the girl I'm dating on the level I want to. That's just speculation. It's probably not the real cause.
I took a Jungian personality test. It thought it was very accurate. Not perfectly, of course. But very good. I'm the type INFJ. Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Judging.
dsfk;fk;dfkjsfijppi
I watched most of the LDS conference this past weekend. I didn't necessarily pay attention through most of it, but I was physically present in my downstairs neighbor's living room with my LDS friends where the conference was being streamed from the internet to to a television via a hookup with a computer. There was more than one talk that stressed faith and refuted doubt. This piqued my interest. Not because I found it spiritually uplifting. I didn't. It interested me because it taught me a lot about human nature and religious structures. I realized at an early age that truth, if it is actually truth, will maintain its veracity beneath an eye of skepticism. I also decided that if a religion were the one truth then it can be discovered as the ultimate truth by evidence that is in some way different and more legitimate than all other religions. Mormonism utilizes the same proofs as all other religions to convince its members of its truthfulness, it only does so with a different flavor. They don't realize this, and they aren't meant to.
I'm done talking about that.
I don't want to write anymore. I should be happy. I was all day until now and I have no reason not to be. It's been a good day. Despite this, I'm sad. I'm lonely, actually... It's not because I don't have friends. It's because I can't reach the girl I'm dating on the level I want to. That's just speculation. It's probably not the real cause.
I took a Jungian personality test. It thought it was very accurate. Not perfectly, of course. But very good. I'm the type INFJ. Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Judging.
dsfk;fk;dfkjsfijppi
Monday, January 5, 2009
I wrote the post "The Mormon and Christian God" while I was at work and by mishap left the window open on the computer I was using. It was happened upon by my co-worker, a Calvinist, who thought it was an interesting article but repudiated, in a rather matter-of-fact tone, my concluding paragraph. His comment was essentially that my "conclusion just isn't quite right." He also reported to me that his father (my co-worker shared the article with him) commented that he didn't think I understand the God he believes in, which was based off of my description of the Christian God as "a hybrid of the transcendent God of the philosophers and the covenant God of Abraham."
Naturally, one who has an understanding of Christianity solely from an experiential, emic perspective would not see that description as accurate. It does not include any of the descriptions of God's character and attributes that is gathered in various conglomerations from the New Testament. From a historic and etic perspective, I hold that my description is accurate. That Christianity came out of the Hebrew tradition I believe is obvious. Jesus is a Jew. His Father is Yaweh, the God of the Jews. That Christianity is influenced by philosophic traditions might be less obvious. It is most evident in the opening verse of John's gospel in which Jesus is equated with the Word (the Logos). The importance of this statement for Christianity is evidenced by a recent Pope's (I can't remember which one right now) description of Catholicism as "the religion of the Word." The Word in the Gospel has two contexts. The first is the Hebrew context of the written Word and Law of God. The second is the philosophical context that came from the Greek traditions which is closely related to the hidden order and physical law of the universe and the God of Nature (which I think is an anachronistic use of this term). Furthermore, as Christianity came to dominate The Empire, it took on much more of the ideas that existed there, much of which came from various philosophical traditions.
As for my conclusion in that essay, it was meant to comment solely on the Mormon faith and not of the Christian. I think it was understood by my co-worker to mean that I thought the Mormon faith had more potential than the Christian. That was not my intended implication.
Naturally, one who has an understanding of Christianity solely from an experiential, emic perspective would not see that description as accurate. It does not include any of the descriptions of God's character and attributes that is gathered in various conglomerations from the New Testament. From a historic and etic perspective, I hold that my description is accurate. That Christianity came out of the Hebrew tradition I believe is obvious. Jesus is a Jew. His Father is Yaweh, the God of the Jews. That Christianity is influenced by philosophic traditions might be less obvious. It is most evident in the opening verse of John's gospel in which Jesus is equated with the Word (the Logos). The importance of this statement for Christianity is evidenced by a recent Pope's (I can't remember which one right now) description of Catholicism as "the religion of the Word." The Word in the Gospel has two contexts. The first is the Hebrew context of the written Word and Law of God. The second is the philosophical context that came from the Greek traditions which is closely related to the hidden order and physical law of the universe and the God of Nature (which I think is an anachronistic use of this term). Furthermore, as Christianity came to dominate The Empire, it took on much more of the ideas that existed there, much of which came from various philosophical traditions.
As for my conclusion in that essay, it was meant to comment solely on the Mormon faith and not of the Christian. I think it was understood by my co-worker to mean that I thought the Mormon faith had more potential than the Christian. That was not my intended implication.
Friday, November 28, 2008
The Stoics
I have come to realize that my philosophy of God, will and fate, and the unity of the creation is identical to that of the Stoics. The fact that I came to identical conclusions independently is evidence of it's self-evidence. I found an article that outlines exactly the thoughts I have had about causal determinism and it's interplay with free will.
I have just read an article by the same author on the subject of Stoicism and passions. Many of their ideals are similar to mine. They are close enough that I'm thinking that maybe I'm a Stoic and didn't know it.
I have just read an article by the same author on the subject of Stoicism and passions. Many of their ideals are similar to mine. They are close enough that I'm thinking that maybe I'm a Stoic and didn't know it.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Revelations 22
Using Revelations 22 as grounds for denouncing the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon is piously ignorant. These three facts revert such efforts:
1. Deuteronomy 4:2. According to that passage and using the same sort of reasoning used with Revelations 22 to disprove Mormonism, the entire New Testament is an invalid addition to the Book.
2. When the Book of Revelations was first transcribed, the New Testament did not exist in a compound form. The first known selection of a canon was not until 70 years after the death of John and it is not the same canon that exists today.
3. 2 and 3 John were written after Revelations.
1. Deuteronomy 4:2. According to that passage and using the same sort of reasoning used with Revelations 22 to disprove Mormonism, the entire New Testament is an invalid addition to the Book.
2. When the Book of Revelations was first transcribed, the New Testament did not exist in a compound form. The first known selection of a canon was not until 70 years after the death of John and it is not the same canon that exists today.
3. 2 and 3 John were written after Revelations.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Mormon and Christian God
I think Mormon's tend to assume that they worship the same God as do most Christians, but really the Father character in each tradition have such drastically different characteristics that they can hardly be considered the same entity.
The most common conception of God the Father in Christianity is a hybrid of the transcendent God of the philosophers and the covenant God of Abraham. He is the progenerator of the universe, omnipotent and omniscient while not interfering with the freedom of human will, benevolent and occasionally vengeful. He is something entirely inhuman, but with human sensibilities which are manifested to mankind in the form of Jesus in whom is contained all the attributes of the Deity.
The Mormon God, on the other hand, is a person of flesh and blood, perfect and incorruptable. He is, essentially, a man who has achieved through his efforts qualities which are ideal and the aspirations of all men. He even has a name, Eloheim. His power comes from his integrity and the hidden forces of the creation which yield to and are commanded by him. He did not make the elements, but they obey him and organize as he dictates. The Mormons believe the universe has always been and do not make any suggestions as to how it came to be or even that it needed to come to be. It just is. The actual capabilities of The Father are not perfectly outlined, but he is generally awarded similar attributes as the Christian God, such as omnipotence and omniscience, though these attributes must be confined to his own sphere of influence. Mormons do not discount the possibility of there being other deities similar to Eloheim who are lords of their own organized worlds elsewhere in the universe. This is why the Mormon religion is more accurately labelled as being monolatristic than monotheistic.
It is an equivocation for a Mormon to say to a Christian that he believes in God. Mormons believe in a Father who is not God. They don't believe God is needed. The reason he is called "God" is because that is how his name has been translated and because he plays essentially the same role in human affairs as God does.
Actually, that last paragraph is not entirely true, but only because the conception of God held by Mormons has changed some. It seems that the differences between the Christian and Mormon God has been deemphasized by the Mormon church. Many now seem to believe that the Mormon God is the same as the Christian God except that he has a physical body. I don't doubt that some in the church consider him to be the creator of the universe which is something that is irreconcilable with the teachings of Joseph Smith. Or it could be that they project that image of God outwardly to the world while inwardly they believe something different. Whether it is merely a deemphasis, an actual change in understanding, or just a change in outward image, the reason for it can only be the result of the evangelical mission of the church. History shows that the result of evangelism is often compromise. This is the primary reason why Catholics have saints and Christmas is celebrated in the winter. This is probably why the leaders of the LDS church have grown more quiet on this sort of doctrine. They want converts and are afraid that declaring what the church believed for the first century of it's existence will be too big of a turn off. So they don't really believe it any more. At least not as confidently.
It's a shame really. The Mormon doctrine on Deity is it's defining characteristic and also it's best. I think the church should emphasize the human attributes of the Father even more than they do. It's a doctrine that allows a person to deal with God rationally and potentially have true reverence for Him as a person. The God of Mormondom deserves our admiration because He earned it. Also, a doctrine of a God with a perfect character does not necessarily mean that God is infallible. If our spirit Father could be viewed as dynamically good but potentially fallible then we could each look at His actions and determine for ourselves what his successes and failures were the same way a boy will look at how his father raised him and choose what was good and what he will change when raising his own child. A Deity like that is one worth believing in even if he isn't actually God.
The most common conception of God the Father in Christianity is a hybrid of the transcendent God of the philosophers and the covenant God of Abraham. He is the progenerator of the universe, omnipotent and omniscient while not interfering with the freedom of human will, benevolent and occasionally vengeful. He is something entirely inhuman, but with human sensibilities which are manifested to mankind in the form of Jesus in whom is contained all the attributes of the Deity.
The Mormon God, on the other hand, is a person of flesh and blood, perfect and incorruptable. He is, essentially, a man who has achieved through his efforts qualities which are ideal and the aspirations of all men. He even has a name, Eloheim. His power comes from his integrity and the hidden forces of the creation which yield to and are commanded by him. He did not make the elements, but they obey him and organize as he dictates. The Mormons believe the universe has always been and do not make any suggestions as to how it came to be or even that it needed to come to be. It just is. The actual capabilities of The Father are not perfectly outlined, but he is generally awarded similar attributes as the Christian God, such as omnipotence and omniscience, though these attributes must be confined to his own sphere of influence. Mormons do not discount the possibility of there being other deities similar to Eloheim who are lords of their own organized worlds elsewhere in the universe. This is why the Mormon religion is more accurately labelled as being monolatristic than monotheistic.
It is an equivocation for a Mormon to say to a Christian that he believes in God. Mormons believe in a Father who is not God. They don't believe God is needed. The reason he is called "God" is because that is how his name has been translated and because he plays essentially the same role in human affairs as God does.
Actually, that last paragraph is not entirely true, but only because the conception of God held by Mormons has changed some. It seems that the differences between the Christian and Mormon God has been deemphasized by the Mormon church. Many now seem to believe that the Mormon God is the same as the Christian God except that he has a physical body. I don't doubt that some in the church consider him to be the creator of the universe which is something that is irreconcilable with the teachings of Joseph Smith. Or it could be that they project that image of God outwardly to the world while inwardly they believe something different. Whether it is merely a deemphasis, an actual change in understanding, or just a change in outward image, the reason for it can only be the result of the evangelical mission of the church. History shows that the result of evangelism is often compromise. This is the primary reason why Catholics have saints and Christmas is celebrated in the winter. This is probably why the leaders of the LDS church have grown more quiet on this sort of doctrine. They want converts and are afraid that declaring what the church believed for the first century of it's existence will be too big of a turn off. So they don't really believe it any more. At least not as confidently.
It's a shame really. The Mormon doctrine on Deity is it's defining characteristic and also it's best. I think the church should emphasize the human attributes of the Father even more than they do. It's a doctrine that allows a person to deal with God rationally and potentially have true reverence for Him as a person. The God of Mormondom deserves our admiration because He earned it. Also, a doctrine of a God with a perfect character does not necessarily mean that God is infallible. If our spirit Father could be viewed as dynamically good but potentially fallible then we could each look at His actions and determine for ourselves what his successes and failures were the same way a boy will look at how his father raised him and choose what was good and what he will change when raising his own child. A Deity like that is one worth believing in even if he isn't actually God.
Friday, November 14, 2008
I feel like writing
I'm in the mood to write, but I don't really know what I want to write. So, I guess I'll start writing and find out what's on my mind.
I was denied veteran's status by the Utah State University financial aid department. I had assumed that I qualified because West Valley College believed I did. Unfortunately, I think West Valley College is wrong and not Utah State. In order for a reservist to be awarded veteran status he/she must have served on active duty for a reason other than training, which I haven't done yet. Because Utah State does not recognize me as a veteran for financial aid evaluation, and because I am not married or 23 years old, my financial need is based off of my parent's income and not my own. Unfortunately, my father makes way too much money, but only because my family lives in a financially inflated part of the country. His inflated wage is counteracted by an equally inflated cost of living and the net product is not wealth. So, while the government expects my parents to pay for at least $10,000 of my education annually, they really can't pay for hardly any of it.
The point I'm trying to make is that I can't afford to go to school where I had planned on going next semester.
I have been forced to reevaluate what I am going to do this coming year. I have two primary options: I can continue living in Utah until I have established residency next summer and then go to a university here; or I can move back to California, go to a community college for one last semester, and then tranfer to a university in-state somewhere. I guess the question is really "do I have any reason to stay in Utah and is it worth the cost?"
My reasons at present for remaining in the infamous "Happy Valley" are these: So I can become a resident and go to school here; because I finally have something that resembles a band again; I know people here; I like the mountains; and I'm not living in my parent's house. The first reason, the one about school, I don't even know why is a reason. Why do I want to go to school here? I'm not particularily fond of Utah culture. I feel dismembered. That feeling is probably largely caused by my own psyche and not a reality, but the feeling exists none the less and it's a lonely feeling. As far as I can see there are two groups of people in Provo: Mormons and scum. I'm neither. As for the second reason, I doubt the project is going to become anything, but I hate to abandon it anyway. I guess this is the real stickler. Without this there would be no question at all about going home. I'd be gone.
I'm not in a good situation financially at present. I have a decent job that pays well enough, but being in the Marine Corps Reserve has become far too expensive and time consuming because of the travelling I have to do to get back there. The costs outweigh the compensation. I can't last doing things that way. If I went home I'd be able to go to school full time with very few expenses because I could live with my parents, though only for the short term. I'm probably deploying to Iraq sometime in the spring (presumably after the semester ends) which would be a good enough financial kicker that I'd be able to go to school pretty comfortably for a year. Plus, I would be a real veteran and couldn't be denied a grant. I could attain a A.A. degree by the end of the spring semester at West Valley, though in English and not in my intended major of Anthropology. I wouldn't mind though.
It makes so much sense to move back home for a little while. So, I guess that's what I'll do.
On another note, I've been writing music and I've been making slow and not so steady progress on a children's book that I'm writing. It's tentative title is "The Legend of Jeremy Crocket: A Christmas Adventure Story." I have a bare bones outline for it, and an idea for a (necessary) sequel, and only about 2,000 words of the actual text completed. It's about a young scholar and his effort to discover the truth about Santa Claus in order to confront the unbelief that has taken over so many hearts. The concept has drastically transformed from what it was originally meant to be. I've changed it into a fantasy of sorts, while it was originally supposed to be devoid of any magic other than what is contained in the human spirit. I think it's a good change. I've decided to make it meaningful in different ways. The story was originally conceived when I was fairly hopeless and unwilling to believe much at all. I don't want to write a hopeless book. I want it to be full of hope.
I'm a bit surprised at the sources I've drawn influence from for the story. It wasn't where it was meant to come from at all. I know that's a bit cryptic, but that's how it will have to stay. If I say too much it could draw comments and that would be detrimental. I don't want anyone to know anything about the actual story until I have a draft done.
EXEUNT
I was denied veteran's status by the Utah State University financial aid department. I had assumed that I qualified because West Valley College believed I did. Unfortunately, I think West Valley College is wrong and not Utah State. In order for a reservist to be awarded veteran status he/she must have served on active duty for a reason other than training, which I haven't done yet. Because Utah State does not recognize me as a veteran for financial aid evaluation, and because I am not married or 23 years old, my financial need is based off of my parent's income and not my own. Unfortunately, my father makes way too much money, but only because my family lives in a financially inflated part of the country. His inflated wage is counteracted by an equally inflated cost of living and the net product is not wealth. So, while the government expects my parents to pay for at least $10,000 of my education annually, they really can't pay for hardly any of it.
The point I'm trying to make is that I can't afford to go to school where I had planned on going next semester.
I have been forced to reevaluate what I am going to do this coming year. I have two primary options: I can continue living in Utah until I have established residency next summer and then go to a university here; or I can move back to California, go to a community college for one last semester, and then tranfer to a university in-state somewhere. I guess the question is really "do I have any reason to stay in Utah and is it worth the cost?"
My reasons at present for remaining in the infamous "Happy Valley" are these: So I can become a resident and go to school here; because I finally have something that resembles a band again; I know people here; I like the mountains; and I'm not living in my parent's house. The first reason, the one about school, I don't even know why is a reason. Why do I want to go to school here? I'm not particularily fond of Utah culture. I feel dismembered. That feeling is probably largely caused by my own psyche and not a reality, but the feeling exists none the less and it's a lonely feeling. As far as I can see there are two groups of people in Provo: Mormons and scum. I'm neither. As for the second reason, I doubt the project is going to become anything, but I hate to abandon it anyway. I guess this is the real stickler. Without this there would be no question at all about going home. I'd be gone.
I'm not in a good situation financially at present. I have a decent job that pays well enough, but being in the Marine Corps Reserve has become far too expensive and time consuming because of the travelling I have to do to get back there. The costs outweigh the compensation. I can't last doing things that way. If I went home I'd be able to go to school full time with very few expenses because I could live with my parents, though only for the short term. I'm probably deploying to Iraq sometime in the spring (presumably after the semester ends) which would be a good enough financial kicker that I'd be able to go to school pretty comfortably for a year. Plus, I would be a real veteran and couldn't be denied a grant. I could attain a A.A. degree by the end of the spring semester at West Valley, though in English and not in my intended major of Anthropology. I wouldn't mind though.
It makes so much sense to move back home for a little while. So, I guess that's what I'll do.
On another note, I've been writing music and I've been making slow and not so steady progress on a children's book that I'm writing. It's tentative title is "The Legend of Jeremy Crocket: A Christmas Adventure Story." I have a bare bones outline for it, and an idea for a (necessary) sequel, and only about 2,000 words of the actual text completed. It's about a young scholar and his effort to discover the truth about Santa Claus in order to confront the unbelief that has taken over so many hearts. The concept has drastically transformed from what it was originally meant to be. I've changed it into a fantasy of sorts, while it was originally supposed to be devoid of any magic other than what is contained in the human spirit. I think it's a good change. I've decided to make it meaningful in different ways. The story was originally conceived when I was fairly hopeless and unwilling to believe much at all. I don't want to write a hopeless book. I want it to be full of hope.
I'm a bit surprised at the sources I've drawn influence from for the story. It wasn't where it was meant to come from at all. I know that's a bit cryptic, but that's how it will have to stay. If I say too much it could draw comments and that would be detrimental. I don't want anyone to know anything about the actual story until I have a draft done.
EXEUNT
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Rough Takes
You can listen to (very) rough demos of a couple of my songs at myspace.com/thecommonastromer
Friday, October 24, 2008
Maybe this will become something later.
I hold my joy in a trench carved out by sorrow.
Maybe a rhyme.
I'm thankful for the loneliness I will still feel tomorrow.
Because I (we) (will?) hold my (our) joys in trenches (canyons?) carved out(?) by sorrows.
maybe
I'll be thankful for the loneliness I'll feel beyond tomorrow
because I'll hold my joy in canyons carved away by present sorrows.
Maybe a rhyme.
I'm thankful for the loneliness I will still feel tomorrow.
Because I (we) (will?) hold my (our) joys in trenches (canyons?) carved out(?) by sorrows.
maybe
I'll be thankful for the loneliness I'll feel beyond tomorrow
because I'll hold my joy in canyons carved away by present sorrows.
Monday, October 13, 2008
A Quick Edit
Look up on the hill where the child dies,
his body spread across a wooden stake.
Pull that rope now angel and watch him rise.
It saves the meter and I think it's better anyways. I might abandon this verse.
his body spread across a wooden stake.
Pull that rope now angel and watch him rise.
It saves the meter and I think it's better anyways. I might abandon this verse.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
An Unexpected Visitor
I was very fortunate today. I had a very unexpected visitor show up on my doorstep. I enjoyed a conversation with her. She is probably the only person who actually reads this post. She recently read my lyric titled "As The Sun Settles" and has asked for an explication.
As the sun settles down
in the evening time,
This signifies the end of a day or period of time. It is tied to my other poems.
The sky is colored in
salmon and steel
like a mind and heart
melting into one
over their world.
This is also tied to my other poems. The collective title of many of my writings will be "Enter The Earth." It is a (loose) conceit in which I write about myself in the form of a world. ("I watch the world...as I write my spirit into it.") A theme of the collection is the conflict between the mind and heart and a failure of the two to reconcile. The blending of the colors in the sunset signify that reconciliation finally occurring. It's a metaphor I took from a piece of older writing and then modified.
It's been so long that I've lived my life
like a man looking for a wife
while still sleeping with a whore.
But not anymore.
NOTE: These lines are slightly edited from their previous version. They were edited to clarify the meaning and to be better adapted to the music they go with.
This is not an original metaphor. It's from Thomas Paine's "Common Sense." He wrote it to demonstrate that a good form of government can not be established while the law-makers are still in the mindset of a bad government. The three lines are about ideology. I wrote them when I was heavily focused on politics, and so they are partially political. But, they are also theological. The collection of poems I've written are largely about religion. The whore is a way of believing, not an institution. It is what has kept me from finding a belief that will make me at one with myself.
The rest of the lyric is musical fluff.
As the sun settles down
in the evening time,
This signifies the end of a day or period of time. It is tied to my other poems.
The sky is colored in
salmon and steel
like a mind and heart
melting into one
over their world.
This is also tied to my other poems. The collective title of many of my writings will be "Enter The Earth." It is a (loose) conceit in which I write about myself in the form of a world. ("I watch the world...as I write my spirit into it.") A theme of the collection is the conflict between the mind and heart and a failure of the two to reconcile. The blending of the colors in the sunset signify that reconciliation finally occurring. It's a metaphor I took from a piece of older writing and then modified.
It's been so long that I've lived my life
like a man looking for a wife
while still sleeping with a whore.
But not anymore.
NOTE: These lines are slightly edited from their previous version. They were edited to clarify the meaning and to be better adapted to the music they go with.
This is not an original metaphor. It's from Thomas Paine's "Common Sense." He wrote it to demonstrate that a good form of government can not be established while the law-makers are still in the mindset of a bad government. The three lines are about ideology. I wrote them when I was heavily focused on politics, and so they are partially political. But, they are also theological. The collection of poems I've written are largely about religion. The whore is a way of believing, not an institution. It is what has kept me from finding a belief that will make me at one with myself.
The rest of the lyric is musical fluff.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Lyrics
I have made a new journal to house my collection of lyrics.
The URL is thecommonastronomer.blogspot.com
The URL is thecommonastronomer.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)