LiefStigandr

Essay on Unity...

            First, allow me to begin by noting that my impression of the concept of unity is contrary to the idealistic one held by the majority of the general public.  Having made note of that, here follows a short piece concerning the absurdity of unity as the term is commonly used.

          Absolute unity is a utopian ideal—a phantasm.  It is an escapist fantasy crafted by people unwilling to face the fact that conflict between humans is a part of life.

          Absolute unity requires that there be nothing to divide us.  Differing beliefs, economic systems, ethics, ideals, languages, morals, political systems, religions, and social precepts all serve to divide us—at the least—on national, personal, social, and spiritual levels.  This is an undeniable fact of life.

          Differences of opinion occur among all free-thinking people.  Only those who have been heavily indoctrinated—brainwashed—avoid this.  Are we to brainwash the entire world?  If so, which system are we going to force them to follow?

          Absolute unity would require that we all have the same beliefs, economic system, ethics, ideals, language, morals, political system, religion, and social precepts.  Also, that we be conditioned to never formulate any thoughts antagonistic towards the status quo.  It would require absolute conformity.  I should not have to explain the absurdity of this.

          For those who think this would be good, I suggest that they read Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, Ayn Rand’s Anthem, and George Orwell’s 1984—then seriously consider the implications of each one.

          Absolute unity is implausible, but partial unity already exists.  People of like-mind unite for companionship.  People of the same faith unite for worship.  People who are oppressed unite to overpower their oppressor.  People with power unite to maintain their power.  All of these are examples of partial unity, and its causes.  There are many others.

          The American Indian Movement, B’nai B’rith, Free and Accepted Masons, Pagan Educational Network, Roman Catholic Church, Rune Gild, United Nations, and others, ad naseam, are all examples of groups made of people united for a shared cause.

          However, even in these groups, no two people share exactly the same thoughts on every topic considered.  They simply share enough in common, and respect the cause enough, to work around minor differences.

          Now, one may ask should we settle for a partial unity based on a shared principle—such as:  We are all human—and work around other differences?  At first glance, this seems reasonable; yet, it presents its own set of problems.

          One of the first being that the universally shared principle we can all agree on may be hard to find.

          Consider the principle above:  We are all human.  It sounds nice, and many decent people would agree.  But, some people believe that only those of their racial, religious, or social group should be seen—and treated—as human.  It is a common “tribal” attitude.  We are all human obviously will not be our shared principle.

          Also, if we agree to accept—and work around—differences, what do we do when another’s system demands that they destroy ours?  Do we accept that?  Or do we do what nature intended—as shown by self-preservation being the supreme law—and fight? 

          I, for one, would fight.  In a struggle for survival I do not tie myself up in intellectual Gordian knots by agonizing over what to do.  I consider animals—how they would respond and what priorities they would apply—and act in a like manner.  We may have a higher soul, but all humans have an animal soul, and for a reason.  Each has its place—one is not better than the other.

          Now I have come to the crux of this piece.  I believe that I have shown that the ideal of absolute unity is a concept of which we can say reductio ad absurdum. 

          If absolute unity is, in a free world, among free-thinking people, an absurdity—and it is—then what should be done?

          My answer is, essentially, nothing.  In my estimation, absolute unity is a fantasy—unsuitable for practical politics—and partial unity among all people is too.

          Therefore, we are left with conflict—struggle—as an inherent part of life that we must deal with.  Why is this—why should it be—seen as a bad thing?  This is the way of nature.  It is nature’s way of resisting—and removing—disease and weakness, thereby strengthening the system.  I can find no fault in this.  It is as it should be.

          Some days you are the rat—other days you are the cheese.

          Struggle—though painful—in beneficial; it has a purpose.

          We do not grow, or learn, without a struggle.  Through struggle, order is imposed on chaos, systems are refined, and life is given meaning.

          Struggle leads to growth—change.  If things grow, they thrive.  If they stagnate, they die.  In a state of absolute unity the status quo prevails.  This causes stagnation.

          Absolute unity would, therefore, lead to the death of all development, and—consequently—to the slow death of our species as we know it.

          Therefore, I stand opposed to idealistic visions of unity and encourage people to struggle to reach the highest level of development that they can reach. 

          If you want unity, find those who share your views—then join them.  Undertake concrete, resolute, action to pursue your goals and acquire that which you seek.  Act aggressively to create the reality you want.

          Sure, it is a struggle; but the struggle will make your life richer, and you stronger.  Your life will have more meaning because you will have struggled for, and earned, the life you wanted for yourself.

          I am not an idealist.  I am often more an iconoclast.  I do not envision utopias and I am not looking for “saviors”, nor seeking the “salvation” they are selling.  I have no use for such doctrines.

Having a religious view myself, one day I think there will be a unity, but not in this age.

          So I exhort you to struggle and—thereby—grow stronger.  Leave absolute unity to the idealists and join those who struggle to remake the world in their image—by actions, not dreams.

Is the Majority Right?

     First, let me state I believe strongly in the Constitutional concept of keeping politics from being tied with religion.  Our system was not meant to be a theocracy, nor did the founders intend us to make any laws favoring a religion, nor to make laws unnecessarily prohibiting any religious expression.  I state unnecessarily as there are, in fact, some religious practices which should be thwarted by the law of the land, such as “honor killings”.  (Anyone with good sense can determine which category any particular religious practice falls in to.)

     At the same time, the founders did look to religious texts for some inspiration in matters of justice, ethics, and morals.  While it is true many were not Christian in the normal sense of the word, and quite a few were Deists, that still does not mean they were unaware that some religious instruction—even if you do not wholly believe in it as a matter of theology—often presented good precepts to live by.  (Do not steal, do not kill, have equal weights and measures in business dealings, and others.)

     There was a time when politics was not a lifelong profession, but more of a duty.  A senator was chosen by his people and represented them for his term then went back to his farm, or whatever business he had prior to being chosen.  I think the fact we have gotten away from that has certainly played a role in the insanity that seems to plague many of the decisions being made by career politicians who have no grounding in the “real world”, so to speak.

     As I look at many of the new laws and other matters being run through our legislature today, I see a lot of idealism in some, corruption in others, and very little realism.  While there is always a small amount of idealism in any new idea, the focus these politicians have on whether or not to vote for a new law often seems to be on the wrong thing.

     What I mean is that we have a Republic, in terms of government, that makes rulings by a democratic process.  Essentially, majority rules.  However, I think there is too much focus on winning the vote, on being the majority, and not enough on an actual consideration of what it is you are voting for. 

     The court is set—it seems—to throw out a recent attempt to enact a new law here.  A law which is seen as clearly unconstitutional in both its formulation and intent.  Those who seek to get it passed have made public comments they do not care; that they will find some way to enact the ideal regardless of court ruling.          

     I am not here to debate all the merits and flaws of all these laws of recent times, but rather to look at a principle in relation to them.

     In the Torah, in Jewish law, there is a ruling that one should go after the majority.  The democratic ideal in justice and decisions is clear.  Connected to this, though, is the instruction that—although you go after the majority—you do not go after the majority to do injustice.  If it is unjust you oppose it, no matter what the majority consensus may be.

     How this relates is that it seems many in politics are too concerned about winning their side rather than considering the merits and flaws of their case.  It is well known a lot of laws get passed sneakily, as “riders”, inside of larger bills because many politicians do not ever truly read what they are expected to vote on.  A few aides read it, give them a synopsis of what they read, and that is all.  The proper politician, who wishes to do right, should read all of these bills. 

     For those who object due to size, I suggest that we require all bills to be read in full on the floor before they can be voted on.  That might eliminate the excessive size and the hiding of such “riders” as mentioned above.  I mean, in honesty, can you really make a sound judgment about a law you do not know in full?  I would say no. This reliance on some aide’s synopsis is like asking a doctor, with no knowledge of a patient’s history, to diagnose them based on their basic vital signs as recorded at admission.  Insane.  But that is roughly what the lawmakers are doing now.  They rely either on the aide, or—in a few cases—on how they are told by their party leaders to vote.

     So I suggest our lawmakers look at the bill themselves.

      But on top of that, in keeping with the principle espoused above, I suggest that rather than merely trying to win the “game” for their side, that they truly consider if what is set before them is in the interest of justice or not.  If it is unjust, in any way, they should oppose it.  If it is unjust but they feel a good idea is behind it, then they should set down with others and attempt to redo it in a way that the good is there but the unjust parts should be removed.  (Some bills this could be done with.  Others are predicated on an injustice and can only be trashed.)

     Like the founders, they need no acceptance of any religion—thought the principle was established in a religious text—to see the merit in the age-old ruling that you never go after the majority to do injustice.

The Question of Need...    

           I have been considering some of the evidence presented by different groups that support the idea that some deity is non-existent.  From the outset I will confess that I do not agree with that view.  But in considering the evidence presented I find a common theme.  While much has been written about discrepancies and contradictions in various sacred texts (this method has long been used to attempt to convince people any deity is an illusion), more of the scientific evidence focuses on the idea of need.  By which I mean it shows—through a look at the laws and such governing the physical universe—that there is no need for deity.

                This alone does convince some to turn away from any religion.  But it fails also to ask another question which comes to my mind.  Let us say we can show, via the laws of nature, there is no need for some deity to directly control or interact with the physical universe.  The question I have is how does that fact in any way support the idea that there is no deity at all?

                See, the focus on such illustrations derive—in a sense—from the idea of proving the contradictions in various religious teachings.  Since many religions, and especially the more primitive ones, made the functioning of various aspects of nature (sunrise, rain, etc.) as something directly controlled by some deity, then the opponent of such views hopes that by showing these processes occur without any direct influence from deity, they will thereby disprove the deity itself.

                There is a flaw in such thinking.  For one, the idea of the control of all aspects of nature being allotted to some supernatural agency is not completely universal.  Primitively, yes.  But over time, such a view has been upgraded in many cases. 

                To clarify, let me say I believe some deity literally moves—like a puppeteer—the planets in their orbit.  If you can show me that there are in fact testable laws that regulate this movement then you may be able to convince me my deity—or at least my concept of it—is flawed.  But what if that is not my belief in the first place?

                Let us now say that my belief from the start posits deity as a great engineer, so to speak.  I believe that the laws you show me, the motions of the planets and all, were part of a system set in motion by deity.  Similar perhaps to the Deist view of a universe created by deity but then left to run on its own within the parameters set.

                If such is my belief, then proving to me no deity controls the movement of the planets and such will in no way amount to a cause for me to think my belief in the existence of the deity is erroneous. 

                This in somewhat related, to an extent, with my view on materialists thinking the fact deity is not provable in any material way is sufficient cause to say it does not exist.  It is something, perhaps, to consider.  But it carries no sense of absoluteness as regards evidence either way.

                The flaw in their thinking is that the rules of evidence they apply are meaningless in the areas I am exploring.  The big demand for absolute, objective evidence does not exist in the very personal realm of religious experience and exploration.  All the scientific “proofs” opposing any deity are not going to faze me in the least if I have had numerous emotional, subjective experiences of the presence or power of deity.  All they will do is lead to what they have always led to; which is the consideration that the divine is beyond the physical and hence beyond our ability to test. 

As a result, I have never claimed I can prove deity.  But by the same token, despite their arguments, they cannot disprove it either.  They can only show evidence that may support or not support various teachings about the acts of deity, but nothing about deity itself.

                In the end, the universe may not need some deity to organize things.  But that fact alone in no way amounts to an absolute proof that deity may not still exist in some way. 

Dealing with Materialists...

    I have recently had some amusing discussions with many ignorant scientific types.  This amuses me as they often insist on debating an area that neither of us will ever change our minds in.  I say that in jest, but I also note I say they are ignorant, not stupid.  Big difference.  They are usually very intelligent, as the modern world reckons intelligence.  But to their minds, if they do not reckon a thing to exist—based on their method of determining “reality”—then it must not be, and those who think otherwise are deluded.  Ignorance is simply not knowing, and what they do not know is what they cannot see.

     Of course, the fun debate here is essentially religion versus science.  Now I do not specify religion, as—to them—all are equally deluded.  Jewish, Buddhist, Taoist…it does not matter.  The fact that they believe there is more than what the eye can see or instruments can measure means they are obviously deluded.

     Ah, the joys of materialists. 

     Of course, what of the things we cannot see but have power?  I could mention gravity.  We do not see gravity, only its effects.  With instrumentation we can measure it, however.  Okay.  What of less external things.  Love?  Hate?  Of course the materialists will say that you can trace certain receptors and chemicals in the brain in these and show they have a physical existence.  But is that adequate?  I say no.  I have talked to many who study human psychology and even the more scientific ones often allow that there seems to be something about the force we call love, or hate, that seems more than the sum of all the little neuro-physical pieces put together.

     But such arguments, as noted, will not sway either side.

     I am not trying to sway them; merely to point out why not everyone follows their scientific dogma.  (It is not about intelligence—as in the idea religious people are just dumb—as I had an IQ of 136 at 13, nor delusion, as no psychiatrist would classify me as such.) 

     Say what you will, much of scientific “fact” is nothing but inference from evidence available.  Sometimes it is accurate.  Sometimes it is not.  Inference is the product of a man’s mind and to me is no more valid than any other opinion.  With sufficient evidence, it may be more valid.  But until you can show me the “smoking gun”, some of the most cherished scientific creeds will remain no more than that to me.  If you want to change the world, so to speak, you better have absolute proof, not just limited evidence combined with inference.                                       

     I can’t show you any deity either.  The difference is—and I admit not all religious people are as open-minded about it—I do not tell you that you should abandon all science and join my school of religious thought.  Personally, I don’t care.  It is not my job to make the world follow anything. 

     I have studied science.  A lot over the course of my life.  Being on the spectrum, I tend to think more literally at times than some and take more effort to grasp some of the more abstract ideas of religion and philosophy.  But—unlike the stereotype—I am not incapable of grasping them.  (If we were, there would be no religious people on the spectrum at all, which is certainly not the case.)

     You know, just to play the game a little, I understand physics.  I understand the idea of evolution.  My question is in what way does evolution—let us say it did happen in some form—mean there is no creative power?  It doesn’t.  I had a friend—a Jewish physics professor—who believed absolutely in evolution.  But he still believed in a Creator.  To him, evolution was simply “God’s assembly line”, in which he equated God to a great engineer who would, reasonably—like our engineers—find a way to make his own work, so to speak, easier.  Design the “factory”, start the “assembly line”, and go take a coffee break.  Come back after a short nap and have a new toy to play with.

     Now, to me, science actually has the same problem as religion.  Religion has no answer to where did the Creator come from?  Science does not either.  We can go with theory and observation to milliseconds after the Big Bang, but not before.  So, where did this matter, or energy, that caused this bang come from?  There is no verifiable answer.  All they can say at most is it must have always been there.  Just like religion saying God is eternal.

     The point is, to the believer of any religion, there is nothing about science that automatically precludes a creative power.  The majority of claims of those using the scientific argument against religion are that this creative force is not what the texts say, therefore it cannot be real.  I mean, one said the Bible literally described angels and heaven as in the sky so why can’t we find them?  In other words, it is all about literal interpretation, which makes them bad as most fundamentalists.

     This shows foolishness on their part.  They are so materialistic, they cannot see beyond a literal view of anything.  Those who study, for example, Torah, could tell you that a majority of its real message and meaning is neither literal nor obvious.  The Torah, the text we know, is only an outer form to allow the simplest of minds to at least touch a part of it.  But it contains much more that is hidden under the outer covering.

     Of course, these arguments do not work then either.  They will say that if we allow God, angels, or such are of a substance beyond the physical, then we have simply made an excuse to keep them from being able to prove or disprove it.  Sorry, but from all the science and philosophy I have read, I have long been of the opinion science will never absolutely prove or disprove the question of a God.  Further, some scientists have held—correctly—that that should not really be their concern anyway. 

     Science is to study things it can see and interact with and things that matter on the physical level.  Religion and philosophy is for the abstracts which cannot be seen or studied as such and which matter on a deeper level.

     Finally, they place such value on what they can touch and go show their friends they seem to forget that, on some level, personal experience will always be more powerful for the majority than anything else.  Our perception is our reality.  If I meditate and see angels and talk to spirits, regardless of your claims, the experience will be my reality and nothing you show me will change my opinion of it.

Of course, why should it?  As many occultists once noted—even if the spirit is only a projection of your own mind—if you get the results you are after, who cares? 

     In the end I just throw this out as a rough statement of why this is often a pointless debate between the two sides.  I believe science.  I know a lot of it.  But it will never change my personal beliefs.  On the other hand, my personal experiences will never change those who have not had them. 

     I will simply sit back and take it all in, knowing it is an endless debate in which neither side will ever absolutely prove its claims.

                What am I looking for?

                That is a good question, and may avoid problems later to clarify the answer.

                I am not looking for a “play pal”.  I am not after a fuck-buddy. 

                I have had girlfriends in the past—long ago—and I was married once. 

                I want to get to know someone a bit before I do anything. 

                I do not rush much.  I was friends with an old girlfriend years ago for about a year before we actually did anything of the sense of a relationship.

                It does not have to be so long; merely making it a point I am not after a short, casual fling.

                I am looking for a more permanent partner.

                I am too old—in my mind—to be hopping all over.

                I like some degree of stability anyway.

                It is also good to read my stuff to know more in depth about me.  While it seems nice, there needs to be some similarity and similar interests for anything to work.  I learned long ago if the only thing we share is an interest in anime, or video games, it doesn’t make for much of a lasting relationship.

                If you read all the notes and essays and such I post on here and are interested, just send a message.

                Little by little I add notes and other little pieces of information to try to paint a picture.  The picture is a more complete representation of what I am as a whole.  However, it is often hard to do.  The palette does not always seem to have the right colors.  So I piece things together in hopes of creating a fairly accurate portrait.

                My initial posts here did not give a lot of personal information.  Of course, I guess it is a question as to how much is relevant or not.

My thoughts on a variety of subjects, as I write of in my notes, portray the mentality better than any medical description would.  However, I guess it would not hurt to give a little physical background to go along with those posts.

                I will be 33 this month.  I am 5’8” and about 200 pounds.  Hair and eyes are brown.  Skin tends to kind of a darker tint, not pinkish, though I am Caucasian by definition.  Sometimes I shave more, sometimes less.  I have never been vain.  Appearance has never been all that important to me.

                At 18 I had back issues which left me with some medical problems.  Partial incontinence being one of them.  Later, at 28, I had a Pacemaker implanted..  Physically, I am fairly strong despite all that and in good shape all things considered.

                Mentally, I am highly intelligent.  High IQ and all that good stuff.  That of course does not necessarily mean I am great at everything else.  I am diagnosed as having an Autism Spectrum Disorder known as Asperger’s Syndrome, and I have dealt with therapy and all pretty much all my life.  Of course, I don’t need to explain that the stereotypes of autistics are just that: stereotypes.  They are far from accurate.  The only major issues I have, perhaps, with it is some anxiety, a hypersensitivity to sound, and the fact I am not a social butterfly. 

                In terms of what we might call spiritual views, I have my own beliefs.  Some based on the traditions I followed, and some of my own.  My mind does not allow for orthodoxy to dominate anything.  My beliefs are—even if based on existing traditions—formed completely by my own analysis of the material I have to work with.  I am not obsessive about being right in such matters as logic tells me none of it can be proven in any absolute way and we all may just be delusional.  So I am more open-minded than some.

I have done fairly well in life so far.  I am not rich.  In fact, I am quite poor now.  I was doing well with work until the Pacemaker.  With everything put together, I currently have a case in court for disability.  I am also going to college.  I will probably go back this fall if all the paperwork comes out right this time.

I am something of a scholarly type.  I would likely go to school just to do it if I were interested in a subject.  I want to know as much as possible, though my logical mind lets me know how much I do not know as well as how much I will likely never know in depth due to time and other limitations.

So that is a little more about me.

                Age play and diapers.

                Two things that—at one time—I would have perhaps shunned as my knowledge and thoughts about them were probably the same as most “normal” people would have.

                However, due to events in my life, I became more familiar with them, if only as a coping mechanism at first.

                At 18 I had some back problems.  The end result was—for a few months—I had no feeling from the waist down.  I and my girlfriend then lived together.  With no feeling I was, obviously, in need of diapers.

                I was not happy at all.

                In an effort to cheer me up, perhaps, my girlfriend put a diaper on and came in to see me.  She said she’d wear them as long as I did.

                She did it I think to make me feel better about it.

                Of course, I recovered feeling, though some nerve damage left me partially incontinent. 

                As I recovered feeling we became more involved in sexual play, and she often still had on a diaper and had me “change” her. 

                A little while of this and it essentially became a sort of kink between us.

                Then, later on—years later—a therapist I saw even suggested maybe I try to make a game out of some of the issues I had, and mentioned the whole AB/DL thing, in order to better cope with the stress from it at times.

                So that is how it started.

                Now I am not an AB.  I can be cuddly and like to cuddle and have a few childlike behaviors, but my dominant personality, perhaps, does not like being babied, unless I’m sick.  (Like most men.)  But I still think a girl in a diaper is cute and don’t mind playing “Daddy” for the scene.  Of course, even without the age-play part it is erotic for me.

                I have been thinking some.  Politics and religion.  Two things that may influence each other, but that I feel should not be combined in a way that seems to say our social contract is strictly based on a certain group’s theology.

                I am aware some of our Founders were Christians in the traditional sense.  Some were also Deists. 

                They did, in fact, gather some ideas of law from the Bible.  Mostly were from the Old Testament, as that deals more with law than the New.  The idea of the law applying equally to all classes, for example, is a Judaic one. 

                Even Jesus seemed aware that to an extent the social laws of nations and the laws of God were not always meant to be mixed.  “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.”

                (I am using Biblical reference here as it is what most who read this will be familiar with.)

                Am I saying we are wrong to get ideas in what constitutes ethical behavior from our religion?  No.  But I am saying some of those categories apply only in the religious domain and not in the secular one.

                The truth is, were humans logical, we would need little force to uphold decent law.  Logic is we avoid things that may harm us.  So, by logic, a man would not go around robbing on the simple premise that eventually they will run into armed resistance, someone stronger, etc., which will cause them harm or discomfort.

                When I look at laws, I know those which are truly logical will stand without needing external support, such as Divine mandate.  Those which have no such logic belong in the religious realm, not the secular one.

                Now the Jews always knew this to a degree, which is why they were—and are—not a missionary religion.  A majority of their laws are for them and them alone.  Others, like thou shalt not murder, which is one of the Noachide laws applied to all mankind, falls under the logic group.

                They have power and make sense in and of themselves.

                Not to say logic may not require breach of law at times.  If you are starving, logic says—if no other option—better to steal food than die.  The Jews also knew this and had exceptions.  One old Judaic exception is that a man who steals for hunger is not to be despised, but if caught is to pay back.  Restitution was in use far more than stoning, and many do not realize this.

                Or if attacked, you may have to kill.  They provided for that as well.

                My point is by focusing too much on making it seem our national laws are some sort of Divine mandate (which they are not), only causes strife and alienation.  Many would agree even to some of the religiously inspired laws, and only oppose them simply because they are crammed down their throats as being religious.  Whereas, if you’d provide the logic behind them without appeal to Divine influence, there would be more support.

                An example.  Though many religious texts do not approve of homosexuality, there is no logical reason to do so.  There may be a theological one, perhaps, but not a logical one that benefits all.  Therefore, in the end, I don’t care what you do sexually, among consenting adults.  That is your business and no deity made me judge.

                Our religions may give us morals.  We may use them to influence our idea of what should be allowed, or not.  But we should avoid trying to place them on others simply because our religion says so. 

                Essentially, if a law I follow has no logic that could apply properly to society at large, I see no need to try to make in a national law.  If it does benefit all, regardless of their religion (which may not be the same as mine) then it is fine to try.

                To start, my given name is not Lief Stigandr.  However, Lief is part of it.  My given name at birth was Christopher Lief Eldridge.  I was adopted at 18 months, so that changed.  I do not list my current surname primarily because many in my family have privacy concerns.  Many in my family are also on Facebook, but not under their full names.  Also, I use Lief as most people outside my family do not know me as Christopher.  That has been intentional on my part, for my own reasons.

                But why the odd name?  Well, Lief was given, but Stigandr is actually a descriptive you might say.  Stigandr comes from Old Norse and roughly translates as “wanderer”.  In fact, Stigandr was one of the descriptive names given to the Norse god Odin.  For me it is descriptive, but not so much in the sense one might think.  Physically, my wanderings have been within a limited area.  It is, for me, more reflective of the nature of my mind and my curiosity.  I am a seeker, of sorts, compiling information from many fields I wander in to—art, law, medicine, philosophy, religion, etc.

                Of course, this is not to say I am an expert in anything.  Like all humans, my view is always limited by my current knowledge as well as tempered by an understanding of the things I may never truly know in any logical way.  Religion is one of those areas that gets heavily tempered as—regardless of what I may believe—the chance we will ever be able to truly test in any scientific way they existence of a spirit, a god, etc., is non-existent.  Of course, I am reminded of a physics professor who told his class that all the scientific speculation about any deity was pointless anyway due to the fact that—if there is such a being, and our descriptions of it are remotely accurate—it would be impossible to set up the needed control group to run any scientific test.  I am fairly logical, but I accept science has the limit to test what it can in fact hold and examine.  Any claims made of that which cannot be held or examined are speculation.

Clarity of Language

                Clarity of language.  It is a good thing, no?  We depend on the inherent clarity of our words to convey to others our meanings.  The things we are interested in, what we believe, and so on. 

                But is it as clear as we think? 

There was a time when the answer would have certainly been “yes”.   But today it is not as clear.  Let us consider something rather normal.  “I like eggs.”  Now if you had said this in 1940, there would have been no debate about what you were saying.  But today, it is not as clear.  Are we talking chicken eggs, quail eggs, ostrich eggs, etc.?  Free-range, Yard, Organic, Grade A? 

                Fortunately, this is an area where the generic assumption will—in most cases—prove sufficient.  Other situations are not as clear.  Some of our words which once had a clear and limited meaning now have a broad and vague one.  The dialectical usage, and slang, further complicates this. 

                If I go to London and ask someone for a fag, they will likely give me one.  (Of course our British relatives, so to speak, bemoan our spelling and usage anyway, but that is a different subject.)  Now if I walk into a bar in America and ask for a fag someone will likely say, “There’s one sitting in the corner.” 

                For those who are very literal about language, for those with problems understanding social nuance—such as those on the autistic spectrum—this will be even more confusing. 

                While out of usage now, an example, related to the above, would be the once common usage of calling a homosexual person a “fruit”.  Now if you told a literalist this they would be confused.  “Mike doesn’t look like an apple to me.” 

Admittedly, time has had some effect on this, as has the expansion of our knowledge in general.

                In 1880 if you said man in London was an occultist he would have immediately been assumed to be a member of a group like the Golden Dawn, a Mason, or a Rosicrucian.  Very limited, and generally correct.  If you call a man that in the modern world the list of what he might actually be involved in is much larger. 

                Local dialect and slang, as noted above, has also affected this. 

                I originally started writing this as a warning of sorts to those who deal with literalists, or with those who have social issues that make communication a problem.  But as I consider this topic, as a whole, I think it really—in modern times—must be applied to all communication.  Do not assume, if you use slang or other similar expressions, that the other person totally understands your message.  Also, do not assume you know the other person’s message either unless you are certain you are both on the same page, so to speak. 

                A better rule would be, in all cases where a term’s meaning may be broad and vague, to pick another term.  Learn to specify.  Be sure that the message you put forth is a clear as possible so that all can understand what is meant.  This is especially true when dealing with those with flaws in their social understanding, but is helpful for all.

                We can’t change what has been done to language but we can change our usage to be as clear and concise as possible. 

       The relatively unknown Christian mystic San Juan de la Cruz (St. John of the Cross) wrote of the Dark Night of the Soul.  A time—I think—when all we are taught, all we believe, all we accept as good or true, comes into question.  I think this comes for those like my self—those with a lot of curiosity and a broad range of academic knowledge—when we reach the point where the fact of what we do not know versus what we do know (or think we know) becomes very clear. 

                If we are raised in a certain political, religious, or social environment then that is what we tend to take for granted—as a given.  But as we accumulate more information, more experience, some of it does not seem so clear anymore. 

                Many people, admittedly, never go through this in the manner I am referring to.  Most never truly want to question anything, as we are creatures of habit, and we prefer complacency to the struggle and change created by such thoughts.

                Of course, external factors often weigh in on how deep a person may carry these thoughts as well.  As an example, the Christian minister, when I say I think he has some flaws in his theology, jumps up and down and tells me I’m going to Hell.  For many, that is all the encouragement they need to drop the subject.  Not for one like myself.  Of course, I find Rabbis more tolerant in this area.  In fact, one friend who is a Rabbi had made it clear long ago that, due to the unique way my mind seemed to work, I’d likely never just “settle” into something because of upbringing or tradition.  Rather, if I ever truly settled, it would likely be after I was old, with a lot of experience and information to consider.  Unlike the Christian minister, there was no admonition for such thoughts or interests.  Rather a note that we all have to find our own way in the end for it to mean anything.

                My adopted father also wrote me—in the last letter he wrote before he died—that every man has to find God in their own way, and it has to be what they find meaningful to them, not what their parents or ministers or friends find meaningful or true.

                Those with experience with individuals on the autistic spectrum will understand what I mean when I say that, “because I said so” is never an acceptable answer or one that will have much impact.  In a religious sense, those familiar with Eastern religions will understand this more as well.  Buddha, despite what many think, never asked to be worshipped.  Buddha was not a deity, he was more an example.  Buddha said to read it, study it, and to go try it.  If it did not seem true, or did not work for you, get rid of it.  Don’t accept it on his say so alone.   Western religions, predominantly Christianity and its offshoots, are more heavily based on acceptance.

                It is your belief—your acceptance of dogma—that gets you into Heaven in generic Christian theology, not your deeds.  The focus is on the when, where, and who instead of the what.  In the East it is on the what.  What you do is what counts, not what you think or believe.

                Judaism is the interesting sect here in that most think of it as Western, though it is not.  In Judaism, faith is something of a non-issue.  Unlike Christian theology that says we all die because of Adam’s sin, Judaism says every man dies for his own sin.  It has nothing to do with Adam.  Also, much like Eastern religion holds your acts color your destiny through karma, Judaism holds you are also rewarded for your own merits, not another’s.  There is no vicarious atonement.

                An easy way to put it is to say most big religions today are focused on the external structure and dogma, whereas both Judaism and most Eastern systems focus on internal experience and acts of the individual.

                So I am on that particular path now, I guess.  I have studied, and practiced, many religions apart from those of my family.  Due to family I, of course, have a greater knowledge of both Christianity and Judaism.  But I have also delved into Asatru, Hermeticism (Western Ceremonial Magick, heavily colored by the Kabbalah), Native American Shamanism, many Neo-Pagan systems, Taoism, Wicca, and Zen, as well as a few others not listed directly but in the flavor of the above.

                At one point one could say I dug up my family tree and made it a point to study the historical religions associated with each strand of my genetic makeup.  Perhaps I was influenced by Carl Jung’s idea of a collective unconscious.  Some, however, were introduced by others.  It was a psychiatrist, making note of some of my mental interests, who suggested I might like to look into Zen.

                At this point now, considering all this, I find it impossible to stand by any dogmatic theological view 100%.  I support those I have belonged to still, and still hold to some of the standards.  But I do not feel right to say I am purely this or that, as—at this moment—my identity in that regards has become very fluid.

                I also changed my profile for a similar reason, in that I do not want to be held up as an example of a particular religion for others, as some of what I do now might be offensive to those in the same religion.  Some systems are less stringent on this.  There is a Cherokee Medicine Man who publically teaches their traditions, holds their ceremonies, etc., but privately practices Buddhist meditation.  Their system is not so judgmental, and if he thinks that helps him in some way, no one cares.  But not all systems are as open-minded.

                As a warning, perhaps, to those who know me otherwise, preaching to me will change nothing.  The concern is nice.  I do not—and never have—believed in Hell anyway, but as I told some Christian ministers once, I’d rather go to Hell on my own than following you.

                Perhaps it is the curse of being overly intelligent, or of being on the autistic spectrum.  I don’t know, and don’t really care.  All I can do is keep researching and enjoy the ride.

     I find the idea of just alphabetically listing things one is interested in to be sort of misleading.  That sounds fine, until we realize how broad some of these terms provided are.  I also find the use of trying to define experience or level of knowledge to be vague.  Some may think they have a deep knowledge of a certain area only to learn later they do not.  For some it is often a case of they know all they find out at a time, where they are.

     As an example, you can check “occultist”.  That would be a rare one for most (though not for me).  However, it still remains a very generic term.  As an example, say some person is big in Hermeticism (Western Ceremonial Magick, often influenced by the Kabbalah).  They decide to mark “occultist”, and list knowledge as “expert”.  A little while later someone comes along and sees this person’s profile and thinks they could be good friends or such because they also are listed as an “expert occultist”.  All sounds good, until they start trying to talk.  See, the second person is a Taoist, with a very advanced knowledge of Tai Chi, Tantra, and Yoga. 

     Can you see the problem now?

     The terms provided by many of these social sites are too vague to have much use.     Some, as I have said, are clearer than others.  But the point is one should not assume because we both have an interest in a certain fetish, hobby, philosophy, political movement, religion, etc., that we possess an equal knowledge of them, or that we are even on the same particular track as regards the more generic listings.

     Further, I may list something as a kink, but have a completely different view of its usage than the generic one.  As to some sites that ask you to list them as whether you “like it, or love it, or couldn’t live without it”, well I don’t follow that.  There is nothing I could not live without, if I had to.  I say in most things I like them.  I am flexible and experimental, and unless I actually have experience with something—or it just really goes against personal sensibilities—I list nothing as a dislike.  Now, if I try it and don’t like it, then yes.   But if one is interested, one should take time to find out more about people as their interests—both sexual and everyday—may be quite different than the image we hold of the same for ourselves.

     So do not assume because I have a certain kink listed means I am on exactly the same level as anyone else, or even that my interest there is the generic one.  And the idea of listing a level of knowledge to me is kind of foolish, as I know a lot about some aspects of the fetish world that I have never done, and there are others I have done that I know little of the background behind them.

     Perhaps the best thing to do, if interested, is ask.

                I have been here before.  On this site and many like it.  I have used many names.  Over time I have had the chance to meet a few people from these sites.  I have also had time to think about these sites as well as life in general.

                I have interests, like many.  Some are “normal” and some are more exotic.  But I have found, after much observation of these sites, that that is only part of a whole.  I am more than the hobbies I have, more than an occupation, and more than whatever kinks I may have. 

                I feel, after much consideration, that many of the failures of people on these sites happen because people fail to take that into account.  By this I mean too many often seem to try to build a life, a relationship, around one thing.  As an example, this—to me—is like saying I like leather and you like leather so let’s get together.  To make the comparison on a more “normal” level, it would be like saying we both like the color blue so that means we should get married.

                Think about it.  Silly, isn’t it?

                But that is often what I see on so many of these sites.  Not just those strictly devoted to dating, but even to those of a more social nature, such as Facebook.  In reality, if all we have in common is an interest in video games—for example—we are likely to get tired of each other relatively quick. 

                It is for this reason my posts on here are not—will not be—strictly about what kink I may like or fantasy I have.  They will cover many areas. 

                I am rather intellectual, and have quite a bit of academic skill.  If you saw me, however, merely as my prior occupations—if you made the error of identifying me with my work, as many do to themselves—you would never see that.  I have been a beekeeper, construction worker, delivery driver, short order cook, etc.  None of those occupations make you think of deep intellectual interests or philosophical leanings.  But I have those, and I have done those things.

                I guess the simple way of saying what I am trying to above is to state that my posts are intended to show my self—my personal being—as a whole rather  than as a particular kink, occupation, social group, etc.

                The human personality is one thing that has always been far more than just the sum of its parts.