Just Passing Through

Praying to God is not a rational act.

In the English language, we say something is "reasonable" because we could expect most reasoning minds to find the thing acceptable. We refer to reasonable people as "rational," with the implication they are well acquainted with reality as we all experience it. If we wanted to say someone was an extremist at demanding strict logical reasoning, we might call them "hyper-rational." For those of us who understand human reasoning, but sense there is a whole world above it, we might call it "super-rational."

It's not possible to prove God exists, or that there is any such thing as super-rational, also known as supernatural. The terminology itself acknowledges any proof would be a little thin. When Jesus walked upon the earth, He would assert at times He was the Son of God, though He did often use other terminology. It was an assertion, for which He really had no rational proof. Rather, He demonstrated a reasonable implication of such authority by miracles. Those miracles were typically said to be "signs" -- an indicator. As the Pharisees approached hyper-rationality, they found reason to reject Jesus as the Messiah, despite such undeniable signs as raising Lazarus.

Today, as part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, we assert He was the Son of God, that He was sinless, that He could thus die for our sins, and that He rose from the dead because He had authority over the Fall. We also assert all mankind is fallen, sinful by nature, and needs that redemption. While we could conceivably cast this as reasonable, it requires accepting certain givens which are inherently unreasonable. But they aren't irrational, they are super-rational.

The popular term for my religion is Christian Mysticism. The Christian part is obvious. The Mysticism part includes the notion the things which really matter don't yield to human intellect. It can't really be put into words by way of clinical explanation, only indicated by using symbols. It is altogether outside the constraints of human reason, but only because it is above it -- super-rational. That I consciously assert all this justifies the label "Christian Mystic." By now, you should realize following Jesus is inherently mystical, but we have this long tradition in the West of clinging to Aristotelian epistemology as the foundation for all things. Most mainstream Christians balk at the label "Mystic." Yet, in popular use, that is what we are. I'm just admitting it openly.

Naturally, that word "mysticism" covers an awful lot of territory. It would be very easy to get lost in the wilderness. Only God Himself can make sure you tell the difference between smoke and mirrors versus the Pillar of Fire and Smoke. I have no part in most of what is established today as Christian Mysticism. I don't care much for John of the Cross and his ilk because I refuse to recognize the authority of the Pope. Frankly, the term "mysticism" is much abused, in that the underlying epistemology is typically quite rationalist. Their personal experience with God is constrained by excluding a lot of the original biblical experience, and including a lot which the Hebrew writers would reject. Still, there is some common ground, so I don't have to be prickly. The only other question is whether we can work together.

So far, the silence is resounding.

Okay, it's not so dramatic as the title suggests, but it is for me.

With all due respect to our hosts, I'm not going to use Opera browser any more. It remains one of the best efforts out there, but it keeps breaking my heart. I've written about that often enough here, so it's probably not really news. The point is, the Opera developers keep making the same mistakes over, and over, and over. Bug reports don't help. Every release I have tried, starting back with Opera 5.0, has always done one particular thing so consistently which no other browser does: It locks into race mode and won't die without extraordinary measures to kill it.

I realize it is something in the basic structure of Linux which permits certain kinds of flaws to take over all system resources. Now, I suppose Opera is not yet multi-threaded, because on my dual processor machine, it only grabbed one CPU core. I was still able to walk through the process of killing it since the second core was unaffected. That's a good thing, but the folks at Opera still don't quite get it. These days, virtually nothing in a stable distribution of Linux does the race condition... except Opera. And Opera does it all the time.

It's possible the Opera folks will see this, but I seriously doubt it will register. I've tried hard to work with them, going through all the channels and notifying them this thing keeps coming up. After all these years, why don't they reconsider how they hook it into the X server? How about we stop having lock-ups from JScript, for Pete's sake? What does it take?

Sorry, but I don't have time to fight with it any more. Even if I have to compile it myself from source, my computers will be mostly Mozilla-based (aside from text browsers) in the future. I can't afford Opera any more. It may be free to download, but in terms of the hassles, it's too expensive to use.

In my research, I run across debates and disputes. The difference between a debate and a dispute should be obvious: A debate tends to focus on the actual issue. A really good debate serves to define underlying issues, which helps us understand why some things are never really settled. It points back to the very fundamental assumptions, some of which cannot themselves be debated reasonably.

You have to start somewhere. A trademark of this blog is pointing out what I claim is a very fundamental difference between where the typical American in particular, and generally all Western Civilization, starts versus where I am sure the Bible starts -- that they are not at all the same place. But it's not simply about the Bible, but the whole span of what we do. I doubt there is much dispute among Christians that the Bible should frame all we do, that living Christ means no part of our human experience escapes His examination for fitness in His Kingdom. The difference is in how this gets applied, based on the means of evaluation.

We can show, as a reasonable postulate or theory, how the ANE folks adhered to a different path. That is, they may well face pretty much the same basic issues of human life, but they didn't come to their answers by the same means. In our Western intellectual traditions, we refer to that other process by a broad term -- "mysticism." Among other things, it refers to a process which passes through at least one non-rational step. In analytical logic, I have to be able to show every step. That's what we learn in math classes when they teach us about proofs (if our math classes were any good). We have a large body of material discussing how people fail to set out certain intervening steps, because it surely means coming up with a wrong conclusion. You have to account for all the parts which make up the whole. In the ANE, this was understood, but was never the final answer to things.

This rational framework didn't arise overnight. What we now call "Western Civilization" wasn't born fully developed. While good solid philosophers, particularly in Ancient Greece, did delineate this view for all to see, it took a while for the leading minds in Western Europe to formalize the details of adopting this. We can examine the writings of famous scientists in more primitive times making notes which included mystical sentiments, and we view some of their work as not entirely rational. Look up the term "alchemy" sometime. It tells the story of trying to find ways to do things we now consider impossible, chasing myths. Oddly, the turning point for academia as a whole is rejecting all inputs deemed outside the rational process, largely featured in the so-called "scientific method." We call that period of time the Enlightenment, which Christians recognize as the rise of secularism, the rejection of God and faith. We want the fruits of rational logic, even cling tightly to them, so much so we insist on trying to define our faith rationally.

Today, when I happen to stumble into a debate on something, it's clear right away who is adept at this rational logical form. Pointing out the mistakes of those who fail that standard does not settle all the disputes. We recognize way too many people don't embrace the thing totally. That in itself should indicate something, but it's mostly dismissed as proof a disputant/debater is not up to par. The image is that of the lonely few who are truly logical, part of an elite Brotherhood of Reason.

I would suggest first that were we limited to such a pure logical standard, most scientific advancements would not happen. My reading in the history of discoveries indicate the majority are found pursuing something else, or pursuing something which could not be rationally pinned down. It was a driving sense that something was missing, which we often refer to as "intuition." I contend that intuition is a primary manifestation of the necessity of mystical tools in the process.

We can easily prove the majority of those living under the ANE intellectual traditions weren't particularly adept, any more than Westerners under their own traditions. Indeed, there is plenty of room for differing over just what it might mean to be adept with such a tradition. Perhaps that's because the ANE intellectual tradition doesn't consider that question in the first place. A significant element in embracing the ANE framework is not rejecting rational logical process, but realizing it can only go so far. It cannot possibly account for all we experience, individually or together. It asserts we have to include something on a different level, a level which Western Civilization insists does not actually exist, insists it's just another form of irrationality. ANE thinking assumes it is self-evident there is something on an entirely different plane, a form of logic which passes through some area of the human consciousness which cannot be conformed to rational analysis. They still make room for acknowledging as fools those who would rather not think on any level at all, but react from emotions.

There are times when, in pursuit of my best efforts to process the world around me, I'm going to reveal results which most people will reject. In particular, I've already faced a mass of rejection from those who should be the first to understand -- my fellow believers. Answering them is not always easy, because they keep demanding I adhere to that rational process, which precludes the thing they don't accept in the first place. Because I want to hope for the best, I generally assume they simply don't get it yet. If what I have found reflects at all any part of the Ultimate Truth of things, then I'd be a fool to keep it to myself. So I keep seeking ways to open their minds to possibilities they haven't explored. To me, it's mostly a matter of countering propaganda, of ripping down the lying advertising, the false warning posters plastered all over the entrance to the hidden treasure rooms of God.

In other words, against all rational hope, I'm forging ahead.

I'm poking that mystical method into places I haven't seen it used before. I contend there is a logic to it, just not a rational process of logic. When people react to the odd pronouncements this process brings forth, I stand ready to explain how I can't explain to their satisfaction. In my debate arsenal, the weapon with the most wear and tear on it is to mention I didn't get there through a process they recognize, that I don't have to understand everything about the matter, because I understand human reasoning itself. My calling is to question the process by suggesting possibilities you probably won't even see if you confine yourself to the scientific method. So my proposition wasn't meant to start a debate, but to encourage discovery.

I wept tonight.

I was one of them, once. That same hideous beast of destruction, that mindless bloodlust, was built in my soul, too. As I watched the video, that awful thing I saw them doing -- not only without any hint of justice, but without even the justification of dogs tearing at some prey. No, it was far worse. Men born to higher things, chose to suppress all good inside themselves.

Yes, I know it's not entirely their fault. They were tricked, lied into their service commitment. And while it's not official, that ghastly hatred for anyone who isn't part of your "team" is most assuredly uniformly fostered. You'll never find it written anywhere, but the real meaning behind what is written is a soldier is just a fleshbot trained to kill and destroy. And the sure insanity of our imperial aggression in the Middle East makes no sense to a man with a conscience. So to still that wailing conscience, the trooper must become a killbot. If he does not laugh at cruelty, he will turn that gun on himself.

I know. I was one of them once.

And it made me weep, because I don't want to ever remember that time. But I must. I must remember, and must tell others who can't remember because they weren't there. Honor could be found, but I can assure you the hounds of Hell will not allow you to escape that place without many, many scars on your soul, and places cauterized, and they must never be allowed to heal. It must hurt always, and I must weep often, so I don't ever find my hand crushing any part of another life. Yes, honor can be found in that funny suit, but it will be stolen quickly, subverted, turned into a charade. At the very least, it will be compromised. But if you hold tightly to it, maybe it will survive that Valley of Death.

So I weep tonight. The truth must be kept alive, for the worst scars on my soul are the wounds I have left on others. Let my tears not fail.

On the one hand, I'm completely prudish. At the same time, I would be the last person to legislate regarding public dress codes. Yes, I reject any notion of gender equality because God made women with more assets, and made men to notice them. Women are made to compete on those grounds, and men fail to realize they go all out more for that competition than to actually impress men. That and a large number of other complications, but minimum cover standards for public have been long established. I even go so far as to support having places where nudity is acceptable, but clearly marked so the rest of us can avoid it.

The point is I despise the cultural element which makes sites such as People of Walmart such a big draw. Yes, I turn away in disgust when some blubber-babe shows too much. No, it's not exactly the same as when some cutie shows too much, but I still turn away for both. There is something nasty about the crude comments and laughter which accompanies photos of the former. It smacks of self-righteous smugness, which is never anything less than a sin.

By the same token, I would refuse to take that site down. The problem is not the pictures; they are worthy of note for showing something of human behavior. People do crazy things, and we need not hide away from it. The sin is in how we react to it. Not just the over-exposures of flesh, but particularly when we see the other kind of picture, with outrageous costumes which don't have much of a sexual titillation value. Again, the problem is not the photos, but the captions -- those supplied and those we make up ourselves.

The very definition of "bizarre" includes the notion of transgressing generally accepted boundaries. Prophets in the Bible used it to good effect. My argument is with our definitions, but even more with our underlying reaction, as if outlandish costume is somehow "wrong." This plays into the hands of most people who choose to wear such costumes. We have created artificial standards, which completely confuses the message sent by people who transgress them. Is it some punk who simply looks for anything alarming, out of some juvenile desire to offend? Or is it someone with a righteous ax to grind? We can't know because our culture refuses to recognize righteousness in general, and substitutes an empty materialistic version.

Sure, we understand gender confusion as a sin. A man is not a woman, but does it occur to no one sometimes the confusion is in our own souls, in our broken culture, not in the actual fact of so-called cross-dressing? If a scruffy guy wears a frilly skirt and top, perhaps he's pointing out a weakness in our categories. That is not a sin, but we would hardly know the difference between a carefully crafted dramatic challenge to culture and a deluded, sick, broken soul. We simply assume the latter, laugh and ignore the possibilities.

Walmart is not so evil as it serves as a pronounced symptom of evil. I have long noted that store brings out the worst in Americans. That's the bigger point here: We are shallow, crude, selfish and evil as a nation. Walmart reduces the shopping experience to its essence. You want your stuff at the cheapest price. Scrape away any pretense of moral qualities, loudly denouncing God for daring to place a moral tone on His revelation and expectations of us. We'll eagerly replace His revelation with any number of ways for perverting the truth; sin is defined as anything other than what God says. So we give full vent to our fleshly desires by fighting for the parking places closest to the door, pick through the shopping carts for one that rolls sweetly, run over each other in a hurry to get the cheapest crap any store could stock, make the stockers and clerks miserable for failing our unreasonable expectations, carp and grouch about the long checkout lines, and ignore every civility as we rush back out to our cars, and creep through the vehicles crowding every passage while the drivers wait for their passengers to buy three carts of junk.

Walmart is not the problem; it exposes the problem. That website designed to castigate people for daring to be honest about their sins is another symptom. We reject God's ways, create a cheap substitute, and poke fun at those who don't bother with the pretense. Yes, People of Walmart is funny, but the joke's on us. That's the real America.