we are all circles

everythings a circle. everythings a cycle. it's all just movement in loops and spirals.

one of my favorite books is titled, "I am a Strange Loop" - it's basic point is that the concept of the self arises from nothing more than our mind's ability to represent itself and continuously update that representation as it is affected by experience. it serves as an argument for the computational nature of the mind and the possibility to computationalize consciousness. The concept comes so naturally that I had no trouble accepting nearly every point as i quickly turned through the pages.

This account of our conscious awareness won't be the focus of this post, but it will be beneficial to understand the foundation off of which i intend to contemplate the nature of interpersonal love.

to distract myself, i often spend my time on tumblr, usually favoriting and reblogging pictures that resonate with my mindset. about a week ago, a picture (accompanied by some text) on my dashboard caught my eye. i was quick to favorite it and after a few days, when i had time to spend updating my personal page, i reblogged the photo and added a caption similar to what is now the title of this post - "we're all just circles"..here is the photo:

for all of my life and, i assume, the lives of everyone living today, homosexuality has been one of the most culturally controversial topics. I have posted once before about the concept of marriage and the inability of many to accept the transformation of the term - and, in turn, our culture - to account for the union of homosexuals, but i have hardly delved into the topic of homosexual love.

to be clear, i've got a strictly hetero-orientation. I'm just nearly obsessed with the concept of love because, in my opinion, it is an all-encompassing notion that can explain all interaction. not only does it impact our interpersonal relationships, but it really is the driving force behind every interaction a being can have with its environment. beings love beings and that love is what guides them in continuing their existence. everything in existence should be thought of as a being. all of existence is the greatest being of all and that is my concept of god. if there is a word denoting a tangible concept, then in my mind, i would consider that concept as a being. say we have concept x, if we can say x is being x, then x is a being. the sweater i am wearing is a being because the sweater is being a sweater and an item of clothing and whatever else you can think of the sweater being (if i wear it as a turban, then it is being a turban). and i am certainly a being - there should be no qualms with that. there is some degree of love between me and my sweater and that love is what has guided me to wear it today. i love existence, so i choose to continue to exist - to interact with the beings of existence.

so..about the picture..

as you can see, people are represented as circles with protruding shapes representing their gender. sexuality is guided by love. sexual orientation is accounted for by how these different shapes overlap.

while it is important to be aware of the sexual inclinations of others in some instances, for the most sexual orientation should have no bearing on the judgments we make about the people we interact with. i love women..but i also love men..and i love all animals - independent of their gender. it's our expression of love that causes people discomfort.

when in a relationship of mutual love (in an ideal world, this would be a redundant phrase), the best thing to do is learn and be aware of the desires and tendencies of your relationship partner. it's best to express love in such a way that all parties involved are satisfied with the nature of the loving relationship. the only way to have this awareness of desires is to communicate with your partner. it is not enough to signify their sexual orientation with a silly symbol.

we are all just circles. attracted to other circles through our loving tendencies. maybe one day, each person will be expressed by their own unique symbol to allow for computer analysis to determine all orientation and desires of that person - in this hypothetical world, love would not be free. luckily, in this current day, we are all internal. while our bodies are the unique symbols that represent all that we are, there is no computer analysis that can determine exactly what it is that will make us happy. often, not even self-analysis can reveal that.

it takes action and interaction. eventually, through this, we can hopefully find others whose satisfaction and happiness is inversely correlated with our own.

this is easy with simple objects lacking happiness or the ability to feel.. we can project whatever happiness we have held within onto these beings and feel satisfied with the pleasure we receive from these interactions. once the concept of life is introduced, we must have a much more keen awareness of the states of the beings  we interact with. everything that lives has goals. the ability for us to understand those goals and do what we can to assist, or at least not hinder, the being's pursuit of goals is the sole(soul) purpose of love.

man or woman, gay or straight, we should all love each other. we should work to understand where we all stand amongst each other and act accordingly. we love for each other. life would be incomplete without it. we're all circles and none of us wants to be empty.

essentially

how to get at essence..

words have their meaning respective of their uses. the essential meaning behind a word is impossible to ascertain outside of culture. so the essence of a word is completely relative of the circumstance of its use. only the user can understand the essence being expressed, but doesn't understand the full essence behind its use because in communication there is the output and the input. the speaker can only know what's going on with the word on his side of speech. he can only guess how the listener will understand the word. so with words..essence can never be known by an individual.

but can distinct objects be understood essentially?

the essence of a specific dog is different than the essence of the concept of dog. the word dog represents the overall concept of all things in the category of dog - this is the essence described above as being relative to cultural use of the word. but my dog..rex..there's an essence to his being. i can't get at the full essence but I know that there is essential truth to his existence. the only essence i can realize is in my mind with respect to my subjective experiences of his being. nonetheless, outside of human experience, there should be some complete understanding of my dog's being. certainly not solely in Rex's mind..he can hardly form concepts.

are there any concepts that represent things completely essentially? is there a mind that understands all that is as it is?

this is god. this is the goodness that is. essence is goodness and clarity is known only by the whole of existence. the closer we come to understanding existence in essence, the closer we come to knowing goodness and the more suited we are to be good and act as best we can.

acquiring truth and opening the mind to understand multiple viewpoints can prove difficult. every one has only ever known the world from the view of the self..grasping reality from the ultimate perspective of all being requires taking a step back and forgetting about putting the self at the center. we are a part of something bigger and it's important we know our place.

everything has an essence and it can only be understood in its relation to the essence of all other things. to understand the essence of one requires an understanding of the essence of all. we can never attain perfect essential knowledge, but we can realize that there's always more to essence than what meets the eye and that realization can let us always strive to build a more substantial base of knowledge on the essence of reality

rapture

what is hell on earth? - who's to say this isn't it..?

the rapture predicts that today the good will transcend and the rest will remain for hell on earth. i'm still here. i hope this isn't hell.

every day people die and their souls transcend singular human being. they are the good because they are doing god's work on earth. everyone being instantiates god's goodness. those who die will die and leave their mark in the impacts they've had. their soul resides in heaven in terms of the role it played in bringing goodness to their world.

there are none who bring no good. so today is the rapture. sure. people will die and their souls will transcend this earth. this happens every day. no need to label this one especially.

what is life and what is hell..?

we're just living and being..animals seeking individual goodness. the pursuit of the selfish good is at the core of our existence. how else to ensure survival..?

we gotta understand that the self whose existence we should work to preserve is the whole of humanity. the greater soul of human culture only reaches heaven when humanity no longer exists. heaven on earth is unachievable as long as humans exist. this doesn't mean that we need hell on earth.

hell is torture. we can't torture ourselves. we should avoid committing ourselves to hell in life. lets keep working for human goodness and avoid torturing ourselves with thoughts of what could have been. if something would be good and it still can be, then let's make it be.

the rapture is just a label of the day. interpretations of the bible often lead to misunderstanding. but if the misinterpretations bring about better action and greater good, then what are they really misunderstanding. the bible is meant to better human goodness. if it does that, then it is doing its job and it is being interpreted exactly as it should.

to those whose souls will transcend human life today, let you be remembered as good. death on the rapture ensures transcendence in heaven..but so does death any day.

this is cheating

i wrote this for two amazing people over a month ago, but it's stuff that's been on my mind and i thought it'd probably be better to post up here so as to keep it with all of my thoughts. so really just thanks r & s for being my inspiration : )

God is the ultimate force behind all existence. I feel like living a life for God..for Goodness..for Truth..will bring fulfillment and happiness in life. I can't imagine afterlife. My conception of myself is reliant on my body..my physical existence. It would be nice if there were some explanation for how a soul could transcend its body and instantiate itself free of neural organization. I don't see how I would be the same individual in death as I am in life. I am my brain and body so i feel like I will be no more once my brain and body are no longer functioning. Maybe there is some sort of bliss in death that comes as a reward for living a fulfilling life. Maybe somehow our individuality perpetuates in death and we still have memories from life on earth. I just don't know enough. I feel God does have a goal though. In my opinion, God is purposeful existence. What is the purpose? I guess that is yet unknown.. I feel that God is guiding the collective knowledge of man to a point of complete understanding of Nature. Every physical interaction has a purpose and plays a role in shaping humanity and the future of the natural universe. I feel like the only way that we can really think of our identities being eternalized is by leaving a substantial footprint on the progress of humanity and society. As long as there is an existing conception of your identity in some mind, you exist in some shape or form even if you die. the essential youness won't exist (at least like physically) without your brain and body, but like Jesus and Socrates, if you have a significant impact on humanity, your life will not be forgotten and the concept of you will live on. This is kind of depressing though because so many people have significant impacts on the immediate lives of many, but their memory doesn't survive through multiple generations. I want to believe that there is a heaven, but I can't imagine the reality of it other than just pure bliss free of all worldly cares. I look to God for guidance almost daily. I respect the fact that I am a part of God's existence and that he is the causal force behind all interaction. i hope that by following signs and instincts, i will be led down the path that God finds best suited. Love is key and I am not stingy with sharing mine. I think that reciprocal emotion and communication through emotional expression are both major factors in establishing true comfortable relationships in which both parties understand each others' perspective. that's why holding back emotions when with friends or family is counterproductive. If you want to have a comfortable understanding relationship with someone you've obviously got to open up. I like to call this sharing my God-love. It's like the emotional connection between people..or more that people have with one another and with other physical objects.

So basically that's where i'm at. I don't go to church or read the bible. I have one good friend - my suitemate from first semester last year who got arrested for multiple drug felonies last winter - who has found God and had an experience that he can't put into words. He is now clean as a whistle and living his life for God. He's invited me to Gospel and bible study a few times, but I'm just so busy that I can't make it. I went once just to support him as he told his story of finding God and turning his life around. It's apparent that God is making moves in the lives of those I love and if I really consider my life, I'd say that he is speaking to me through myself and my experiences as well.

my christianity

i'm all about family. the best way for me to think of spirituality is in the context of family.

we are all the children of god. i like to think of god as the father and nature as the mother..mother nature. the analogy works out fine. Although normally..when not thinking religiously, i think of god and nature as synonymous. which is cool because in christianity, marriage unites two beings into one. But in this relationship, as sometimes we might think of the mother providing the order around the house and the father provides the means of life support for the family, i think of god as being the energy and substance that interacts with the order of the laws of nature bringing about existence of the family of beings. i use this analogy only because it is the type of structure that i am most familiar with. plus i sort of feel that god gives us new opportunities for religious thinking in order for us to relate with him best in contexts that we're familiar with. and that's why there are so many different religions. God wants all of his people to live for him and understand his plan to work for the ultimate good. so in different cultures there are different religions because god interacted with people of those cultures to establish structure to lead to the ultimate good of that culture. problems have arisen now as the world has become smaller and religious beliefs (which have taken on meanings god never intended) interfere with one another. The point of god is goodness and the point of religions is to help us understand what goodness is and how we should act in order to achieve it.

so god's family and christianity.. Jesus was real. He is the ultimate big brother. While you all reading this are my brothers and sister (some big and some little), jesus was the perfect brother who did exactly as god would do. he was abel and the jews who couldn't stand him in his life were cain. ah biblical reference. he was just too perfect for them to tolerate.

in a family, there is this idea of unconditional love. you love your family just because..independent of their actions. sometimes actions stand in the way of a good relationship between family members, but in a loving family, familial love is stronger than any disruptive actions. the love remains. we have got to think of existence as familial. and god and nature as the single parent soul leading this family in love. so although we may not have good relationships with people, we should still love them. there are different levels of love, but among all things there should be the essential familial love of ultimate existence in god's family.

jesus loved all. in families, some members get along better with others because their personalities are more in tune. all the members love each other, but some people have more similar views and interests than others. the great thing about families is that everyone accepts one another for who they are. Unless one attribute or tendency of a member is extremely detrimental to the well-being of the family as a whole, members of a family are going to let each other be as they are. It's all about respect for the personhood of one another.

this is how we should love here on earth today. wwjd. jesus loves. we should too. who cares about difference of opinion. we don't have to get along to get along. as long as we all are working for the greatest good love should guide us to happiness.

synchronicity

coincidence with meaning. ever since i learned the term (coined by Carl Jung), examples have been popping up like zits on an 8th grader's forehead. it's strange that the meaning behind most of these coincidences has involved spirituality or religion. it is nice how we can attribute the causal force behind such coincidences to our God. this lets us refer to a structured account of how we should interpret these coincidental interactions to give them meaning - an account we find in the Bible. and what's most interesting about the Bible is that it is a key source of synchronistic experience. how often do people find the perfect verse to help them get through the tough time they've been having? sadly, because my devotion has never been too significant, i've never experienced any synchronicity with the Bible, despite my countless efforts closing my eyes opening the book and pointing to a random place on the page.

I'm not so familiar with the Bible, so i've just been relying on my own reasoning and experiences to determine what the synchronistic events should mean. Using my knowledge of God and the order of Nature and what ought to be, i can usually come to an interpretation that lets me act appropriately. Most times, i'm good to go and my decision was beneficial to the overall well-being of myself and others. There are other times when I fail though and am left with regret and disappointment. I guess I've moved past simply talking about reacting to synchronistic interactions and am now just talking about acting in general. I should write this paper that was due last wednesday. goodnight nobody