A Meme

What is your current obsession?

Flowers ~ and taking macro shots of them ~ a la Georgia O'Keefe.

What is your wierdest obsession?

At one time I used to collect all the hair from my white afghan hound ... I'd instructed his groomer to save all the hair from grooming sessions because one day I planned to have the hair processed/spun into wool and then knitted into some sort of scarf or whatever. 

What are you wearing today?

A ecru-coloured cotton short-sleeved top, yoga-style capri pants, white socks and whte sneakers. My feet are hot. I'm going to take off my socks and shoes. Bare feet, all the way!

What's for dinner?

A glass of Coca Cola and I dunno what else. I am an eccentric eater, I often take dinner quite late or sometimes not at all.

What would you eat for your last meal?

Deep-fried brie and cranberry sauce ... those biscuits from Red Lobster with Beef Tenderloin cooked medium and a peppercorn gravy/sauce and horseradish and mashed potatoes with nutmeg and a caesar salad sans croutons ... a shot of sambuca and a piece of warm chocolate cake, drizzled with hot chocolate sauce and two scoops of real vanilla ice cream.

What is the last thing you bought?

Some cool postcards designed with my own photographs from QOOP.

What are you listening to right now?

The song of starlings, echoes from the upstairs neighbour's no-so-tasteful music choices, the swoosh of the tower fan in the bedroom, the creak of the ceiling as the upstairs neighbours walk around. My cat playing with her bell toy.

If you could have a house totally paid for, fully furnished, anywhere in the world, where would you like it to be?

In Italy, in some Tuscan village. 

If you could go anywhere in the world for the next hour, where would you go?

To the top of the Rock of Gibraltar to see the Barbery Apes.

What language do you want to learn?

The language of the human heart and soul.

What's your favorite quote (for now)?

"On your bike."

What is your favourite colour?

Cotton Candy, Strawberry Milkshare, Bubblegum PINK!

What is your favourite piece of clothing in your own wardrobe? 

Do my comfy old rabbit-fur lined mocassin slippers count? Cos that's what my favourite is.

What is your dream job?

1. Head Designer of my own Graphic Design Firm; 2. Self-sustaining independent Photographer, (Web) Designer; 3. A published fiction author.

What your favourite tree?

Japanese Cherry Tree ~ any variety ... particularly the Kanzan or Pink Perfection.

What are you going to do after this?

Have a steaming hot shower.

What inspires you?

Nature ~ particularly flowers and birds; Georgia O'Keefe; awesome photography; pink and purple sunsets; a certain Pilot.

What are your favourite books?

All time favourites ~ as a child it was a particular Cinderella book with the most beautiful art work in it; as an adult it's A Time Traveller's Wife.

What are you currently reading?

The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society.

Go to your bookshelf, take down the first book with a red spine you see, turn to page 26 and type out the first sentence:

Enormously irritating to me and my torturers of course, but, you know, credit where credit's due and all that.
 

What delighted you the most today?

Receiving meatspace feedback from my photo notecards.

By what criteria do you judge a person?

1. Manners; 2. Honesty ~ ie do they keep their word; 3. Sense of timing ~ ie are they always late (grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ~ HATE that!).

 Are you artistic or crafty?

 Yes and yes.

My added question: do you have an innie or an outtie (belly button)?

Innie.

The rules: Respond and rework: answer the questions on your blog, replace one question with a question of your own. Tag eight other people. And of course, as all tags go, you may choose to ignore this request. Play if you like.

guest blogger - my stuffed moose

lonely existentialist moose

moose seeks partner with fresh perspective to search for answers to the universal questions in life. (deep breath here) primarily - what is the plural of me? is it meese? meeses? mooses? moosi?
seriously! hell is not knowing the plural of yourself. how can i find love if i can't put an appropriate label on 'we?'
(sigh.) exploring the greath truths ... that's what counts in this life.

ein sof and g-d

i have begun reading simone weil. and then somehow, trapsed into jewish philosophy. jewish agnosticsm. kabbalistic thinking. i have discoverd the concept of g-d. of ein sof - that which has no end. no-thing-ness. ein sof contains no things. no parts. its a purest form of completion. its infinite. reality, the universe, then become the fingerprint of g-d, of ein sof. and g-d’s light - his wisdom - lies in the articulations of this fingerprint that generate the momentun which powers the universe, reality.

the crux of this vision lies in a necessary distinction between existence and being. the notion of existence as participated being. and the notion of being as a state which only g-d can achieve, through his very essence.

Everything else simply assumes reality and value through God alone. ‘God is mediation: God is mediation between God and God, between God and man, between God and things, between things and things, and even between each soul and itself.’

simone weil … and her mystical, agnostic vision sparked something in me. (incidentally and unbeknownst to me until recently, the kabbalistic vision looks much like simone weil’s in this respect).

And he shows his love through absence. Because, even though He can have no part with the finitude in which we live, except through Incarnation, He created all this finitude of ours through a withdrawal from Himself which allowed for our existence. At this precise point, we have what I would call, a metaphorical depiction of the mystery of Creation. Thus God has to be absent so that we may be. He proves his love through his absence.

interesting? i think so. i feel so.

and … as i delve further

into the mind of simone weil,

i have this question.

has the catholic church become the false god or idol against which it preaches?

compassion escaping

compassion escapes me.
right at this moment.
pain. silent, inert rage
fill me.
that’s it.
this sense of worry i have?
could that be a trace of love?
or …?
love … where did it go?
i feel empty of anything
save despair
and a fervent desire
to disengage
from humanity
g-d - are you?
i seek the truth
humanity
seems far too vile
to have come from
anything divine
compassion … escapes … me.

reconciling the 3 Os and free will

the 3 Os? omniscience … omnipotence … omnipresence

omniscience? definition: knowing everything.
omnipotence? definition: inexhaustible power.
omnipresence? definition: widely or constantly encountered.

what do these concepts mean, when applied to the g-d entity? well, according to the catholic politik it means that god created, and has ready access to, all knowledge; that g-d can accomplish everything in accordance with his own nature; and, g-d is everywhere at the same time.

so - g-d existed before knowledge? yes - omnipresence. how, then, did he gain the knowledge required to create it? omnipresence. does g-d possess and/or have ready access to propositional as well as experiential knowledge? omnipotence, omniscience. does the g-d entity’s omniscience include all knowledge that extends to the end of time? this implies that g-d has knowledge of what lies ahead. assuming we also ascribe omnipotence and omnipresence to the g-d entity, then ‘yes’ seems the logical answer.

so far it seems logical to reconcile what the politik have told us about the nature of the g-d entity. we can think of the g-d entity as (1) possessing all knowledge - past, present and future; (2) possessing the ability to transcend the dimension of time as well laws of science and nature; and (3) existing everywhere at the same time.

how do we juxtapose the concept of humanity’s free will with such a g-d entity? the existence of an all-knowing g-d entity seems at odds with the concept of man as a free agent, doesn’t it? if we consider that the g-d entity transcends the dimension of time, then omniscience and free will do not seem mutually exclusive concepts. when using the word eternal to describe the g-d entity, the politik meant that he transcends time. this stands to reason, if one accepts the asssumption that god created time.

aquinas reminds us that free will also means the god entity permits anyone to fall into sin and “incur the penalty of condemnation for sin.” and so … aquinas leaves us with the notion that freedom exists only in one’s own heart, mind and soul. that freedom really describes a psychological state. since, to say that the g-d entity causes everything means that he causes even so-called free acts. and here we have a loose end that remains to be tied up at some later date, in its own post.

with respect to omnipotence, i think its crucial to consider the g-d entity’s perfect nature - what aquinas called ‘actus purus et perfectos.’ what did aquinas mean? well, that’s a subject for an entire post. but briefly — he meant the g-d entity exists only in act, that he exists completely in actuality and not in potentiality, and therefore, has no corporeal form. so, this implies then, that the g-d entity does not have infinite abilities, per se. but has the power to do all things instrinsically. he cannot lie, by definition, since he speaks truth.

and so, it seems i have accomplished a great feat here in this post. i’ve reconciled these 3 Os with the concept of free will. a great feat for myself. achieved through thru this dialogue. with myself. on these questions of god-ness that have burned inside me for as long as i can remember. i have always wondered, and, as a child, i even asked a few times. about how to juxtapose an omniscience god entity with man as a free agent. i do not ever recall receiving a satisfactory answer. i recall hearing far too many words … prompting me to think ‘hmmm, i guess they don’t know either, they’re just towing the party line.’

i feel i have stumbled onto something here, in striving to touch god. for me its striving to touch truth. whatever that truth may be. truth grows only in the light. darkness can harbour no truth. inherently and innately, my humanity, my blood and my bones possess this desire for truth and light. so, this oddessy i have embarked upon, to touch g-d. its a sort of peeling away the layers of darkness to see what lies beneath. i have no way of knowing, really, what i will find when i’ve cast aside the darkness with my questions and investigations. and … no preference for what i find there. but, i owe it to truth to continue on this course, on this course of touching g-d.

God and religion ~ the jury's out

yep. i can safely say that here. i dunno. honestly. what the fuck do i regard as fact? what the fuck do i regard as fiction? years and years of blind, merciless and cruel ::exclusionary:: indoctrination have left a gaping burn hole on my heart. on my soul. along with suspicion. and defiance of the existing self-delegated authorities. and then … the JC figure pops into my head.
i’m thinking of JC. a maverick of his era, for sure. shunned, in fact, condemned, by the religious authorities of that time for heresy, blaspheming. not married, in an era which expected, required even, men his age to marry. and he kept companionship with several other males. what. what. what, would we think of such an individual by today’s standards? would we think he’s gay? and … does it matter? and … does JC matter? i mean, in the grande scheme of things?
does it frighten us to apply contemporary standards to ancient biblical times? does it assist us in advancing our goals? i have awareness that i’ve used “US” here. only for convenience, really. i don’t consider myself part of that US. but, the old paradigm, seared into one’s being, ain’t so easy to erase from this self. at any rate, what of applying today’s standards to societies that existed millenia ago? if this makes mohammed a pedophile, then surely, it must also make joseph and god himself one, too. for … mary was but a child, by today’s standards - barely old enough to give consent to any sexual union - be it with another human or with the holy spirit. and now back to my comparison of societal standards … does it make JC gay?
and this leads to a very interesting thought that catholicism - i keep myself closed in the catholic box here because that’s the paradigm i know very well - has based itself upon sexual repression. one only need look to the horrific abuse at mount cashel school for boys in the maritimes to face the ugliness of catholicism’s dirty little secrets. dirty. that’s a word i think of when i think catholic. manipulation. of the power dynamic. oppressive. in its subjugation. of the flesh. of humanity. this subjugation of sexuality. this repression of a most powerful and most beautiful primordial behaviour. don’t you think its twisted? sick? DYSFUNCTIONAL? i wonder … did JC intended for his ‘church’ to erect itself in this manner? did he intend for his institution to grow to such largess as currently? and with such carnage?
of the world today. of so-called christians today. what would JC think? what would he feel? if he could see? see into the reality of human existence? and the hypocrisy of christianity. christians who burned joan of arc at the stake. and then several hundred years later canonized her to sainthood. hypocrisy. hearts filled with hatred. all in the name of JC. what would he think? would he give a free express pass thru heaven’s pearly gates, to all those mothers who abandoned their dying, AIDS-ravaged sons? would he give out special edition halos to all those who exclude others in his name? would men who rape little boys receive an exemption from condemnation because they wear a roman collar?
i wonder. i wonder. that’s all. i guess that makes me a heretic, then?

thinking about religion

ok. so, first post about this stuff. i’m trying something new. religion. theism. its shaped my person. the child i was once. the woman i’ve become. i don’t subscribe to a religion, really. in my mind the jury’s out on this god thing.
furthermore i think all those out there who pad their own egos and self interest in the name of their god are just as guilty as those they condemn as sinners, blasphemers and fallen angels. case in point - the vatican. just some other types of politicians. exploiting the belief system of the masses to forward their own political and personal agendas.
ok. that’s all i’m gonna say for a first post.
oh wait. one more thing. i wonder why is it forbidden to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge? what is it that god does not want us to know? that’s where i’m at with religion and belief in god.