A Tentative Conclusion

 A Tentative Conclusion...

...To this part of my journey. Not the end. No final answers here. 

Just where I have found myself for now in this never ending journey.

Hopefully this blog has left you hanging. At least that was one of my goals. This process sure has left me hanging. There is no certainty. Nobody knows anything for sure. Sometimes I get asked, “what if you are wrong?” And my response is “what if I am?” Being right or being wrong is not the point. I’m quite sure that probably we are all wrong. There is a much better chance of that than there is of a small group of people that are in constant disagreement among themselves, proclaiming to the world that they are the only ones that are right, which is an arrogant proclamation that the rest of the world is dead wrong and going to hell, begging the question, "how big is hell anyway?" https://livingwithopenhands2.blogspot.com/2021/03/heaven-and-hell-and-other-such-stories.html. Here is an example: the percentage of Evangelical Christian in the world is 7.9%. These are split up into 706 Evangelical denominations worldwide. https://lausanne.org/lgc-transfer/number-of-evangelicals-worldwide

As I’ve said many times, I don’t write because I know, I write because I don’t know. But I’ve found this the best way to learn. I can’t begin to learn by already thinking I know. That stops all learning dead in its tracks. I can’t learn anything when I attach my own dogma to it; no matter if it is my own internal dogma or all of the external dogma and conditioning that we have had shoved down our throats all of our lives. The point here is to learn to ask better questions, to get better at open-ended inquiry; open to new ideas, and open to new understandings. The reason I called this a tentative conclusion is that this blog will continue to evolve just as I must continue to evolve.. Writing is something that I’m compelled to do and this world sure has plenty of things to keep writing about. So as I learn new things, I write about them so that I can return to it and remember all that I have learned and so I can remember who I am. I must continue to write who I am.

As I described in “Why I write 2.0”, there are at least two ways of writing. The most common is writing about an area of expertise after studying it for a long time. This type of writing tends to spoon feed us answers from authors that think they know. This is a process of “knowing” not a process of inquiry. And that is not what I’ve tried to do here at all. Writing, for me, has become a deeply disruptive and transformative process of inquiry that does not end with answers since this world has a deficit of answers and an abundance of questions. It is a process that is never ending rather than conclusive, dynamic rather than fixed or static, so that we walk away not with answers but with more and better questions.

Again, writing for me has become a deeply disruptive and transformative process of inquiry. I have recently added the word disruptive to this personal definition of writing that I’ve had for a long time. Disruptive changes the whole dynamic. It is a painful, heartbreaking process of letting go or ripping and stripping things away so that we can get to the essence of being human, essence of meaning for me, and the essence of purpose for me. Often transformation requires that we are stopped dead in our tracks, otherwise we will never pay attention. Our default is to keep going and going and staying busy and busier, constantly on the move. But it so happens that within each and every second are teachable moments. But too often we miss them. We miss life passing us by. All of life is our teacher that gives us lessons of wisdom day by day, minute by minute, second by second. The questions we must ask ourselves are: 1) What are my learning abilities? And 2) what are my learning dis-abilities? Am I listening? Am I looking? Am I paying attention? Am I aware of the abundance of life surrounding me? As life waits and listens to me, I must learn to wait and listen to life. Then we can learn to live a life in constant dialogue with everything around us. Remember: Dialogue as a Way of Life.

What I don’t know. 

Knowing what I don’t know is the beginnings of new learning journeys, identifying that which I want to know more about.

I don’t know the origins of the universe or the origins of life but I am fascinated by what is being discovered.

I don’t understand the microcosm of our universe, especially the space between that we used to think was empty,  but I am fascinated by what is being discovered by quantum physics and am trying to keep up.

I don’t understand the macrocosm and the vastness of space but I am fascinated by cosmology and astrology and the discoveries occurring further and further out into space and hence further and further back in time. This is the manifest universe (taoism) or the explicate order (physics - Bohm).

I don’t understand the unmanifest universe that we cannot see but this implicate order, I think, holds a key to understanding all things metaphysical both large and small.

The implicate order (in physics) is the unmanifest universe (in taoism). The explicate order is the manifest universe that unfolds from the implicate order and then enfolds back into it. The whole universe is a continual process of unfolding and enfolding. What we perceive is that which has unfolded. This process is a great mystery that begins to help us understand how things work.

I don’t know the depth and complexity of the human brain and body but I am fascinated by consciousness, thought, perception, and the way we interface with reality using images and concepts filtered through our worldview.

I don’t understand the human brain and all of its complexities and abilities but I’m fascinated by what is being discovered today.

I don’t know the full scope and depth of language and words but that is a learning journey I’m on.

What I can’t know. 

This is embracing the mystery and uncertainty of life as it is.

What do we know? How do we know what we know? How do we know what we think we know? What do we think we know that we can never comprehend or apprehend?

Mystery permeates all of life and the universe. 

Mystery is not something to be named or labeled or defined.

Wonder and awe are the only authentic responses to mystery.

Words diminish and desecrate by defining and limiting all that which is greater than us.

Words give us a false sense of certainty and security.

Words give us a false sense of knowing that which we cannot know.

Understanding that there are far too many people claiming to know the things we can’t know at this point in history.

Learning to discern what we know, don’t know, and can’t know is very important to keep us humble and remember how puny we are in the vastness of this universe.

“Each of us creates a picture of our world by connecting a dozen or so of the trillions of dots that would need to be connected to make a ‘true’ portrait of the universe.” — Sam Keen  

Remember: How do we know that we know what we know? 

"Where the mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that is subtle and wonderful." (Lao Tzu)

What I do know. 

This is a question of “how then shall I live?”

The things that we know, if well discerned, 

help us create our worldview; the way we See. 

I know that the me within is the source of the me in this world.

I know that inward and outward alignment is what determines integrity.

I know that my external actions in the world must reflect my internal values and beliefs.

I know and am overwhelmed by my own puniness in the face of the vastness of existence.

When I know I don’t know, this is the beginning of all learning and all knowledge.

I know that “If I know, I can no longer learn.”

Too many people think they know things that they don’t know.

I know that most of life is about remembering what I already know down deep in my bones.

I know there is a knowing that is individual and a knowing that is collective and often passed down through generations. But we must learn to discern the difference between knowing and conditioning.

I know that truth is not something that can be spoon fed. It is that which resonates deep in my bones. It is something that is lived.

I know that each person is different and sees things differently, therefore there is no one creed or doctrine or theology or one path for all of us. That would be antihuman; contradicting the essence of our nature.

I know that when we react or respond in words, then those words often do not come from silence but rather from the noise around us and/or the noise in our heads.

I know that when we take the time for a reflective response, often those words come from a stillness and silence within. This is our source, a fountain of inner life that sustains us. 

I know that language is very complex and that we often abuse it by thinking words are the reality itself rather than what we know them to be; simply signs and symbols that can only point toward reality.

I know that no one’s perception of reality is direct and hence is not accurate. It is filtered through our worldview, lens, beliefs, and conditioning; subconsciously. 

We see things not as they are. We see things as we are.

All of Life is Our Teacher

Life comes to us in each and every moment with an abundance of essential things to learn. What we must ask ourselves is whether we are being attentive or distracted. Don't miss it.

As I realize that all of life is my teacher, one of my greatest teachers is my own hot buttons, my points of defendedness that evoke surprising, emotional reactions.

Often I stand there puzzled and confused asking myself, did I just do that or say that?

I feel it in my heart and in my stomach. And I’m learning that these buttons are my own areas of insecurity, uncertainty, and dissonance. They seem to be cracks in my facade. But isn’t THAT where the light gets in???

Out of the Silence

Healing comes out of the Silence.

Meaningful Words come out of the Silence. 

Meaningful Life and Living come only out of the Silence,

the Stillness, the Source.

Empty words and empty living come out of the noisiness and busyness engulfing  us.

Out of an unsettled and chaotic culture come incoherent lives.

Incoherence means that our thoughts and actions do not lead to the results that we are looking for.

Out of stillness and silence come settled and coherent lives come thoughts and actions that lead to the results we are looking for.

STILLNESS gives sight and insight to see beyond and beneath the surface to the Source.

STILLNESS reveals to us that the space between us, connecting all things, is full and bursting with abundance.

STILLNESS is our connection to this abundance.

After my life completely fell apart, for four years, I was bleeding internally, I could not heal no matter how much religious practice and prayers, crying out in desperation for healing.

Then I sat under the teachings of a Buddhist Priest at a conference in Toronto. It was not to learn Buddhism but to learn the practice of stillness, silence, and presence through the Shambhala tradition. It helped us to be fully present during the conference. That is when the healing began. I brought this learning back home and found a Quaker meeting that worshiped in silence so that I could allow this internal healing to continue to wash over me. That was the only thing that finally healed me, although the scars will always be there to remind me who I am and the fires through which I came.

During this process of transformation, I learned to live out of the silence rather than the noise. I learned to speak out of the silence rather than the noise. Quakers practiced this in everything they do together. At that time I described the difference like this. Shambhala meditation was learning to be silent for the sake of being silent. Quakers practiced silence as a way to quiet themselves to listen to life, God, that still small voice within, or the inner teacher. Often it is waiting for the sake of waiting. I realize now that we are really listening both for the sake of silence and listening to that which is greater than us, the mystery that surrounds us and nurtures us, just like it nurtures the flowers and the sparrows. Some people have a need to name and define this mystery. I realized that by naming and defining that which is greater than me, I am limiting something that is boundless and eternal. The only thing that apprehends such greatness is awareness through silence, not words or noise or the crazy busyness of this life. It is stillness that heals and nourishes us because stillness is the natural state of all creation.

Listening without Agenda

 Listen without Agenda

So that judgement isn’t clouded by dogma

“When is the last time you had a great conversation? A conversation which wasn’t just two intersecting monologues, which is what passes for conversation in this culture. When have you had a great conversation in which: you overheard yourself saying things you never knew you knew; you heard yourself receiving from somebody words that absolutely found places within you that you had thought you had lost; you and your partner ascended to a different plane; memories of the exchange continued to sing in your mind for weeks afterward?” (John O’Donohue)

“A GREAT QUESTION refuses to be answered; so it keeps leading us into deeper connections with each other and into deeper thinking.” (Judith Snow)

For many years, especially since I started blogging in 2006, I have relished conversations that matter, especially those that go deep into the essence of life. Often I would meet with people locally because of something I wrote in my blog that intrigued them. It was not unusual for these conversations to go on for 3 or 4 hours, bursting with meaning and abundance. I also had so many conversations that stemmed from my blog with people all around the world from a variety of cultures and religions or non religions. I love that and still do. But I discovered a surprising and deeper revelation that once I started getting rid of my own preconceived ideas and assumptions, or at least became aware of them, I could listen and understand more clearly. I could see that it is nothing more than posturing, ways for me to think I know. BUT I KNOW THAT if I already know, I can no longer learn. I know that learning begins only when I admit that I don’t know. So I ask myself, why all the posturing?

Fiction, Reality, and Truth

I began to understand that there is reality and then there are fictions. Reality is the things that I can see and touch. Things that suffer. And things that are still there when I’m not looking or when I’m not there. I realized that dogma and assumptions, beliefs and opinions are all fictions. They can never be reality because they are conjured up and exist in my head. They are made up of thoughts and words that I hope and wish were true. Words are nothing but successive approximations of something we are trying to remember or describe. But all I can know is that reality can only exist here and now, in real time. Reality is the manifest universe.

Why can’t truth exist in my head? 

First of all, truth must be based on reality. 

And secondly, neither truth nor reality can fit in my head. No matter how big I think my head is, it ain’t big enough for any kind of reality. So all I’m left with are thoughts and words and images.

And thirdly, it is because the way this world works is that words are made up of thoughts and truth is made up of words and words can never be reality because words are only signs and symbols that can do nothing more than point to reality. 

As soon as we say god or heaven or hell or angels then we use words and words are signs and symbols that become labels. Labels are words and words can never be the reality itself. They define, categorize, and limit reality so that we can put it in our heads in story form so we can remember, understand, and describe things as accurately as humanly possible. No matter how much I wanted something to be true or real, my yearning, my wanting, my desiring, and my hoping can never create reality. Reality and truth stand alone, on their own with no need for our labels and names. No matter how much or how hard I long for and imagine reality and truth, it does not make it any more real.

I finally understood that truth never becomes “true” or “more true” by clenching my teeth or my fists… I had to let go… of everything. I had to stop creating my own illusions. I had to open my hands, my mind, my heart, and my will to anything and everything that comes my way. I had to let life come as it is, without definition or limitation; emerging new, clear, and pristine every day, without my agendas, interpretations, conceptions, assumptions, determinations, or expectations; accepting all of life and all people unconditionally. For more, see Inward Deepening begets Outward Expansion

Note: See further discussion of reality versus truth (below) as I rethink them in the process of writing this blog.

I found that without dogma, my conversations were more open and penetrating. Without expectations, there was a freedom to allow the dialogue to lead us where it may. By suspending assumptions and interpretations, I could truly seek to understand and more clearly hear others. Becoming aware of hidden agendas and ulterior motives, I could love more deeply and unconditionally.

Too often we think we are listening, but actually we are not really listening but rather we are “listening for” something that agrees with our thinking and feeds our ego, which means it aligns with our agenda, dogma, beliefs, opinions, etc. Another term for it is confirmation bias. So we are screening what we hear based on what we want to hear, based on what agrees with me, based on what is the same as me, based on what I’ve been told is true, based on the same thinking I’ve been stuck in all my life. 

"We become especially hostile when trying to defend opinions we know, deep down, are false. Rather than trying on a different pair of goggles, we become mental contortionists, twisting and turning until we find an angle of vision that keeps our current views intact." [Adam Grant]

And by the time we think we heard the person, we are really busy formulating our own response and totally missing the point that the person was trying to make. That’s how we stay stuck in our repeating cycles of assumptions and end up cheating ourselves and others. We end up having conversations with ourselves, thinking we are “all that” because we found another person that agrees with me, that I can absorb into me. But we forget that it is different ideas that broaden our perspective and deepen our understanding. It is diversity that sustains us, not our sameness.

“Our disasters come from letting nothing live for itself, from the longing we have to pull everything, even friends, into ourselves, and let nothing alone.” (Robert Bly)

“I began to realize that my identity depended not upon any beliefs I had, inherited beliefs or manufactured beliefs, but my identity actually depended on how much attention I was paying to things that were other than myself — and that as you deepen this intentionality and this attention, you started to broaden and deepen your own sense of presence.” (David Whyte)

“The beginning of love is to let those we love be perfectly themselves, and not to twist them to fit our own image. Otherwise we love only the reflection of ourselves we find in them.” (Thomas Merton, 1915-68)

Rethinking Reality Versus Truth

I realized as I was rereading and editing the above section on Fiction, Reality, and Truth that I was getting confused about what I meant by Truth. Generally, I’ve thought of truth and reality as being the same thing just as I expressed it in the last section. But when I contrast reality with fictions, truth got very fuzzy for me. And who wants fuzzy truth. What I’m beginning to understand is that I had defined truth versus fiction but I hadn’t clarified for myself what I meant by truth. I think that I’ve uncovered an assumption that was confusing things in my mind. I think of the opposite of fiction as nonfiction. Nonfiction is a true story, right? But a true story is different from objective reality. Truth is what I use to label as something real in my own judgment. So what I mean is that now I see truth as the story I tell myself about what I believe is real.

This is a great example of mental models or my worldview getting in the way of clarity. For all of my life, my worldview said that there are two kinds of truth, absolute truth and subjective truth. I see now that I had been using the word truth as something similar to reality, meaning absolute truth. But what does that even mean? The way I was taught growing up is that absolute truth is the unchangeable truth of God and the bible. But now I see that is part of the dogma that I have let go of. There is no absolute, there is nothing certain, there is nothing final. Everything is temporal, uncertain, and changing. That is the problem of dogma. It requires absolutes which require certainty. If no absolutes exist then neither does absolute truth. So now I see that in my vocabulary going forward, I must clarify what I mean by truth. And if truth to me is different than truth to you, then truth cannot be absolute. It is subjective to context and interpretation. WAIT!!! That means that subjective truth means 1) anything someone labels as truth, since there is no absolute truth. 2) When we look at fiction versus reality, truth is simply my name or label for something that I think is true, meaning that it falls into the category of fiction every time. In other words, truth is part of our thoughts and our words that we are using to create an image of reality. So for me, when I come close to what I think is real, then I label it true. But that doesn’t mean it became reality or real. It is a descriptor in my mind. Truth is simply another story in my head that I use to label a reality that I am judging to be real. But I know that none of this is final since, if I already know, I can no longer learn.

SO… rather than backing up in this post and changing my mixed use of “truth” in the last paragraph, I’m going to leave it as is as a reminder of the lesson I just learned. Conditioning is so subtle that I didn’t even realize I was misusing the word “truth” but I do know that I had a growing dissonance that began in my subconsciousness and eventually now has emerged in my consciousness. I’m curious if anyone else caught that dissonance.

“What is truth? You can see where there is truth and where there isn’t, but I seem to have lost my sight, I see nothing. You boldly settle all the important questions, but tell me, my dear boy, isn’t it because you are young and the questions of the world haven’t hurt you yet?” 

(Anton Chechov, The Cherry Orchard) 

Great Conversations

Learning to talk with each other again

Begin with understanding. Seek to understand more than to be understood. Conversation is not about me, it is about us.

Begin with curiosity and inquiry. Use these qualities to first open my mind and heart and ears. 

Only then should I open my mouth with questions to understand more deeply.

Begin with questions more than answers because “A great question refuses to be answered; so it keeps leading us into deeper connections with each other and into deeper thinking” (Judith Snow).

Questions beget questions that eventually lead us to a deeper reality. 

Answers stop questions and hence stop all understanding proclaiming that it is I that knows all.

A great conversation is the process of uncovering shared understanding of reality and truth; a process for moving forward together.

“Since our earliest ancestors gathered in circles around the warmth of a fire, conversation has been our primary means for discovering what we care about, sharing knowledge, imagining the future, and acting together to both survive and thrive.” (Juanita Brown, The World Cafe)

“‘I believe we can change the world if we start listening to one another again.’ I still believe this. I still believe that if we turn to one another, if we begin talking with each other – especially with those we call stranger or enemy – then this world can reverse its darkening direction and change for the good.” (Margaret Wheatley)

“The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.”
(Niels Bohr)

“Once a profound truth has been seen, it cannot be 'unseen'. There's no 'going back' to the person you were. Even if such a possibility did exist... why would you want to?”
(Dave Sim)

Theological Noncognitivism

 God Language

casual, familiar, ordinary, desecrating, and profane

Theological noncognitivism is the position that religious language – specifically, words such as "God" – are not cognitively meaningful. It is sometimes considered synonymous with ignosticism.

Theological noncognitivism (aka ignosticism or igtheism) is the claim that theists do not believe in a god, but only believe that they believe in a god and behave as though they do, but that they don't because they have not defined any god to believe in since it is not possible to define god. God, by definition, cannot be defined since once they define any god, that god ceases to be god since god cannot be defined because god is beyond definition.

The term "God" is not defined by any primary attributes, so we have no means of understanding what it means. For example, we can understand the phrase "a brown chair," because the secondary attribute (brownness) is being attributed to a chair. Chairness, in this example, is a primary attribute. However, we cannot understand the phrase "a brown echo," because an echo is not the sort of thing you can attribute brownness to. The primary attribute of being an echo precludes certain secondary attributes. With God, we have no primary attribute(s), so we cannot understand how to apply other attributes to God. The result, according to this argument, is that we cannot understand the term "God" at all.

There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:

A. Primary Attributes

B. Secondary Attributes

C. Relational Attributes.

B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.

The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.

Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C.

However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.

Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless.

Therefore, the god-concept is invalid

Since the only attributes of god that humans are able to experience are silence and invisibility, then, since neither of these can be ascertained by human senses, these are not positive or primary attributes that can be verified. They are not primary attributes because they are descriptors of a noun or a primary attribute which does not exist. Since silence and invisibility are the only verifiable attributes that can be ascribed to god they become null and void without a primary attribute, just as an adjective demands a noun to describe in order to be an adjective. 

Any existant without a primary attribute to which secondary attributes and relational attributes cannot be assigned is incoherent.

Image of God

Since there is no physical, visible image of god for humans to see, touch, hear, we cannot verify that reality. In the same way, words were never meant to be any sort of reality in themselves. Just like thoughts, they are only signs and symbols that we use to point to something real. The word "cloud" is nothing like the actual cloud floating by. But in order to use language, we must create an image with thought in our mind and then use words to describe our image of the cloud that we saw. 

Well, god is a step further away from reality toward abstraction. Unlike a cloud, we cannot see or verify this imaginary character in the sky. So in order to use communication and language, thoughts and words to apprehend and try to comprehend this abstraction, we must use words to label and name that which is unnamable, invisible, and silent.

So what are we left with? Our own mental graven image of god that we cling to even though we know that worshipping images of god is against the second of the ten commandments. (past participle - graven: fix (something) indelibly in the mind).

“If nothing that can be seen can either be God or represent Him to us as He is, then to find God we must pass beyond everything that can be seen and enter into darkness. Since nothing that can be heard is God, to find Him we must enter into silence.” (Thomas Merton in Seeds of Contemplation, p. 131)

All of this is within the context of human cognitive understanding. We create human constructs to describe that which we cannot know because that's all we have; theology, religions, creeds, dogma, doctrine, holy books, rituals, beliefs; we call it all faith. 

Recently I have come to realize it is all images 

from our imaginations doing the best we can 

to grasp that which cannot be grasped, 

to understand that with is not understandable, 

to describe that which cannot be described, 

to contain that which cannot be contained, 

to define that which is not definable, 

to name that which cannot be named, 

to label that which is beyond all labels, 

words, thoughts, images, and imaginations.

We do this based on our craving and lust for certainty and security.

Instead of the nonexistent god-shaped hole in our soul,

we create an imaginary hole-shaped god that we then worship.

St. Augustine (354 - 430 AD) has this to say:
“What then, brethren, shall we say of God?
For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God.
If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God.
If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself.
This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.”

Judaism: Names of God

Do not erase

Rabbinic Judaism considers seven names of God in Judaism so holy that, once written, they should not be erased:   YHWH, El ("God"), Eloah ("God"), Elohim ("God"), Shaddai (“Almighty"), Ehyeh ("I Am"), and Tzevaot ("[of] Hosts").^[1] Other names are considered mere epithets or titles reflecting different aspects of God,^[2] but Khumra sometimes dictates special care such as the writing of "G-d" instead of "God" in English

The seven names of God that, once written, cannot be erased because of their holiness^[5] are the Tetragrammaton, El, Elohim, Eloah, Elohai, El Shaddai, and Tzevaot.^[6] In addition, the name Jah—because it forms part of the Tetragrammaton—is similarly protected.^[6] Rabbi Jose considered "Tzevaot" a common name^[7] and Rabbi Ishmael that "Elohim" was.^[8] All other names, such as "Merciful", "Gracious" and "Faithful", merely represent attributes that are also common to human beings.^[9]

Do not pronounce

The most common name of God in the Hebrew Bible is the Tetragrammaton, יהוה, that is usually transcribed as YHWH. Hebrew script is an abjad, so that the letters in the name are normally consonants, usually expanded as Yahweh in English.

Modern Jewish culture judges it forbidden to pronounce this name. In prayers it is replaced by the word Adonai ("The Lord"), and in discussion by HaShem ("The Name").

Rabbinical Judaism teaches that the name is forbidden to all except the High Priest, who should only speak it in the Holy of Holies of the Temple in Jerusalem on Yom Kippur. He then pronounces the name "just as it is written".^{[citation needed][25]} As each blessing was made, the people in the courtyard were to prostrate themselves completely as they heard it spoken aloud. As the Temple has not been rebuilt since its destruction in 70 AD, most modern Jews never pronounce YHWH but instead read Adonai ("My Lord") during prayer and while reading the Torah and as HaShem ("The Name") at other times.

Christianity

Being raised as an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian, I've always wondered how Christians can so flippantly throw around the name of God and use religious language. It is illogical and incoherent to me because in the context of nonChristians, Christianese is meaningless and in the context of Christians, it is redundant which also renders it meaningless. The more open my mind became and the more I understood about language, words, signs, symbols, etc, at first I realized how desecrating our use of religious language had become. I've heard that "familiarity" leads to treating things and people as "ordinary" or taking them for granted. As I understood more deeply, I began to see that our idea of the sacred and the profane has become so familiar that either way, life is rendered ordinary. Then I realized that maybe that is the key to understand our casual use of language, images, and human constructs. One of the first steps of my deconstruction and deconversion is to deepen my understanding of and appreciation for life; both the sacred and the profane. 

Could it be that

The Sacred is anytime we treat the ordinary as Sacred.

The Profane is anytime we do not treat the ordinary as Sacred. 

Anything that is Sacred, if it is truly Sacred, 

would be appreciated, honored, and respected.

It seems that it would be an act of profanity or a form of desecration 

when we do not appreciate, honor, and respect all things.

For me, this definitely applies to language and the way we limit reality with names and labels through familiarity with that which is sacred, beyond understanding, and far too big to fit in my head or in a book. We treat the sacred as ordinary, common, everyday.

As a nontheist, this led me to THEOLOGICAL COGNITIVISM so that I can recapture the essence of the sacred in my life; which I see as all of life, especially the ordinary. I see there is a great sacredness at the center or core of each person and that sacredness extends to our relationships and the connection we have with all people. And ultimately this extends to that which is greater than me and nameless along with the infinite in both the manifest universe and the unmanifest universe. I constantly hear the profanity of the language that many Christians speak, repeatedly referencing spiritual concepts that are beyond understanding, description, and unverifyable with casual language and magical thinking; treating sacred language as vernacular which drags it through the mud of being vulgar. It is sort of like Jesus' metaphor of throwing pearls to the swine. In this way, religious or sacred language, Christianese, is often used in contexts where it becomes meaningless. In a context of unbelievers, Christianese is reduced to incoherent babbling. In a Christian context, it is used where it is not necessary, especially when it is used in its most common manner, to promote the Christian agenda.

For more on The Sacred and The Profane, click here:   https://livingwithopenhands2.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-sacred-and-profane.html 

"He who thinks he knows, doesn't know. He who knows that he doesn't know, knows. For in this context, to know is not to know. And not to know is to know." (Quoted in both Sanskrit and in the Tao-te Ching)

"The wise man is the one who knows what he does not know." (Lao Tzu)

"The more a man knows, the less he talks." (Voltaire)

Familiarity

Familiarity is our blind spot. We can’t “See” the things we are familiar with; like the way we treat people, the beauty of nature, or the expressiveness of the human face. Unless we “silence the familiar and welcome the strange”, we will not begin to “See” (Sam Keen). Our blind spot will remain blind to us. Remember, there is a difference between “seeing” and “Seeing”, just like there is a difference between just hearing and really listening.

Because familiarity is our blind spot, then things like culture and environment, friendships and relationships often become unnoticeable. We take these things for granted, rather than appreciating them. It is sort of like asking the fish, “How’s the water?” And the fish responding, “What water?”

“Behind the façade of our normal lives eternal destiny is shaping our days and our ways. The awakening of the human spirit is a homecoming. Yet, ironically, our sense of familiarity often militates against our homecoming. When we are familiar with something, we lose the energy, edge and excitement of it. Behind the façade of the familiar, strange things await us. This is true of our homes, the place where we live and, indeed, of those whom we live. Friendships and relationships suffer immense numbing through the mechanism of familiarisation. We reduce the wildness and mystery of person and landscape to the external, familiar image. Yet the familiar is merely a façade. Familiarity enables us to tame, control and ultimately forget the mystery. We make our peace with the surface as image and we stay away from the otherness and fecund turbulence of the unknown which it masks. Familiarity is one of the most subtle and pervasive forms of human alienation.” — John O’Donohue: Anam Cara. Spiritual Wisdom from the Celtic World, p121

In other words, routine tends to tame mystery and silence wonder.

Therefore, could it be that when we reduce the Sacred to that with is ordinary, too familiar, it loses its power. Is this not the true meaning of the Profane? Do we not do this routinely every day and lose that which is sacred in every moment, every person... everything?

For me, theological noncognitivism is a way for me to mind my language expression, especially when we forget that none of us is right and that we are all wrong in many ways. I choose to steer away from arguing about what god is when I believe that is something that is impossible to know or to describe with any words. I've had enough of theological debate due to the meaninglessness of it for me.

When I started blogging in 2006, ronirvine.wordpress.com, it didn't take long for me to realize that I must limit my use of "god" in my writings if I was to take an inclusive rather than exclusive, peaceful rather than violent approach to communication in Living with Open Hands. Anytime we define, we limit, and that in itself is an example of living with clenched fists. I found that when I got past religious language to a deeper place of common ground with purely human language, then people were drawn from all walks of life to read my blog. My stats showed that I've been visited by 88,000 people from over 150 countries. This was when I was still a very strong Christian! I inherently knew that using religious language is always divisive among humans when it is open and inclusive people that I'm interested in reaching out to. The data confirmed my suspicions. Religious language and especially the word god tends toward divisiveness because no two people use the word god to create the same image in their minds. This is the problem of concrete words representing abstract concepts. It forces us to create our own mental graven image of god and then worship it.