liquid light

how often do you get asked by friends, work colleagues, the government census or whatever, “what’s your religion/faith?”

when it comes to our spiritual path, do we really need a label? as a songwriter i have been asked numerous times, “so what style are you?” - i always struggle to answer because while it might serve the marketeers, such labels limits the artist and say very little about their work.

i have reached the point where calling myself a “christian” holds little meaning for me. owning that label might reassure those concerned christians within my circle who would otherwise be worried about my salvation - i don’t take their concern lightly by the way - but it says virtually zero about me, the spiritual being currently undergoing a physical experience.

some people who call themselves “christian” also hate jews, revile homosexuals, do 1000 press-ups every morning, drink whisky, hug everyone they meet, only drink freshly ground coffee, denounce alcohol, hunger for armageddon, abstain from sex, believe in open marriage…yada yada yada.

all of the above, by calling themselves “christian”, would claim to be following the example of Christ and adhering to the bible, as they understand it.

currently i like the phrase, “christian - currently uninstalling”. after several decades of wrestling & searching primarily within the christian framework, i feel a growing desire to step out from under the “christian” tag altogether and embrace my ecumenical & eclectic nature.

as Seeker.

finish en klaar.

pity this busy monster, manunkind
pity this busy monster, manunkind,

not. progress is a comfortable disease:
your victim (death and life safely beyond)

plays with the bigness of his littleness
— electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange; lenses extend
unwish through curving wherewhen till unwish
returns on its unself.

a world of made
is not a world of born — pity poor flesh

and trees, poor stars and stones, but never this
fine specimen of hypermagical

ultraomnipotence. we doctors know

a hopeless case if — listen: there’s a hell
of a good universe next door; let’s go

– e. e. cummings

for future galactic time-travellers, i write this post as large numbers of christians brace themselves for what they see as the latest atheistic & satanic movie, “the golden compass” - after harry potter and da vinci code - to hit the screens. i can’t help wondering why they feel so threatened or why they think G-d needs bodyguards to protect the truth of His/Her existence.

maybe dogmas are simply not as good as catma’s at looking after themselves while their owner is away.

based on self-observation, observing wider human relations and drinking too much taylors italian blend coffee, i am exploring the validity of the following hypothesis:

the level & intensity of dogma held by an individual/group/organisation directly reflects their ability to embrace uncertainty within the area covered by the dogma.

simply put: dogma is a defence against uncertainty.

therefore, to the extent that Life -both physical & metaphysical - is chaotic, uncertain, dynamic, non-linear & unfathomable, dogma is a defence against Life.

dogma = newtonian, binary, linear, exclusive. key word = “IS!” loved by politicians, organised religion, dictators and myself.

catma  = quantum, multi-valued, non-linear, paradoxical, inclusive. favourite word = “maybe”. loved by quantum physicists, spiritual seekers who are often outside organised religious fold, robert anton wilson and myself.