Support individual searching for meaning

My Indisputable Churchless Truths have been holding up pretty well, judging from the comments on them so far. So I've been pondering their implications for how I, and others, react to peoples' descriptions of what they find meaningful in life.

One of the truths is:

Each individual must determine, or choose, his or her own meaning of life, because life's meaning isn't a given like gravity or electromagnetism.

Religions consider otherwise, of course. A true believer finds the meaning of life in the Bible, Koran, Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib, or the words of some revered spiritual teacher.

Yet this still is a choice -- to accept a set of religious beliefs. So we can't get away from the need for individuals, whether churched or churchless, to determine what makes life meaningful for them.

This blog is dedicated to supporting non-religious searching for meaning. As I've mentioned before, when I started the Church of the Churchless in 2004, it didn't take me long to come up with a pithy "tag line" to put at the top of the page.

Preaching the gospel of spiritual independence

(I'm not nearly as fond of the term "spiritual" now, but it still is useful shorthand for a non-religious pursuit of what life is all about -- more appealing to most people than "philosophical independence," for sure.)

I wanted to bring this up because I find that some commenters on this blog, including me from time to time, fail to make a distinction between (1) a statement of collective religious belief and (2) a description of what an individual finds spiritually or philosophically meaningful.

There isn't a hard and fast distinction between (1) and (2), but they clearly are different.

Example: someone leaves a comment on a post that says Christianity, Islam, Sant Mat, Hinduism, or another religion is true, and I'm an idiot for not recognizing this. I'll respond along the lines of Oh, yeah, who says? Show me the evidence.

However, if someone comments, "I really enjoy meditating in the morning as [fill in a spiritual practice] teaches," what goes through my mind is That's great. I'm glad this person has found something that is so meaningful to him or her.

Likewise, it doesn't bother me to hear, "I don't know if my religion is true, but I get a lot of satisfaction from believing in it." This is humble, non-dogmatic, personal.

Whatever people want to believe, that's their right. They just shouldn't demand that anyone else accept beliefs that have no demonstrable convincing evidence behind them.

(However, I also have quite a bit of sympathy for The Wandering Taoist's position in his "Nothing Personal" post, which argues that individual religious beliefs can have significant collective consequences that affect many other people.)

Where I think some commenters on this blog go awry -- and I'll admit that occasionally I've been guilty of this -- is treating someone's personal statement about what is meaningful to him or her as if this was You Must Believe! religious dogma.

I'm fine with attacks on collective religious authoritarism. But not with questioning someone's individual philosophy of life.

Especially when that someone is me.

Not so much because I'm so important to me (though naturally I am), but because the questioning of what is meaningful to me made me realize that it's unfair to do this to anybody.

Understand: I'm cool with criticism, debate, or disagreement of something I write. I've been an avid writer for most of my life. I'm used to people approving or disapproving of what flows from my mind and onto paper (or now, screen).

However, recently I got quite a bit of grief from some commenters when I talked about how much I enjoyed philosophical Taoism -- which is about as far from religion as a "spiritual" (broadly speaking) philosophy can be.

This made me realize that sometimes this blog can get off track, since its goal is to support an individual's non-religious search for meaning. Such is going to be essentially non-debatable, since meaning is much more of an I like, not an I'm right.

I like strawberries (particularly the Oregon variety). Who can disagree wth my liking?

I like philosophical Taoism. Who can disagree with my liking? 

When I express my adoration for strawberries or Taoism, I'm not saying that you should like them also. I'm simply describing what I find appealing about these things. I'd enjoy it if you tried them and found them likable also, but I've got no expectation of that.

Anyway, I wanted to throw these thoughts out in a hope that people who participate in comment conversations on this blog will ponder the difference between dogmatic religiosity and individual meaning.

We should challenge the former and support (or at least tolerate) expressions of the latter.

Comments

[Silentreader]

Brian said \\\"This blog is dedicated to supporting non-religious searching for meaning\\\"

Others have said; this is Brian\\\'s blog he is entitled to write about himself and do whatever he likes. Frequent posts are about Brian likes this ...., Brian believes that... and Brian is cool with something else .....

Is this post a revert to the good old days of more about meaning and less about Brian?

[Brian]

Silentreader, thanks for making my point. Why do you have a problem with me writing whatever the heck I feel like on my own blog, if what I write is meaningful to me?

Understand: you're free to critique what I said in this post. Instead, your thrust is a criticism of me -- for getting meaning out of what I like to do.

Like many people who post anonymously on the Internet, you seem to find meaning in being critical and negative. I don't understand the pleasure in this.

But, hey, if that's what rocks your world, feel free. I just find comments like yours meaningless, because there is no content other than "I don't like what someone else likes."

[Silentreader]

Brian
Why do you take even the most simple of questions as an attack on you or your blog.
I pointed out the difference in apparent and declared purpose of this blog and asked the perfectly reasonable question whether you intended to revert to "search for meaning" or continue the "I will write what the heck I want". It makes a difference to me, I will either read your blog more often or give it a miss.
Can you respond normally for once, without paranoia?

[ric]

A famous author who was widely criticized for his ideas once suggested that one watch a person's adjectives to uncover irrational or emotive intent.

Silentreader here uses "good old days" which then implies "bad new Brian". That is a personal attack. Subtle disguised name calling.

Later, the terms "normally for once" and "paranoia" are used which are hyperbolic and inciting attacks aimed squarely at the person.

I've seen this approach used methodically over and over again on political boards. Say something that sounds reasonable but include some emotion provoking adjective.

[Brian]

ric, excellent points. People communicate in many subtle (and unsubtle) ways. Messages, such as blog comments, convey a lot in how words are used, the emotional tone of those words, and such. I'm sensitive to this, as are we all. Like you said, it's misleading for someone to deny their obvious intent as Silentreader tried to do.

Silentreader, I suggest that you read this blog to find out what is going to be posted on this blog. Heck, I don't even know what I'm going to write before it is written. Often I sit down at my laptop with one intention, and something else emerges from my typing.

Such is the spontaneous creativity of Tao (way-making).

[Rain]

Since I didn't read this particular blog in 'the good old days', I cannot comment on whether it's the same or different than it was, BUT it seems to me that what Brian is saying is that life is about evolving. If he was saying the same thing as back then, that would sound more like he was getting into a religion, trying to solidify his ideas into rules for others, than doing what he says he seeks to do which is to flow where his ideas go. More power to him is my take on that.

All blogs are about a person's take on what is going on no matter what we say. How could it be otherwise short of only using links and even then it'd be which links?

Personally I like blogs and people that grow and change, that explore new ideas, that aren't afraid to express where they are because they know it might change in a year.

[+@o]

"I pointed out the difference in apparent and declared purpose of this blog"

-- That is such nonsense. The "purpose" of a personal blog like this one, is whatever the author wishes and decides the purpose to be for that day or article. And what you call "apparent" purpose, is really only your own perception and assumption, and not necessarily the authors's.

"and asked the perfectly reasonable question whether you intended to revert to "search for meaning" or continue the "I will write what the heck I want"

-- I just don't see those two (the "search for meaning" versus "I will write what the heck I want") as being in any way contradictory. Nor do I think there anything different for Brian to "revert" to, or "continue".

What is your problem Silentreader? Don't you understand that this is a personal blog wherein the author has the right to express anything he likes? There is no RULE that demands some particular consistency or uniformity. This, like everything, is a work in progress.

"I will either read your blog more often or give it a miss."

-- Who cares? I don't give a damn what you do, and Brian shouldn't either.

"Can you respond normally for once, without paranoia?"

-- Your subtle personal attacks, attempts at personal undermining and ridicule, are plain to see. If you don't like this blog or its author, then go elsewhere.

[rakesh bhasin]

I do not fully agree with the comments left by Silent reader. But somehow I do not agree either with comments offered by Brian, ric and +@o.

If you wish to reprimand somebody, your approach and tone has to be different.

I would specifically like to say to Brian, that the tone of the contents of your posts is always excellent as you write them at your own. These are in response to your own feelings. These are vivid and thought provoking.

But your replies to other's comments are mixed and sometimes not up to the expected mark (imo). Is it that you are carried away by the other's remarks to the extent that it shakes your emotional fabric. A much greater responsibility is solicited from your end.

If a visitor to your blog is asked by somebody else to go elsewhere, that is not fair.

I always wish that the replies should come from the person, if asked specifically. Others can always participate.

By any means, I do not intend to hurt anybody’s feelings.

[+@o]

"I do not agree either with comments offered by Brian, ric and +@o."

-- Rakesh, it seems that you don't understand this blog, and especially the malicious and derogatory intent behind the comments that people like Silentreader are posting.

"If you wish to reprimand somebody, your approach and tone has to be different."

-- No, it doesn't. And Brian wasn't reprimanding either. You post however you want to, and others will also. Like I said, I don't think you get what the issue is about in this case.

"But your replies to other's comments are mixed and sometimes not up to the expected mark (imo). [...] A much greater responsibility is solicited from your end."

-- To hell with your "mark". People should be free to speak their minds. And that includes Brian. So loosen up and don't try to make others conform to your expectations. That kind of stuffiness and naievete is lame.

"If a visitor to your blog is asked by somebody else to go elsewhere, that is not fair."

-- No Rakesh, you're absolutely inoorrect. I did not "ask somebody else to go elsewhere". I said this: "If you don't like this blog or its author, then go elsewhere." In other words, meanimg if you are not happy with this blog and its author, then simply go somewhere else that you like better. You are trying to put the wrong spin on this Rakesh. You don't understand what the point was.

"I always wish that the replies should come from the person, if asked specifically. Others can always participate."

-- Huh? What exactly are you trying to say here?

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear +@o,

Your point wise negation to my response is insipid and uncalled for. It appears that either you are a spokesman or more than 51% shareholder of Brian’s blog. Yet, neither of it entitles you to reply to my comments, particularly when I had specified. It is ill manner.
It will be ill manner now on my part if I write more than this.

Sir, I also hold a little heart within my rib cage, so what if you can not see it. It reverberates, so what if you can not feel it.

Sir, you are your own master. You may opt to reply in your characteristic manner. Frankly I enjoy it; you are the rarest person who can send his signals hundreds and thousands of miles away with a flick on the type pad without realizing its repercussions.

With regards,

[+@o]

Rakesh, you said:

"Your point wise negation to my response is insipid"

-- You are entitled to your opinion, but like your previous comment, it doesn't hold much significance.

"It appears that either you are a spokesman"

-- I am a spokesman of my own views and opinions, not Brian's Your

"Yet, neither of it entitles you to reply to my comments, particularly when I had specified."

-- You're wrong Rakesh, because apparently you are not even aware of what you said. You specifically mentioned me. You said: "I do not agree either with comments offered by Brian, ric and +@o." That entitles me to respond to you. But then I can comment anyway, even if you hadn't mentioned me. You seem to think that there are certian rules in place here. You seem to think that things should go according to your expectations. But you don't call the shots here Rakesh.

"It is ill manner."

-- Thats incorrect. There was nothing in my previous comment to you that was ill-mannered. If you think there was, then what/where exactly is it?

"I also hold a little heart within my rib cage, so what if you can not see it. It reverberates, so what if you can not feel it."

-- What are you talking about, or referring to here? Again, you seem to be somewhat confused. I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say, or why. But one thing for sure is that you do not know what I am able to see and/or feel.

"you are the rarest person who can send his signals hundreds and thousands of miles away with a flick on the type pad without realizing its repercussions."

-- Wrong again Rakesh. I say whatever I say for my own reasons and intentions and effects. But your saying "repurcussions" here, sounds slightly like a veiled threat (a bit reminiscent of your buddy Manish). So then it is really you who is the one who does not "realize" what you saying or implying.

The issue or problem here seems to be that you have some various particularrigid expectations of how other people should be and think, and what they should and shouldn't say. But its about time that you wake-up and come out of your naive bubble, and realize that the world simply does not work that way Rakesh. If you can criticise me and disagree with me (which you clearly have done), then I can do the same.

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear +@o,

Thanks.

with regards,

[Ben]

hey brian, found your site after looking up "loving my mac" btw i do love my mac it's great. anyway, i agree a person's "religious" preference is their own personal business, understanding why they believe instead having a person come up to me and say "you must believe" makes a difference. it's something i can relate to right now because i made a choice in leaving my "religion" and it's my choice not anyone else,

[+@o]

Rakesh,

Thanks and my regards to you as well.

[xxxxx]

transcendant experiences of scientist

http://www.issc-taste.org/main/introduction.shtml

[Jen]

Transcendent experiences of scientists – this is a quote from the site: “Sometimes I’ve been able to give scientific information about these experiences that relieves the reporter, producing a reaction something like: “Oh, it happens to other sane people? There’s an established name for it? I’m not alone, it doesn’t mean I’m crazy?!”

Wow, isn’t that great, must be okay if a scientist says so, obviously reliance on scientific information is the cure for everything (as long as you can give the condition an established name of course), scientists don’t sound closed minded or arrogant at all…I can sleep easy now… not

[Jen]

After my last post and feeling a little annoyed with myself at my knee jerk reaction towards the attitudes of scientists I decided to read more about “Scientists Transcendent Experiences” and found under “Current Addition” a rather aptly named article called “Synchronicity?” which starts off with… “I had read Carlos Castaneda’s books (several times)…

I’d just been discussing Carlos on another thread, so thanks to xxxxx for posting the link :)