Hey, it’s Saturday afternoon and I had a few drinks–it just seems right!

333 magnify

Thank you for your comment Wings. I apologize for the confusion. I do appreciate your effort to try and make sense out of what I write. The least I can do here is explain what this book report (and future ones) mean to me so that you will be able to judge just how much effort you want to expend in the future.

I will be posting a couple more papers (shorter papers) before I get to my bicycle trip. That trip, my longest, starts south of San Francisco and heads up the coast (I bike the length of Vancouver Island), take the ferry to Prince Rupert, and then turn east and head back to Michigan. But getting back to the book report that made your face cringe; as a child we are handed our parents’ religion. We accept that religion or reject it. If we reject it, we seek out a new religion (sometimes going back to the rejected one), or, we become an atheist. The point is that religion/God is somehow wired into our genetic code as “a need to make sense out of a sane and/or insane world that we inhabit” (even the no religion, no God, of the atheist is still religion).

I have found the one true religion and, for me, it consists of living, loving, believing, learning, and, seeking to understand our “life journeys.” Yours, mine, and all other life journeys may not only be conceived of as uniquely determined, but also as a religion that is universally experienced. Religiously living, believing, learning, seeking, and loving is religion. A very famous philosopher once said words to the affect (after spending half his life investigating the limits of language and logical analysis): where meaning (truth functional logic applied to propositions concerning facts) cannot go, one should not speak. In a limited sense, I agree with Mr. Wittgenstein, but when one’s life journey becomes synonymous with logic, language, God, and all the emotions Ma Nature can dish out, then not speaking, I believe, becomes synonymous with sin (that may be the only case where the word sin applies). So, as I record my reasons for my religion, I suspect there will be a lot of turned up eyebrows from occasional blog readers. That’s fine, just don’t burn me at the stake—pleeease! I wanted Martin Buber to have the last word here, but, try as I may, I could not find the quote I was looking for in his book “Between Man And Man.” This is what I remember of it though: He said that what separates humans from animals is the incredible potential humans have to expand their horizons. What separates humans from humans is the way that potential gets squandered. For the most part, squandered potential occurs across a wide spectrum of chaotic endeavourers. However, wasted potential is different from potential actualized in the service of finding a home, or going home as Buber might say. For Buber, “home” is found in I-Thou relationships.

Eventually, after my bicycle trip, my writing will concentrate more on what my religion entails. I will even describe an existential logic that, I believe, grounds truth functional logic. In that description, new light will be shed on the Sartre/de Beauvoir for-itself concept. Sartre’ people might disagree with me here, but I bet they would at least be willing to give me a star or two for creativity.

Take care,
dave

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: