posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 03:13 PM
The greatest motivating fear in our human history is the notion that there is no reason behind our existence as sentients behind the mere chance of
emergent behavior through complexity-seeking interactivity. Many would rather believe in anything than even to consciously formulate the question of
whether there really is nothing beyond what we experience and do while we happen to be operational.
Truth is an interesting concept because it itself shares some logical underpinnings as the concept of a deity. If you believe that a shared reality
exists between you and I, as in the minimal case, we're two independent agents of action, then there must be a true state of reality outside of our
subjectivity wherein that interaction happens. As an aside, usually some intolerable wank will bring up the idea that due to our subjectivity, we
can't prove anything beyond our own senses (to whom, I wonder?), or solipsism, at this point, which while logically true, and while an oddity, ceases
to be useful in meaningful conversation other than to make a point about the logical absurdity of sentience.
Once that hurdle of solipsism is passed, then there is already a location wherein a deity could reside and no agent need know. Such a place is in the
reality that we sometimes find exists outside of either of our subjectivity. If you've ever found out that both your memory and another's memory
about an event was not correct, then you've found such a place.
The problem with this as far as deities go is that the ones who reside in such a place have had their domain increasingly reduced as there are more of
us experiencing reality and comparing our notes about it. There will always be room for them, but the obvious corollary is that this means those who
define God as human intellect, or the fire, or the light, as a few symbols used, have been experiencing just as much an increase in the domain of that
conceptual deity. You see, the corpus of knowledge that constitutes the basis of that kind of religion increases at a staggering rate compared to the
supernatural based. Though it is also prone to deception, and inaccuracy, it is at the very least one assertion less unproveable than the
supernatural. If you decide to ignore solipsism for the sake of not having to declare nothing proveable, then the constant testing of our reality and
comparing results is as close as one can get to zero unproveable assertions.
Those who define God as something like our sun, which grants warmth, life, protection, and most important of all, variation, have perhaps experienced
a bit more understanding due to greater ability to observe astronomical events. Mostly the core tenets of this time of solar chain reaction we're all
riding remains ever as it was, though. Do you owe the sun anything for it happening to have eventually resulted in your being able to experience it?
I'm happy that the sun is there, but if it were not, who would be, to be in anguish? It is in like manner that some assert that we owe deference to a
still-interested creator God, and they admonish that to consider otherwise is an intolerable arrogance. Cui bono?
With any environment that has at least two independent actors, and a variation, there eventually arises a power imbalance. If your goal as an actor is
to obtain that power, or at the very least to not be abused by such power, then you must be fully versed in deception and subversion to the point
where nothing is too sacred to question. Not even your core values should escape scrutiny. There is a constant momentum of control exercised in our
world, and many may never fully become aware of all forms, much less to a coexistence, independence, or mastery. There are agents better prepared to
get and utilize control, and some will use any means at their disposal. Is it more possible to serve two masters, or none? Is it even possible to
serve no masters? It is possible to try.
In becoming a self-critic, with no questions too blasphemous to consider, and self determination in finding the answer, one learns truth over time as
the power structure telling you what to believe, what to think, what is, becomes obsolete to the process. Even intellect worship will lead you astray
from truth, as it evaporates the humility required to be frequently wrong on the ceaseless path toward truth.
So, when I say that the greatest motivating fear is that of there being no reason, no cause, I believe that contemplating such an idea can create a
panicked need to replace it with any other concept, from oneself or others.
If it isn't apparent by now, I would describe my God as truth. So it's a distinctly interesting feeling to ponder the meaning of the truth of God,
and how to express the concept. As long as I'm being candid, I have to say that I feel a bit trepidatious about my actually submitting this post, as
I feel like I got more out of writing it than others will through reading it. Nevertheless, thanks for doing so.