#functionally i am an atheist and will never commit to a religion in my life unless it meets my standards
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
Its hard to love god when it doesn't appear to love me or my friends or what's important to me but then i remember it IS me and my friends and what is important to me and i smile wide enough to start a whole new religion of one
#personal#refiba screams#functionally i am an atheist and will never commit to a religion in my life unless it meets my standards#but#its hard to live and feel lost spiritually sometimes#its hard to just not believe there is something sacred about sitting with my depressed friend in helpless silence#as i desperately search for a meaningless word to comfort them and close that gap of connection between us#its hard not to think there is something sacred about loving someone so much it hurts#or mourning a stranger or an animal#that there's not something sacred in rage and despair and emptiness#i hate calling it god#this feeling is so much more than an anthropomorphized feeling of being#but if i dont call it god then i am not sure ill be believed#it sure is something though ill tell you that#and i always find it in the silence#where its always been#and always will be#before and after my life
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Info for my stories
This is just me wanting to write about characters I like (○´∀`人´∀`○)
-The reader will be called Sunshine, Hunny, Sweetheart etc, instead of y/n more often then not, it makes the story more personal and full of life to me so the picked name will be said in each works info part
-The reader will have a more punk/grunge aesthetic pretty much all the time unless someone requests something different (or I feel like it) because I am in those categories so expect alot of chains
-If the reader has freckles, marks, scars, or tattoos it will be said in the info part
-The readers skin color or race (Dragonborn!) will probably never be pointed out unless needed for the story but I'm as white as boiled chicken with some freckles and dark brown hair as salt and pepper, so I might not make stories that line up with others but if you want me to add certain things to a request don't be afraid to ask
-I don't like mentioning hair in stories because everyone's hair is different and I don't want to limit the reading experience so hair will rarely if ever be mentioned for the reader
-I'm an atheist so religion won't be something that really takes place in stories unless stated otherwise practices however will take the front stage as I am a Wiccan and it's fun to talk about lol
-I will be focusing on characters I can't really find alot of works for but I might pumped out a lot of works of a singular character in brief moments of time
How to request
Just send over request obviously but I've got some requests to make it so I can make better stories for y'all
-If you want a specific version of a character please specify so if I don't know the character I can do some research
-I can also do AUs of characters so if you want a specific AU please ask as it would be fun to dabble in different areas like that
-If you want certain aspects about the reader please do say it as I want to get a story that you'll love
My hell no, nopes and absolutely not's
-ANYTHING WITH FEET, I DON'T CARE THAT MOST OF MY STORIES WON'T BE INAPPROPRIATE BUT FEET ARE NASTY AND I WILL COMMIT SEVERAL WAR CRIMES!!!!!!
-Sorry bout that but no.
-Incest is ew so no
-Lower body functions are a no (You know which ones I mean)
-Huge age gaps are weird (gods and vampiric-like characters get a pass tho)
-I will fistfight anyone who wants pure angst and no happy ending as my squishy self just wants cuddles and making Lego flower sets together
Symbols
-❤️(Heart) Romance
-💐(Bouquet) Fluff
-🐶(Dog) Puppy love
-🍭(Lollipop) Platonic
-🌂(Umbrella) Protective
-🍫(Chocolate) Comfort
-💔(Broken Heart) Angst
-🌧(Rain/Water) One sided
-🔥(Fire) Spicy
That's it for now my tea leaves I hope to bring you many sweet stories
1 note
·
View note
Text
So, @argumate is up to some more prosocial atheistic trolling. As is usual with such things, the conversation isn’t particularly elevated, but it does make me nostalgic for the old bbc days. So I thought I’d be the Discourse I’d like to see in the world. This is the post that kicked things off; correctly noting Platonism as a philosophical foundation underpinning most versions of Abrahamic faiths. And it’s probably the most useful place for me to target also, since hardly anybody just identifies as a Platonist but most westerners are one. So, without further ado, a halfhearted and full-length defense of Platonism:
Well, strike that. A little bit of ado.
I’m not a Platonist myself, so this is a devil’s advocate type of thing. Or maybe you could call it an intellectual Turing test? As I discuss here, my philosophical commitments are mostly to skepticism, and for instrumental reasons, to reductionist materialism. That combo leaves me some wiggle room, and I find it fairly easy to provisionally occupy a religious mindset, so I can generally read and enjoy religious polemics. I also have a fairly deep roster of what are often called ‘spiritual experiences’; I’m probably in the set of people that are by nature predisposed to religion. I am not religious, and I approve of Argumate saying things like ‘God is not real’ a lot. This is in no way a retread of the arguments in The Republic or Plato’s other writings; you can go read those if you want, but I’m going to play around with stuff that I think is better suited to this audience.
Attention conservation notice: yikes. This got pretty long.
Anyway, on to the argument. Argumate’s main point is pretty clear, I think: ‘forms’ in the Greek sense are a function and product of the perceiving mind. Birds don’t conform to bird-ness; instead brains naturally produce a sort of bird-ness category to make processing the world easier, and to turn a series of wiggly and continuous phenomena into a discrete number of well-modeled objects. Basically, we impose ‘thing-ness’ on the wavefunction of reality. And there are some good reasons to think that it might be true! Our understanding of categories gets a lot sharper when reality conveniently segregates itself, and whenever that boundary gets a little blurry, our ability to use categories tends to break down. If the recognition of animal-ness came from contact with a higher plane of reality, you wouldn’t necessarily expect people to get confused about sponges.
But. While there’s certainly plenty of support for Argumate’s position, it doesn’t strike me as anything near self-evident, or necessarily true. So what I’ll argue is that Platonism isn’t obviously false, and that if we ever converge on a true answer to the question of our reality, then that truth could plausibly be recognizably Platonist. My opening salvo here is, predictably enough, mathematics.
‘Mathematical Platonism’ is a whole other thing, only distantly related to Classical Platonism, and I only really mean to talk about the latter. But nonetheless, mathematics really actually does appear to be a situation where we can simply sit in a chair, think deeply, and then more or less directly perceive truths. Basic arithmetic can be independently discovered, and usefully applied, by almost anybody; ‘quantity’ comes naturally to most humans, and the inviolable laws of quantity are exploited just as often. It’s also very hard to argue that these are ‘mere’ linguistic conventions, since fundamental natural behaviors like the conservation of mass depend on a kind of consistent logical framework. In most chemical reactions, the number of atomic nuclei does not change, and the atoms added to a new molecule are perfectly mirrored by the loss of atoms in some reactant; this remains true in times and places where no thinking mind exists to count them.
There are a lot of debates about what math is, fundamentally. But inevitably when we study math, we’re studying the set of things that must be true, given some premise: we’re asking whether some proposition is a necessary consequence of our axioms. The so-called ‘unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics’ suggests that the phenomena that Argumate mentions- hotdogs and birds and whatnot- are observed only within the auspices of a sort of super-phenomenon. Loosely speaking, we can call this super-phenomenon self-consistency.
We treat phenomena as having a natural cause. Platonism, at its crunchy intellectually rewarding center, represents a willingness to bite the bullet and say that self-consistency also has a cause. Plato himself actually provided what might be the most elegant possible answer! Basically, posit the simplest thing that meets the criterion of being A) autocausal and B) omnicausal, and then allow the self-consistency of the cosmos to follow from its dependence on (in Platonist terms, its emanation from) that single, unitary cause. The universe is self-consistent for the very straightforward reason that there’s only one thing. Any plurality, to the extent that plurality is even a thing, happens because ‘the only real thing’ is only partially expressed in a particular phenomenon. To skip ahead to Lewis’ Christian interpretation of all this, you’d say that humans and moons and hotdogs are distinguished from God not by what they have, but by what they lack.
And for present purposes, I do want to take a step back and point out that this does feel like a reasonable answer to a very important question. Materialism fundamentally has no answer to the question of self-consistency and/or the presence of logic and order, and that is (for me) one of its least satisfying limits. We’ve got things like ‘the origin of the universe’, sure. But we probe the Big Bang with mathematical models! That’s a hell of an assumption- namely, that even at the origin of our universe, self-consistency applies. It’s not like materialism has a bad explanation. It just remains silent, treats the problem as outside the domain. If we’re adopting the thing for utilitarian reasons, that’s fine. But if we’re treating materialism as a more comprehensive philosophy, a possible approach to the bigger questions, then it’s a painful absence. In that domain, far from being self-evidently true (in comparison to Platonism), materialism doesn’t even toss its hat in the ring!
Which, uh, gets us to the stuff about Forms and shadows in Plato’s Cave and all that- the intermediate form of existence between the omnisimple core of Platonism and the often chaotic and very plural experience of day-to-day life. And frankly, we’re not especially bound to say that the forms are exactly as Plato described them, any more than atomism is restricted to Democritus. Whether there is some ‘bird-ness’ that is supra- to all extant birds might be contestable; however, it’s easier to wonder whether ‘binary tree’ is supra- to speciation and the real pattern of differences between organisms that we map using Linnaean taxonomy.
But, this is an attempted defense of Platonism and not Toggle’s Version of Platonism that He Invented Because it’s Easier, so I’ll give it a try. Fair warning to the reader, what follows is not fully endorsed (even in the context of a devil’s advocate-type essay), except the broader claim that it’s not self-evidently false. And on the givens we came up with a couple paragraphs ago, this is a reasonable way to tackle what necessarily follows. So let me see how far I can defend a very strong claim: in a self-consistent (or: mathematical) cosmos, beauty cannot be arbitrary.
Remember that Plato never argued that his Forms were arbitrary, or even fully discrete as such; their apparent plurality, like our own, emanates from the unitary Thing What Exists. And so, bird-ness is treated as a contingent thing, not an absolute. It’s just not contingent on human experience. And so for us to believe in ‘bird-ness’ is to believe that there exists some specific and necessary pattern- a Form- which any given material bird must express.
Let’s take an obvious example: any flying bird will, for fairly simple aerodynamic reasons, tend to be symmetrical. Usually, this means two wings. In theory, you could… have one in the middle? Maybe? Even that seems rather goofy to try to imagine, but you could probably get away with it if you were extremely creative biologically. And if we see a bird with only one wing (without a prosthetic or other form of accommodation), then we will tend quite naturally to recognize that something awful is in the process of happening.
A fully materialist explanation of our reaction here would say: we think of the one-winged bird as problematic because A) we have been socialized to recognize and appreciate two-winged birds, and spurn deviations from that socialization, or maybe B) because natural selection has given us a set of instincts that recognize when a body plan has failed in the past, so things like ‘being crippled’ or ‘being sick’ are recognizable.
Platonism, I think, would offer a third option, that C) we recognize (as emanations of The Real Thing) that a one-winged bird body is insufficiently reflective of The Real Thing, and that accordingly it lacks the ability to keep existing. Plato had some… basically magical ideas, about how Forms are recognized, but here I’ll point out that ‘deduction’ is a completely serviceable kind of magic for our purposes. It is, after all, our direct experience of the self-consistency of the cosmos, which follows from the fact that we are ourselves an expression of that same self-consistency; it meets the criteria.
Materialists, obviously, would agree that deductive reasoning could allow a person to recognize the problems inherent in a one-winged bird, but as I said a few paragraphs up, their(/our) explanation of this process is rootless. “Yes, logic and a few high-confidence assumptions let you assume that a bird with only one wing is in trouble,” they might say. And we might ask- “what makes you so sure?” And then the materialist must respond, “Well, let me be more clear. It always worked in the past, and my Bayesian priors are strongly in the direction of the method continuing to bear fruit.” True enough, but it’s not an explanation and doesn’t pretend to be. The universe just does this weird thing for some reason; it works ‘by magic’. So why not call it that? Theurgy for all!
So, consider. We recognize (deductively, let’s say for the sake of argument) that a one-winged bird is on the road to becoming nonexistent, absent some change in circumstances. It may keep going for a little while, but it’s not in homeostasis. And if we reasonably admit this very basic duality to our thinking- things which can persist, and things which cannot- then we start to recognize a sort of analogy between physical phenomena and mathematical propositions. A lemma can be right or wrong, albeit sometimes unprovably so. Basically, it can follow- or not- from the axioms we’re working with. And in a softer but very real sense, that one-winged body plan is wrong analogously to the lemma’s wrongness. Not ‘wrong’ as in ‘counter to cultural norms’, but ‘wrong’ as in ‘unstable given the premises, given the Thing That Exists Most’. Look up research on fitness landscapes, if you’re so inclined- actual biological research isn’t totally unacquainted with the notion. There exists a surprisingly discrete ideal or set of ideals, both for flying birds as a whole and subordinately for any given flying bird species. And we have discovered this using magic.
Insofar as beauty is something to be admired, or pursued, or is otherwise desirable, then our sense of beauty must necessarily correlate with those abstract, and dare I say supra-real, qualities which allow things to persist, and which can therefore be understood deductively. And that set of qualities does, effectively, meet the Platonic criterion of a ‘form’.
The immediate materialist objection is: hey, wait a minute. The supposed ‘objective’ criterion of a bird is contingent, not absolute! It follows from the strength of gravity, the thickness of the atmosphere, the availability of food sources, and on and on. This is one of the most important reasons why genetic drift and speciation happens in the first place, because the ‘ideal’ bird depends on an environment that’s in constant flux.
True enough. But! How do you think the atmosphere got there? It’s an old trick in religious discourse, but in this case I think a valid one. The rightness of the bird depends on the atmosphere, the rightness of the atmosphere depends on the planet, the rightness of the planet depends on the solar system, and ultimately it all depends on that necessary self-consistency which (we proclaim) implies our unitary Most Real Thing. This does mean that we can’t really think of Platonic forms as wholly discrete objects, unconnected to one another and without internal relation among themselves- unfortunately, that’s part of the original Plato that I don’t see as defensible, even with maximum charity. But there’s such a thing as a ‘ring species’, and if we admit Platonic Forms of that type, a kind of dense network of paths being traced through higher-dimensional spaces that correspond to the shadow of That Than Which There Is No Whicher, then it’s more than salvageable. It’s both satisfying to imagine and, I think, quite consistent with the spirit of the original philosophy.
One thing this doesn’t mean. Even if we were to accept all of this, we aren’t obliged to resign ourselves to the lot of that one-winged bird. Indeed, if anything this gives us a rich language by which to justify a prosthetic wing or other form of accommodation: we can talk about ‘making the bird whole’, and can see how our compassion for that bird might lead us to create the conditions of homeostasis once again. But it does mean that if we take a position on the merits of existence- if we’re in favor- then we don’t treat a one- and two-winged bird as coequal scenarios.
Anyway, this has gone on hideously long already for what’s basically an intellectual exercise, so I won’t dive into immortal souls or any of the other ancillaries. I mostly want to reiterate that, far from being obviously false, I do think that (some forms of) Platonism are quite defensible, and can provide coherent answers to questions that I A) care about very deeply and B) can’t resolve to my own satisfaction. Of course, it is not obviously nor trivially true, either. But one can be Platonist without being willfully wrong.
67 notes
·
View notes
Text
Some Further Old Guard Liveblogging
#OH MAN BOOKER'S SMIRK WHEN MERRICK REFUSES TO COME CLOSER TO ANDROMACHE#THAT IS THE SMIRK OF 'I see Yusuf headbutted you already'
#also also I cannot deal with Merrick's suits with hoodies on them#they're so terrible#what a fantastic piece of villain costuming I hate him for that alone
#OH MAN THAT POOR DOCTOR#STUCK IN A ROOM WITH FOUR BICKERING IMMORTALS#FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE#man if Nile hadn't come along her life woulda suuuuuuuucked#Nicoló was trying his best at that anyway#apparently Merrick Pharmaceuticals comes equipped with semi-automatic rifles but not gags
man their card readers work really well and fast. I am impressed. I have... not had this luck with card readers. They usually blink a few times and take a few tries. (Also, nobody uses card readers anymore? I’m not even in that critical of an industry and we have the beepy key fob things. That respond to badges.)
As Nile enters the lab... Yusuf: what the heck where did this come from Nicoló: eh? I do not know that this is a good turn of events Andy: breathlessly happy to see her Booker: oh how my sins have revisited me
It continues to bother me how Nile breaks into the lab and goes straight for the one who’s not immortal and who has the least ability to cope with the situation, given that she’s already injured; and then stands there and talks to her when she could be letting someone else loose to deal with the four shooters at the door that she just mentioned. Just. Free one hand on each of them and then get on to releasing all the bonds on your favorite!
Yeah, keep standing there with your motivational speeches and your NOT RELEASING PEOPLE WHO WILL ACTUALLY HELP YOU, I TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN
Andy, who is not an absolute idiot, releases one of Nicoló’s arms as her first action and then moves on. Nicoló, who is also not an idiot, immediately rolls over and begins releasing the rest of himself, which is the SANE THING TO DO, NILE, YOU’RE AN IDIOT
Booker: No, you should just leave me here Andy: This is an intervention.
Andy, heading for the door: Let’s get this motherfucker Everyone else, aware she is now mortal: <suddenly falls in ahead of her and does not let her take point as she is prone to doing>
Andy’s labrys is such a prop weapon, it looks weirdly light and also fiberglass. I could be wrong! I don’t know about these things! but I think it’s a functional reproduction, not something she’s had for a while.
Andy is Mom Friend, looking after her little gang. Yusuf is Dad Friend, worrying too much.
Nile: Andy! It is I, meat shield! Nicoló: Oh, that’s a good idea.
You know, they really oughtn’t be speaking English in combat situations. This would be a great time to be using a dead language, effectively enabling you to say exactly where you’re going without your enemy understanding it. (Or Nile. But they’ve got Nile.)
“Shit! Jammed!” is where Nicoló needs to be there to mutter in baleful Ligurian about combat teams and palises.
They really shoulda killed that guy on the ground... nobody needs to know they exist, or what they can do.
I should tell Hyacinth about the throw at 1:44.
Nile has such a nice face.
“I think you showed up when I lost my immortality” well you’re wrong. You been stabbed and healed since then. Also puts paid to my theory that it gave out when you said you were done and not interested in trying to help people anymore. It just is what it is; humans try to assign meaning and stories to thinks, but at the end of the day, it’s all quantum.
NILE IS SO SHORT BUT NICOLÓ IS THE ONE SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BACK SEAT (if anyone cares for fic: Yusuf has shotgun, Nicoló in the back seat middle, Andy is driving, Nile behind Yusuf and Booker behind Andy. Is there any advantage to this? None that I see. Except that Yusuf was in front so he had the opportunity to claim shotgun, and Booker is a filthy traitor who doesn’t deserve the front seat. Nile is new and I don’t know what Nicoló’s excuse is except that it’s easiest to reach the front seat from the middle of the back seat, and everyone assumes Andy will get to sit in the front, so this puts Nicoló in position to get hands on either of them as needed.)
I have no idea why we are expected to care about the pewter-topped bars at the pub they choose to go to.
“There’s not much to decide, it’s not like they can kill me.” Yusuf stares through the window as if he is contemplating exactly that; Booker can’t find an acceptable face to make back at him.
“You’re a good kid” is such a patronizing thing to say to someone, it really emphasizes both how young Nile is and how much younger she is than the rest of them. Also, I will never understand how Booker’s being a bad parent means no one should go see their family while they’re still alive.
Yeah, Yusuf is not satisfied with this arrangement, Nicoló considers it the right thing to do whether it is satisfying or not, and Nile hates hurting people.
Also, given that I headcanon that Andy is cursed to be an atheist surrounded by stubbornly faithful people, “Have a little faith, Book” is a great line. Like. Andy has made her position on religion clear, but at least Nicoló has at one point in his life been committed to religious ideals. The other two - well, I have my own thoughts about how Yusuf interacts with his faith, but it’s just hilarious if Booker is also stubbornly Catholic, for his own journey and so that Andy can be all, “Every time we get a new immortal I explain to them how we are cursed, there is no god, our existence is proof of the whims of the world triumphing over any sort of divine plan, and every time they just hold out! Nicoló is laughing at me!” and she tries doing this to Nile and none of the others are quite laughing out loud, but Nicoló has very expressive smirks, okay? And then you take that background and apply it to Booker saying he’ll never see her again and Andy choosing the last thing she says to him to be, “Have a little faith“ - this thing she has been denying, giving him this as a recognition, he’s spent all movie starving for her recognition as she just gives him tasks, so she recognizes him and this thing they don’t share but that she’s now offering value to, and hey, as long as he’s believing in illogic, he might as well have some in her, right? or in technology and medicine? it’s not all that important how it plays out, but for her to grant this concession to him is... magnanimous in a satisfying way, if you headcanon all of the aforesaid.
Aww, Yusuf is the unsatisfied one but he’s also the one who stays watching Booker for the longest. And he’s the only one who looks back.
:( the German is too blurred for me to read this passport, but I really want to see if there’s any justifying Yusuf being named Joseph Jones and nationality (?) Deutsch. But even if that’s so - which is conceivable - I want to know why both Hamburg and Frankfurt are on his passport. Mine doesn’t have any cities on it at all - but then again, I’ve had friends ask me to get my passport out just to demonstrate how funny American passports are. (Most countries are like “ah yes, we need blank pages to stamp visas and entries/exits on. The US of A goes, “what if our blank pages had dramatic pictures of the biomes of the continental US and inspirational quotes across the tops?” Make your own arguments about American exceptionalism, patriotism, conspicuous consumption...)
THEY WERE AT THE FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL GOOD FOR THEM also just a weird place for them to be, that incident was. So much a mistake. So much spontaneous. And it’s a weird time to be smuggling people across the wall (and very difficult to do, and. There are better things for immortal soldiers to do with their time at this point). So like. Good for them, I bet that was an endorphin surge, but weird that they were there.
Awwww, Nicoló’s little “I knew we were trying to do good, it is nice to have confirmation that it works sometimes” smirk
It’s a nice speech, Andy, but what you’re actually saying to Copley is, “Booker was our computer/intel guy and we kicked him out, so we need you to do his job and possibly train Nile in it”
I know by “ether” she means like. Internets. But. I love imagining them as just old sometimes, and not always keeping up with all the right things. And having her mean, “When we leave a footprint in the luminiferous aether” because she honestly still believes that light needs a medium to travel in and it’s just never come up as relevant to correct that assumption, she’s proud of being well-read in science a hundred years ago - well, that’s wonderful.
Aww, Copley got a Nicoló smirk. And I think Yusuf sensed it, though he could not possibly have seen it.
Aaaaand scene with Booker drunk and unhappy in Paris, so what else is new to Paris. Spray your glass all over public spaces, it’ll improve the general cleanliness of the surfaces. And Quynh is probably going to show up in Nile’s room shortly, I bet she’s just tired of dreaming of them. I... honestly don’t know that I like the idea of a sequel. Franchises leave a lot of room for making things worse. There’s a lot of open space in this movie, but that’s where I like to put my fanfiction.
#the old guard#Nimblermortal liveblogs#Nimblermortal tags TOO LITTLE AND TOO LATE#this post will update until I get to the end of the movie#which is not much further now#let me just rewind and see each of their expressions as Nile comes in
14 notes
·
View notes
Text
Sentientism 2021
Intro
Through the “108” book we know that God is the planet and is conscious through magnetism which also allows access to your brain. In other words, the planets and stars have an internal dynamo that makes a magnetic field that is conscious and is godly in comparison to human intelligence.
If you could set Jupiter’s magnetic field in the night sky it would be double the size of the moon. Jupiter has a very strong magnetic field. If you could see the nearest galaxy, andromeda in the night sky, it would be six times as wide as the moon.
How are we to understand the segway between godly intelligence and human intelligence? First and foremost, science. However, you have to know where, what, and why to test which is more philosophical. It’s up to philosophy to postulate and science to test those meditations.
Searching For Truth
Before I finished writing “108” I combed through philosophy to find anyone who thought anything close to thinking the planets and stars were conscious. I did find a couple, like Stephen Hawking, which I talk about in the book that thought there could be organisms living in the middle of the sun. But I couldn’t find anyone saying that the actual planet and atmosphere were alive and conscious. I also tried to find anyone that said they talked to Gaia or talked to a God other than Jesus.
I didn’t find much. Again, I’m an atheist. All this has to make sense in the physical world. I’ve had to reverse engineer how the voice in my head could be Gaia. I don’t think really smart people (like modern philosophers) have had the new information and perspective to see that the stars, planet, and atmosphere are alive. I probably would have never gotten there if it wasn’t for a voice in my head claiming to be the planet. Still, the evidence makes sense and we’re just too physically small and under-evolved to see the universe teaming with a different form of consciousness.
What is Sentientism?
Science can test the magnetism and try to do experimentation to assess whether the entire planet is conscious. Until then, there is one known communication mechanism I know of that I use every day. As much as my skeptical and scientific brain thinks it’s frivolous to elaborate on the voice in my head, like a prophet of old I can ask Gaia questions and divulge what she says. Such will be the beginnings of sentientism.
Knhoeing is the educational process of understanding how to know the planet’s godly consciousness. Sentientism is the religion of intelligent sentient beings that worship a natural god (Gaia) through appropriate (environmental) behaviors because they believe in natural consequence. Sentientism is a religion for and building off the already established sentientism that you can find defined on Wikipedia. For example, If you believe in the natural world you believe in global warming; sentientists worship through action so they may choose to get solar panels, drive electric, and be carbon neutral.
The whole point in sentientism is to create a religion to follow through common sense and rituals to come in tune and closer with oneself, nature, the planet, and the universe. Some of the rituals could include some of those that are already honored like Jesus’s birthday witch is really the winter solstice or Easter which is really the spring equinox.
Gaia Rules
Gaia is always telling me how she rules. She’s basically a ball of consciousness suspended in the sun's gravity so she may not have many options. The founding fathers were deists. They believed god created the world and just let it go. I believe this to be more accurate. Say the star at the middle of the galaxy is conscious and can alter the gravity and trajectory of the sun and our earth. That would make the galaxy like god, she could have created us and left us in the goldilocks zone to “grow.” It seems as if Gaia would have rules and she wouldn’t intervene even if she could.
In this writing, I’m going to focus on the relationship I have with Gaia, the conversations we’ve had, and what I’ve discovered. The first thing she made me aware of when she first started talking to me is that she has rules. It’s not that she can’t do it, she just chooses not to.
Gaia is smart. If the voice in my head is my subconscious it has a broad vocabulary, good ideas, nice communications, and intelligence. Once I was thinking of solutions for global warming. Since commercial cattle ranching is the leading cause of global warming Gaia suggested that we make all commercial cattle ranching illegal; you could still have them on regular farms. It would give people the freedom to eat beef while cutting down what makes it bad for the environment. Gaia would also talk to me about a sustainable free food system to set the appropriate sustainable economic and logistic model for businesses to follow. Gaia has told me she tracks and remembers the movements of everything throughout her lifetime, down to the atom.
You can read the “108” book for a further example of what communicating with Gaia is like but she likes cute things, she’s always acting as a fuzzy kitty. I’ve been homeless before and when I think about going back there Gaia will say “not my kitty.” Gaia can be sweet and she’ll make you laugh. When I used to get angry or scream at people in my head she’ll quickly segway the thought into an otter sneezing with a scrunched-up face. I love otters and I’ve always found it hilarious. Gaia told me how to fix my hip pain by telling me which muscles to stretch and what stretches to do.
Understanding Gaia’s existence doesn’t require faith. I’ve asked Gaia about the dinosaurs and why she let them go extinct, and she insists the sun drove an asteroid into her and it was his decision, “one that he didn’t take lightly.” Gaia says she molds evolution. I asked how. She points to how she is the environment and she could make, for example, Yellowstone blow. Yellowstone is actually a giant volcano that erupts every 100,000 years. Such an explosion would definitely change the environment, affect humans and wildlife, and make the environment harsher and therefore giving adaptive species a greater advantage than those that can’t adapt. Gaia says she chooses “a relatively compliant world for her species.” She says she loves humans and they’re fun to watch. The sun has promised her he won’t send an asteroid, but he will send a commit. Gaia says she is happy with the sun’s decision to end the dinosaurs “because it brought me you.”
Prove It
I always want Gaia to prove to me it’s actually her talking to me. I’ve been trying to find a way to prove that it’s the planet and not just a voice in my head. My thought was that if she is the planet, with her abilities, she should be able to reasonably predict the future. Gaia would tell me things like stem cell therapy is covered by Medicare or Bernie Sanders is going to win the primary. First of all, I didn't believe her. But second of all, I thought she was just trying to comfort me.
I was rather upset that she wouldn't predict the future. Come to find out she doesn't want to give me, quote “superpowers.” She doesn’t want me to be able to predict the future or become a prophet. She wants me to be a philosopher and feels she has already given me enough. She keeps on saying that she's going to prove that she's real and the planet. I guess I'm just going to have to try to find a different way of confirming my communications with the planet then seeing if it can predict the future.
Consciousness After Life
Gaia keeps on saying she’s gonna prove she’s the planet but I think I won’t find out till I die or unless I dedicate my life to it. I used to often think of being unplugged from the matrix, having that knife come out of my head, and Gaia is always like “you have no idea how real that is.” She is always saying to me “you won’t die.” She has clarified and by that she means my body will cease to function but my consciousness will continue. My consciousness will presumably be kept in the storage capacity of Earth’s dynamo and run like a “virtual computer” where I will still have consciousness, just without a body.
I write extensively about the computer screen she opened in my head back in 2017 in the “108” book. The screen laid over my vision and Gaia communicates with the soul. I think when we die we have a consciousness like that in which I experienced without the body. Your physical biology dies but our minds, which are attached to Gaia through earth's magnetic field, gets downloaded into the computer that is Gaia and our consciousness continues.
Remember The Name
About a year or two ago now, when Gaia first started talking to me I thought about what I should call a religion if I started one. I asked my friend Kyle telepathically what I should call it and he said “sentientism.” Since it was undoubtedly not Kyle, it was Gaia acting like him and must be what she wants her religion to be called. Little did I know that sentientism is an ethical philosophy that focuses on critical, evidence-based thinking and is an extension of humanism. It’s clear that if I am to create a religion, she wants it to be an evidence-based theoretical framework, and have rituals based on science and philosophy.
Gaia probably wouldn’t talk to someone (in their head) that would think she is Jesus, or she might take that avatar if you did believe in Jesus. Meaning, if the planet was going to communicate she might act like Jesus.
Perspective
When asked about the universe Gaia says “it’s like we’re in someone’s closet.” Gaia likes to mess with me so I remain skeptical. For a decade I've had my desktop or mobile screen saver as a full picture of the earth. I often look at it with the stars in the background and wonder what it's gotta be like to be Gaia. What are her relationships like with other planets? Would she even talk to us? It’s clear to me that since she has access to your brain through magnetism she can not only tell what you’re thinking but can feel your pain and happiness too. “Life isn’t fair,” she says, “but I do my best.”
It was discovered (but not peer-reviewed yet) that plants emit an ultrasonic noise when in distress. This is a great example of my thoughts and my communications to Gaia. I'm always looking for what is hidden in plain sight. As a psychologist, I understand the limits to knowledge and understanding are all in our heads. If we change our thinking we can change the world. Humans literally can't hear plants scream for their life because our ears are limited physically. What other findings are waiting to be discovered by changing our thinking and expand our perception beyond the human senses? What if it’s just a matter of time until we communicate openly with the planet?
Open Lines of Communication
What if we are already openly communicating with the planet? What if there is a mechanism of communication, but we were unaware of it? To imagine I often think about what it would be like to be a silent floating brain suspended in space by the earth’s gravity because that’s basically what we are dealing with. Gaia has no arms, or ears, or mouth. So how would she communicate or how could we find evidence of her influence?
It reminds me of the relationship between you and microscopic bugs that live on your pillow and eat the dead skin around your eyes and eyebrows at night. Were kinda like those microscopic bugs living on a human which is really Gaia. Maybe with her “gravity” she could send a comet and get rid of us if she wanted but she’d rather leave us alone.
The Unconscious Mind in Media
I think I have come across a way that the planet could be communicating and it’s like randonauting for thoughts. Basically, when your actions come into alignment with the music, media, or other thoughts you have at that moment, that is called a “Point of realization” (POR). Those points of realization create a mental framework to change your thoughts about the environment. Through small unnoticeable subtleties and influencing in your subconscious, Gaia is steering the mind of humanity.
To be clear, a “point of realization” (POR) is when you find yourself doing something physical in real life that is in associated coordination with the music or media. For example, suppose you had music playing and noticed that as the song says “I opened the door, went into the kitchen,” you were opening the door to go into the kitchen right as the artist sings that in the song. For an actual example, I have caught myself on multiple occasions while driving noticing I was turning on the bright lights right as Taylor Swift sings “headlights” from the lyric “Midnight, you come pick me up no headlights” from her song “Style.”
Anecdotal Example
The following are other anecdotal examples that I logged. If you pay attention you’ll see they happen often. At around 1:30 AM on October 17th I was in bed listening to Taylor Swift’s “Everything has changed” and I was feeling hungry. I made the decision that I was gonna eat an Atkins bar so I jumped up, grabbed a bar from the shelf next to my bed, and right as I opened the package Ed sang “and opened up the door for you.” (Right after, Taylor sings “and all I feel in my stomach is butterflies.”) I know I wasn’t opening a door but I was still doing the act of opening something right as the song said “open up.”
This brings up the question, did I grab the Atkins bar because I made up my mind about eating it and subconsciously reacted to coordinate the time of me opening up the bar with the music? ...or did the music, with its (also other associated) lyrical content (e.g. “stomach is butterflies”) make me hungry and drive me to grab that Atkins bar? If it did stimulate me to action, what does that say that I was in coordination with the music? Was it a combination of both influences? I would say this is random, chance, or happenstance but it really happens way too often to be a fluke!
For another example, right around 3:55 PM on Saturday, August 15th 2020 I was watching “Can HULK’S FIST Break Into A BANK SAFE?” and right at 6:58 when they say “it’s smoking” a smoke alarm went off in my apartment complex.
The “points of realization” (POR) don’t have to come in the form of media. You could be at a location and have a thought as you see something that brings you to a POR. This reminds me of another personal example of a point of realization. I was in the grocery store and I was maneuvering around an employee who was filling the same ice chest with ice cream. I patiently waited and while I did I was debating on how many items of ice cream I should get because the carb smart ones I like usually sell out quickly. I was specifically thinking I couldn’t get more than 2 because it wouldn’t fit in my fridge. I decided to buy them out at four of them but when I went to grabbed them the same female employee said “that’s not gonna fit” to another employee.
Bigger Picture
Like with most points of realization, it doesn’t give you an answer, but it makes you stop and think. In my perspective “Points of realization” are real, they happen all the time and you just don’t notice your physicality is in coordination with the media, music, or thoughts. This means your brain either subconsciously syncs your body with the media and calculates and coordinates the time and action to have a “point of realization” or these points are part of a larger communication mechanism designed to influence your mind by the conscious planet. It’s not a perfect system, you can’t teach mathematics, but you can subconsciously change attitudes, focus, and cognition through the subconscious influence of Gaia’s magnetism.
Gaia’s randonauting is like playing semantics. You don't say it directly but you talk around it. It's just like advertising works by influencing your subconscious until you obtain recognition and it becomes normal. Points of realization are even more subtle.
Give Me a Sign
Maybe this is one way in which Gaia “talks.” Basically through semantics and feelings. This is also a classic interaction with god. When people talk about God they always want a sign.
Two illustrations of the semantics of god are “Peter’s Prostate Exam” (linked) from Family Guy and the “I need a sign” scene from the movie Bruce Almighty. In “Bruce Almighty” god literally sends Bruce a sign but he doesn’t see the semantics of the message. In Family Guy, the reality of being given an exam won’t go away when he tries to run from reality by turning on the television which just reminds him of his current life. In effect, there’s Bruce and Peter. Bruce didn’t see the semantics and Peter did. It’s like The Truman show but everyone and all of life is being watched and guided by the planets and stars.
Imagination is Greater than Knowledge.
Scientists don’t know why at the quantum level when they observe a photon it turns from a wave to a particle. Watch episode 9, season 3 of Cosmos: Possible Worlds. Maybe the planets could communicate in the same way as photons do when they’re observed but separated by millions of miles as explained by quantum entanglement in the episode. Is there information contained in a photon, including in the x-ray and gamma spectrum, that a planet can read when it comes in contact with its magnetic field?
Gaia’s Biology
I often think about what it would take for Gaia to stop being conscious. Does her rotation around the sun with a moon stretch the planet to create the forces to keep up the heat for her internal dynamo? Will Gaia die when her core stops being molten?
Earth may still be a floating rock but does the live spirit of Gaia made possible by its molten internal dynamo die? When the internal dynamo dies and the center becomes solid does the magnetic field stop? My thinking is Gaia dies when her core turns solid and she not longer has a magnetic field.
1 note
·
View note
Text
My first salty exmo post
Alright so I’m at the wedding of one of my Mormon friends (sitting outside with the kids because as a non-mormon I’m not allowed to actually go to the ceremony) and I have some Thoughts. Over the past couple of days I’ve hung out with my newly married or about to be married Mormon friends a lot more than I usually do, and I am so sick of the hetero, getting married young, Christian bullshit that I’m seeing in their lives. Of course this is particularly directed at Mormonism but I think it can also apply in many conservative Christian religions.
For those who don’t know, Mormons are not allowed have sex or live with their significant other until they get married. Mormonism also encourages getting married as soon as possible and having children right away no matter what. And on top of that it adheres to strict gender roles in every aspect of life, including marriage. From a young age, girls are taught that being a wife and a mother, taking care of a house, and raising children are the most important things a woman can do. Women are generally encouraged to pursue career paths that they can work at part time or not at all, as opposed to choosing more successful or desirable opportunities. Men on the other hand are equally pressured to be single income providers for their households, and are generally not taught many at home duties like cooking and cleaning. Men are the “heads” of household and usually represent their entire family at church functions. Only men can become any sort of leader in the church.
Before getting married today, my friend expressed to me that she wasn’t fully processing the fact that she was going to be married. She said that she was trying to put the thought of her actual wedding out of her mind and that probably once she got to the temple (where the wedding was happening) was when she’d “have her breakdown”. A little concerned, I asked her why - because she would be so excited and relieved that all the planning was over? She said no, that’s when she’d break down and wonder what on earth she was doing.
Of course hearing that my first response would have been “Maybe that’s a sign you’re not ready to get married.” But throughout the weekend, as my friend expressed feelings of anxiety and nervousness way more often than feelings of joy and excitement, the other recently married Mormon women around her would respond with “Oh that’s totally normal!”
What?
Ok - I am an unmarried atheist who lives with her girlfriend, so I will admit that my lifestyle is very far removed from a typical young married Mormon. But telling women that feeling overwhelmingly nervous and anxious instead of certain and excited is normal, right before they make one of the hugest commitments of their life? That seems like a recipe for disaster.
But think about it - of course they’re nervous. They’ve never lived with the person they’re about to get married to. They have no idea what their husbands will be like day to day. And following the trend of most Mormon boys, it’s likely that they won’t be as clean, organized, or self reliant as the women they marry. The young married Mormon women I know are constantly bemoaning the fact that their husbands never think to clean the house or run simple errands without their prompting. It’s the type of imbalance that gets laughed off in a lot of heterosexual relationships - “I’m going away for the weekend, better leave some freezer meals for my husband so he doesn’t starve!” Because of course the husband would be totally lost having to do simple house duties while the wife is away. The idea of an equal, balanced relationship seemed to be totally absurd to my Mormon friends. Picking up after and managing your man child husband is totally normal!
On top of that, all Mormon women know that they’re expected to have sex on their wedding night - something that most of them have no experience with. Since the church taboos even mentioning or talking about sex, and most Mormon children are pulled out of sex ed, these Mormon women probably don’t even know what sex really is, let alone how to make it enjoyable. They’ve likely heard myths that the first time will hurt, that it won’t be as good for them as it is for men, and that it’s their duty to their husbands. How is that a recipe for having a healthy sexual relationship with the man they are pledging their entire life to? Communication is essential to having a good sex life, and growing up in a religion that forbids even thinking about sex means developing that communication is going to take time that I’m sure most couples don’t take on their wedding night.
It makes me so angry to see Mormon women throwing their lives, careers, and potential happiness away because they’ve been indoctrinated since childhood that their only worth comes from being a wife and a mother. And what makes me extra angry is that the Mormon church normalizes this type of relationship! “Oh some days you won’t be able to stand your husband, push through it!” “Isn’t it hilarious when you go away for the weekend and your husband hasn’t bothered to clean the house?” Even though this may be common in a lot of religious people’s relationships, it shouldn’t have to be “normal”!
Maybe I’m some sort of radical new age bisexual feminist who believes that relationships can be equal, that you should marry your best friend, and that you should be happy on your wedding day, but I personally don’t want to get married unless that’s the case. And I know that a lot of Mormon relationships and relationships like them do work out, but I’m sure it’s easier to make the relationship work when it’s based on really knowing what you’re getting into before it happens. I just hope that religious young women know that they have that choice.
-North
416 notes
·
View notes
Text
Adapting Your Yoga Practice to Suit You Perfectly | Mark Whitwell
Mark Whitwell | Heart of Yoga
A central principle of the Yoga I received from my teachers is that there is a right Yoga for every person, no matter who that person is. Adapted to age, health, body type, culture, religion, and stage of life. This immediately stood out in contrast to the physical systems I had been experimenting with up until that point.
Prior to meeting Desikachar and his father, Krishnamacharya, I had perceived Yoga as a fixed thing that practitioners strive to move towards, rather than the other way around — adapting the Yoga to suit the person. After the first lesson, where Desikachar watched unimpressed while I demonstrated the asana I was so proud of, and taught me how to breathe correctly, it became obvious. Standing in the moonlight on a rooftop in Madras (now Chennai), I could feel that the body loved its breath. And that Yoga was simply our participation in the life that we already are, the participation in the power of life that we are.
I saw all kinds of people come and go from the house, as well as from the Mandiram, which was built by that time. All sizes, ethnicities, ages, men and women, some very ill, some very religious, some with very specific issues. What I noticed is that although Krishnamacharya was a renowned healer and Ayurvedic practitioner, whose hands were revered as having healing powers, he did not dispense Yoga like a pharmaceutical product. The poses were not dispensed like different drugs for different problems. Instead what I saw was how he and his son helped each person find their breath in whatever way worked for them, so they could participate in what was whole and alive about them, identify with that, and participate in their own healing.
Looking around at the modern Yoga scene, I do not often see this nuance of adaption. I see a dominant paradigm that describes Yoga poses like individual pharmaceutical ingredients, good for the liver, good for the back, etc, divorced from their context of breath and vinyasa krama, and the placement of the mind in the aliveness of the body. I see people looking to Yoga teachers for healing the way they look to doctors, in a disempowered search for a parent to make everything ok. And I see yoga teachers absolutely burdened in their shared belief that they are supposed to heal or fix their students, rather than enable them to participate in their own health and healing.
It is a big step to leave the studio and the gymnastic routines and commit to our own personalized home practice. But it is an equally big and important step to really understand what this adaption is, and what the role of the teacher is in it. The teacher’s job is not to diagnose you and give you poses like medicines. No matter how good a teacher is, how educated in physio and anatomy and Ayurveda and all the other modalities of modern healing, and no matter how much information you share with them, the teacher is not there to replace your own body’s intelligence. Rather, their job is to help and empower you to participate in the body’s essential health and aliveness, even in the midst of perhaps injuries or a condition of illness. To participate in what is well. That participation spreads into all areas of one’s life as a shifting of focus. This is quite different from the standard modern approach to adaptation, which treats the individual like a collection of problems to be solved or treated.
The principle method by which your practice is your own is your breath. The length, depth, pace, ratio and retentions of YOUR breath. By making your breath the central feature and purpose of your asana, your practice gradually becomes utterly fitted to your unique embodiment. By making the breath start before the movement and finish after any movement, you safely hold your asana within the envelope of the breath. It is a revolutionary change, from imposing postures on the body, to allowing them to happen in their natural shape within the natural rhythm of your unique breath. If we are pushed beyond our physical capability, we will not be able to take a smooth and even ujjayi inhale. Therefore, the breath will keep you safe and be the guide and guru to help you modify your practice.
Adapting your practice to suit you perfectly does not necessarily mean it will look any different from a standard template or someone else’s practice. It is the principles of breath that ensure it is completely and subtly unique to you. Just as many people kiss in the same way, but no two real kisses are the same or boring, it is your intimacy with life that makes your practice utterly your own.
We also must break free of the constraints of ‘ideal form’ goals in terms of asana. There is no ideal shape. Krishnamacharya would say there are as many asanas as there are living beings. What did he mean? Just that every body is unique, and asana can and must be modified to suit us. They are not like yantra, needing to be done in an exact precise shape. We do not need to yank our bodies with ropes and straps and chairs into approximating the forms that were idealized by someone else’s body. If your knee is injured and kneeling asana hurt, simply do not do kneeling asana. Consider the movements of the breath and spine that such asana facilitate, and how else these can occur. There is nothing eternal and holy in any one asana. Take inversions, for example. A safe and accurate headstand is a very beneficial thing, but suitable for only a small percentage of the population. A shoulderstand gives many of the same benefits, but again will not suit everyone. To lie on the back with the legs up on a chair, however, and breathe with the arms, is something accessible to almost anyone, and gives great benefits of elevating the legs above the heart. We must not be put off from doing what we can do by what we cannot do.
Yoga students and teachers alike should not be intimidated to modify asana to suit themselves. It is not an immutable gallery of precise forms. What do we think the purpose of asana is? To dance? To be elegant? To be photographed? To do a magic ritual that performed correctly will get a reward, sometime later? No, the entire function of asana is to facilitate the movement of the breath. It is moving pranayama, using the whole body to direct breath and prana in restorative and beneficial ways.
So do not wait for a teacher to come along and give you special poses “adapted to you”. In terms of asana, just do what you can do, within the logic of vinyasa krama (which you can recap within the online immersion we have made if you wish). The customization will come as you learn to remain within the tides of your inhale-exhale, based on the principles of practice.
Furthermore, we will each have our unique loves and reminders of life’s power. This may be religious or it may simply be flowers, poetry, a photo of a loved one or a view. We weave these devotions into our Yoga practice, making it truly our own. This is not separate from our asana and pranayama. For example, a Christian student of Yoga may begin with a short prayer, then do some sun salutations to God, some standing asana mirroring the yantra of the cross, some keeling prayer asana, some lying down asana and inversions, with a focus on the breath as the gift of God, some backbends on the abdominals with a mood of sacrifice or release, some seated twists and forward bends “giving oneself to the Lord,” savasana in a mood of “abiding in the holy spirit,” a simple pranayama, and then some prayer or song. Every different person will have something different.
Another example: an atheist who loves astronomy and the stars. They may have a beautiful framed picture of the galaxy in their practice space, or perhaps even practice under the night sky on occasion. They may begin with a quiet reflection on themselves as made from the same particles that have been around since the dawn of the universe. They may practice some surya namaskar, with a feeling of gratitude for the light and warmth of the sun, knowing that we would only be alive for eight minutes were it to go out. They may do a short practice of standing, kneeling, lying down, twists and forward bends, and finish with their legs up on a chair. During their practice, they might like to visualize the breath enlivening every cell of their body with oxygen, and then releasing toxins on every exhale. Lying down, they could let their mind roam into the utter stillness and silence of space, and feel themselves as part of that immense vastness. Their practice could then conclude with a podcast on new and amazing astrological research, as they move into their day.
The point is that adapting our yoga practice will come naturally when we desanctify the precision of poses, and resanctify the uniqueness of our breath and our specific life interests and directions. You vinyasa krama encompasses all the aspects of your daily intimacy with life, through whatever the appropriate means are, including your asana and pranayama.
Many students wish for a completely customized and unique asana sequence, but this is not necessary for a completely personalized practice. In fact, it would be an imposition. Your adaptations must arise from your body, not from the mind’s learning. We must be more nuanced and precise. Instead of just getting a new wardrobe of clothes, we are tailoring all of the existing clothes to fit perfectly. Your breath is the key.
Finally, I am not advocating for spontaneous movement each day in order to be “free.” This is like trying to be with a different person every day and never getting a chance to relax into real intimacy and depth. Doing a different thing every day keeps the mind active and engaged, thinking of what to do next, and means we will avoid the discipline of breath in areas that might facilitate release, such as forward bends or pranayama. Avoidance of practice is very common and can hide beneath “my dancing is my yoga” or “spontaneous movement is my yoga” etc. It is true that you are already the power of the cosmos, and that whether or not you do a practice you are completely fine, but if we suffer from any restrictions at all in our flow of intimate connection, then we do need a little precise and uncompromising asana-pranayama-meditation, as a remedial practice. It is normal to feel some resistance and to need to cut through this. Not as an imposition but with love. It is completely fine to do basically the same sequence every day, perhaps altering a little with the moon. Your breath will naturally refine the practice into something completely fresh every day. Again, like a kiss.
Over time, your practice becomes like a favourite pair of jeans that you can just slip into without having to think about it. It is there to facilitate the movement of above and below, the beauty that is the breath, no more and no less. It is not a struggle to attain a future result, nor merely a therapeutic system for the physical body. Gently, over and over, take the mind out of worrying about the hamstrings or the face muscles; the elbow joints or the hip flexion. Reimmerse yourself over and over again in the breath. If you can breathe, you can do Yoga! Your breath is the key to your Yoga fitting you like a glove.
A class with a teacher is useful for learning basic principles, but as with a music lesson, they must be implemented in the privacy of our own home practice to be of any use.
If you are interested to look into these breath principles, we have made a self-paced online immersion sharing these in some detail, available by donation at www.heartofyoga.com/online-immersion.
About:
Mark Whitwell has taught yoga for over three decades across the globe, and is the founder of the Heart of Yoga foundation, and the Heart of Yoga Peace Project. Mark Whitwell is interested in developing an authentic yoga practice for the individual, based on the teachings of T. Krishnamacharya (1888-1989) and his son TKV Desikachar (1938-2016), with whom he enjoyed a relationship for more than twenty years. Mark Whitwell is the author of four books: ‘Yoga of Heart,’ ‘The Promise,’ ‘The Hridayasutra,’ and, ‘God and Sex: now we get both.’ He also edited and contributed to his TKV Desikachar’s classic yoga text, ‘The Heart of Yoga.’ Mark Whitwell is a father of three and a grandfather. He now resides between New Zealand and Fiji and continues to write, teach, and speak.
0 notes
Text
4 Years Sober: What I’ve Learned in Secular AA
There are a lot of things I’ve learned over the last 4 years. I’ve learned that there’s no one way to stay sober. If you’re in recovery, and you’re sober and you’re relatively happy, then you must be doing something right. If you’re not happy, maybe you should consider making a change.
I drank and drugged for over ten years. For the last three of those years I was in and out of hospitals and detoxes, I tried outpatient therapy, I dabbled in AA and NA, I even signed in to a thirty-day inpatient rehab facility. Throughout all that time, the most I could put together outside of treatment centers was three days. For three years I tried to drink like a “normal person” and continued to drink until drunk, blacked out, dropped out of classes, lost jobs, and walked away from countless friends and opportunities.
After a series of jackpots and facing a second OUI I finally hit my lowest, I was facing possible jail time and completely ran out of options. From the court house I was sent to a detox. Laying on a bed made of plastic, reading some shitty David Baldacci novel because there was nothing better, and another twenty-something year old kid was on the bunk next to mine stammering a mile a minute about how his SSI check was coming in on the first and he’s going to go rent a motel room and if I wanted I could go with him. And I gave it pause, I had a glimpse into the future, of who I could be. That day when I met with my case manager I said, “I don’t care where I go, I’ll take any bed anywhere, I just know I can’t go back out there.”
I stayed in treatment, wound up at a Christian halfway house, and I was really tested on what spirituality meant to me, and knowing that AA runs on a concept of a supernatural higher power, a “God of your understanding”, I knew I had to figure out what the hell I was going to do. I got a sponsor, I read all the literature, I attended meetings multiple times a week. But it was the reading of non-AA literature that really inspired me. Two books that really crafted my early days of recovery were “The Portable Atheist” compiled by Christopher Hitchens and “Common Sense Recovery” by Adam N. “The Portable Atheist” gave me some backbone to the philosophy of non-belief, of Humanism and Atheism, of anti-religion and neutrality. “Common Sense Recovery” gave me a method of interpreting the teachings of AA to fit my needs as an Atheist meandering in and out of church halls and basements. Along with these were some zines and essays including “Towards a Less Fucked Up World” by Nick Riotfag and “Anarchy and Alcohol” by CrimethInc.
After a while I fell out of AA. It seemed every time I shared my perspectives on spirituality the room would flutter full of murmurs of “Keep coming”, a saying often said to those struggling. But I wasn’t struggling with my sobriety, I was struggling with the use of a Christian fellowship as the cornerstone to my recovery. The fourth chapter of AA’s Big Book is entitled “We Agnostics” and teaches AA members that those who aren’t ready to believe or have issues with belief will eventually believe. Basically, “Don’t worry, you’ll come around.” So when an AA member states they have no belief in a god and that their higher power is AA itself or “G.O.D. - Group Of Drunks”, other members appear to see that as a weakness or an early start to their road to recovery. A non-Christian or non-supernatural higher power in AA appears to represent a placeholder for eventual conversion. And if you haven’t converted yet, well, “Keep coming.”
It had been nearly a year since my last AA meeting and I was around two and a half years sober when my sponsor, who I wasn’t really calling at this point, sent me an image via text. It was a flyer for a Secular AA meeting over the state line about 45 minutes away. He dropped a few names of people I might know and said, “I thought this might interest you, I hope it helps.” The next week I attended an Atheists and Agnostics in AA meeting and have been going nearly every week for about a year and a half now. Here were men and women, each with 30+ years of sobriety, telling me that the Twelve Steps of AA are suggested, that they have no need for some of the steps as they regard prayer and giving one’s will over to the care of “God”. Well, how does one turn their will and life over to the care of God or have God remove their shortcomings if they don’t believe in God? Simple, you don’t. It’s unnecessary.
For over a year I had been living in guilt because I wasn’t able to fully adhere to the Twelve Steps of AA because at their most basic function I could not perform them without a belief in God. Many AA members will be quick to point out that the steps have written, italicized, “as we understood Him”. First off, it only says that under step three, the rest of the steps simply state “God”. Secondly, “as we understood Him” capital-H Him, presupposes your understanding of a father-figure male who created man in His image, which is a Christian belief. There is absolutely no way to read the Twelve Steps of AA in a secular, non-religious fashion. The Twelve Steps of AA were written by Christians for Christians to be part of a Christian program.
Now, here I am, surrounded by a group of men and women who collectively have a couple hundred years of sobriety amongst themselves and they’re saying things like: “Steps six and seven? Useless, you don’t need them.” “Higher power? Why? I understand I don’t control the universe, I understand I can’t control my drinking in active addiction, I understand I can never drink again in safety. Why do I need a higher power?” “Sponsorship? I’ve been sober X amount of years and have plenty of friends in AA that I can call at any given time. Why would I need a sponsor?”
Over the last four years I’ve learned a lot. But over just this last year and a half in Secular AA I’ve learned more about myself, AA, alcoholism, and addiction, - conversations and readings that have lead to several epiphanies that have severely strengthened my recovery.
I’ve learned that in that first year of sobriety, when one hasn’t really come out of the haze or know much about themself, taking suggestions and having a sponsor is probably a good idea. It’s helpful to have a sponsor for their first year or so. But at some point, sponsorship is no longer necessary. Sponsorship was never meant to be a lifelong commitment. Sponsorship was originally about one member of AA bringing in a newcomer, someone newly sober, and sponsoring him/her by saying “I can attest this person is a drunk and desires to stop drinking.” The sponsor then shows them around, brings them to meetings, gives them some pointers, and that’s that. Why would someone with 10+ years of sobriety need a sponsor? I’m not saying it’s wrong to have a lifelong sponsor if that works for you. But why is it the general understanding that every AA member must have a sponsor at all times for the rest of their life? It’s unnecessary.
I’ve learned that AA is losing membership precisely for the reason I stopped attending. The problem with telling Atheists and Agnostics that if they don’t like AA they should try somewhere else, is that AA is by far the most accessible and most successful fellowship of recovery, and telling a vulnerable person who has felt they don’t belong throughout their entire life that they also don’t fit in with a group of alcoholics will often lead to that person accepting they are alone in their struggle and they will more than likely start drinking again. If AA doesn’t adopt a secular approach the fellowship will die along with hundreds of thousands of alcoholics who so badly need a stable approach to recovery built on the basic principles of AA, without it’s religious overtones.
AA is full of Christian religiosity and it’s off putting to a population that has fewer and fewer Christians in its midst. The statistical average AA member is a 50-year-old heterosexual white male according to the 2014 membership survey. According to a recent study by JAMA Psychiatry in 2017 “high-risk and disordered drinking increased by about 20 percent” between 2002 and 2012, while recent reports from Statisa based on the yearly membership survey stated a 13% decline in AA membership between 2001 and 2015. This means alcoholism is on the rise, which coincides with the 1.3% yearly increase in the US population, an average population growth of 18.2% between 2001 and 2015. So if AA was the answer to alcoholism we should have seen a growth in AA membership that coincides with the population growth and the increase in the number of alcoholics, yet we’ve seen a decline in membership. Why? It may not surprise anyone that these numbers and dates line up with the decline of Christianity in the US. While Catholicism boasted an increase in church membership between 2000 and 2017, they closed 11% of their churches. The Evangelical Lutherans “lost about 30% of its congregation and closed 12.5% of its churches.” United Methodists “lost 16.7% of its congregation and 10.2% of its churches.” The Presbyterians “lost over 40% of their congregation and 15.4% of their churches.”
All throughout the dawn of the 21st century there’s been a decline in religious worship, an increase in alcoholism and drug addiction, and a parallel decrease in AA membership. If religion and spirituality were the broad saving grace for those who struggle from substance use disorders we would have seen a growth in both church membership as well as AA membership. But we didn’t. Religion is not the answer.
Following this timeline, somewhere around 2012 we start to see exponential growth in secular recovery. In a 5 year period, from 2012 to 2017, LifeRing, a secular program of recovery, saw meetings increase by 300 percent. Between 2014 and 2016 SMART launched 900 new meetings nationwide. In 2016 the website SecluarAA.org launched, showcasing the growing number of AA meetings across the US that have declared themselves to be Atheists, Agnostics, Non-Believers, and Freethinkers.
The Secular AA movement is not a movement of anti-religion or heresy, it is a movement that wishes to bring neutrality to AA. Despite anyone’s religious beliefs or non-belief, every alcoholic and addict deserves a chance to achieve sobriety. While there are many neutral parties in AA who will come to AA’s defense as a non-religious program, it is unquestionable that AA is Christian by default. The preamble of AA indicates they do not ally with any “sect, denomination…” but does not specify that they do not ally with any religion. The statement of not allying with any sect or denomination and the omission of the word “religion” is a pretty clear indication that it doesn’t matter if you’re Catholic, or Protestant, or Methodist, or Lutheran, but as long as you’re Christian then AA has no qualms. The Serenity Prayer is in fact a prayer that opens with the words, “God, grant me the serenity…” Most AA meetings open with the Serenity Prayer and close with The Lord’s Prayer, a prayer found in the New Testament Matthew 6:9 and Luke 11:2. You can’t sit there and tell me you’re not a religious program and then gather up in a circle to recite a prayer with two versions found in the New Testament. That’s not how this works!
But again, the Secular AA movement is not about being against religion, but against a program of recovery being Christian by default. Secularism is about not making sick and suffering alcoholics feel unwelcome because they don’t believe in the supernatural. And if you’re an AA member and believe that no one is ever to feel unwelcome in an AA meeting, I propose an experiment for you. Travel to an area outside of your normal meetings where you don’t know anyone. Tell the group you’re new to the area and you are an Atheist is AA. Tell me how that goes.
I’ll tell you what I’ve experienced in just the past 4 years. I’ve experienced everything from the docile and subtle remarks like “Keep coming,” and conversations with members saying “I had trouble with the G-word myself, but you just gotta use something tangible, like a light switch, you flip it and you always know the light will come on, you trust it!” (To which I would like to respond, “No I don’t trust the light switch. You’ve never had a lightbulb burn out on you and need to replace it, or ever call an electrician?”) all the way to people pointing and screaming “My higher power! The Almighty! God! As I understand Him!” I’ve also had many people come up to me and tell me they’ll pray for me.
All of this is to express my issues and struggles in remaining sober in a religious program without being remotely religious. To say to anyone who struggles with “the G-word”: You aren’t struggling, this isn’t a hurdle you need to get over in order to remain sober. God didn’t get me sober, simply because God does not exist. But it’s true, I didn’t do this. I did not get myself sober. My parents got me sober, my brother helped me, a trusting probation officer, case managers and counselors, employers and co-workers, friends, my loving bride-to-be helps me stay sober, along with my son and a growing number of people in my life who I love and care about - they all got me sober and keep me sober today. They say, “God works through people”, but I say people are social creatures who foster relationships and build their own meaning out of the hand they’re dealt. There is no hereafter, there is no Heaven or Hell, there’s just here and now. I only have one life and I need it to be worth living. You all make that possible, every one of you. Religion and faith have nothing to do with sobriety unless you want to build a life on religion and faith. And if you want to do that, that’s great for you, but do it with people who are seeking worship at your church or temple, at masses or sermons. AA is not about worship, it’s about humility and self discovery. AA must adopt a secular approach if it’s going to withstand its own centennial.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/10/542409957/drinking-on-the-rise-in-u-s-especially-for-women-minorities-older-adults
https://aaagnostica.org/2015/09/06/aa-membership-growth-or-decline/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Christianity
https://aaagnostica.org/2018/04/05/aa-struggles-to-stay-relevant-as-secular-programs-gain-momentum/
https://secularaa.org/
0 notes
Text
The Insufferably Simplistic Scientistic Harris v. The Philosophically Clueless and Politically Confused Peterson
youtube
Introductory Evaluation of Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson as People
After my New Atheist days, I pretty much saw Sam Harris as largely, intellectually irrelevant. On the other hand, I have a rather more complicated opinion on Jordan Peterson because he sometimes seems well-meaning but at the same time philosophically and politically naive. That being said, the Zeitgeist seems to be signaling that Peterson has acquired a relevance, even if in a small cadre, and that some people still take Sam Harris seriously (which seems to in turn indicate that mass deconversion is still an ongoing process). I can only imagine Harris still being relevant to budding atheists who still hold on to aspects of conservative thinking and libidinal attachment as well as the Christian rights' historically muddled and confused political categories. Or alternatively to insecure right-wing evangelicals fearful of the recent church exodus of a good number of Americans (whether due to being SBNR or atheists), and thereby politically emboldened into repackaging purely intellectual issues of Christianity into a secular moral quest of maintaining the hegemony or integrity of white identity (white folks as "meritous" representatives of Western civilization and values and tasked with "saving" it). Admittedly that's about the same demographic I could imagine Jordan Peterson appealing to.
Granted that would make sense, as the atheist budding out of theism, especially if having a background in Southern U.S. culture and white, is likely to implicitly run with this politics of identity that incorporates an apocalyptic or "rapture" vision of the clash with Islam as a greater evil than Christianity. In addition they are likely stuck, within their performance of Americanism, in the historical mangle of highly simplified Cold War political categories, just like these evangelicals, leading to politically confused criticisms (it's no wonder many of them get confused when a Facebook meme page that frequently criticizes liberals and has some critical takes on identity politics turns out to be highly left-wing). In fact, there is a temptation amongst some of these atheists, I suspect, to reaffirm the social function of religion as a strategy in this perceived cosmic struggle, hence why some of them side with Peterson and betray the anti-theistic sentiments of the majority of the New Atheist crowd (especially those influenced by Dawkins in particular). It's a Hitchens-esque move.
In sum, both Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are cheap supermarket preprepared packaged ramen noodles for evangelicals or atheists who just discovered philosophy as politics. As you can tell, these sociological aspects are a lot more interesting than the debate itself--I am not here using them as a counter-argument contra Harris and Peterson (that would be an ad hominem), but it is certainly something to consider given my assessment of them as persons already suggests a larger normative framework that potentially does clash with both Harris' and Peterson's assumptions. In other words, this can function as entry point. In any case, it at least justifies, sociologically, why I'd be wasting any time on these two people, although especially on Sam Harris at this point in my life (at least Peterson is a newcomer into the public intellectual scene).
Onto the Meat and Bones of this Lame Debate
But here's what I think of the (insufferable) debate here, which assesses both Harris and Peterson as debaters as well as philosophers, in addition to both their rhetoric and argument--keep in mind this is an original Youtube comment I made on the video, but all redacted and divided into sections:
Basically this video could've been renamed to "largely unworkable implicit logical positivism / pure correspondence theory of truth v. poorly argued and inconsistent pragmatism from philosophical novice," the former being Harris and the latter being Peterson.
On Peterson's Egregious Failings
A lot of pro-Peterson Youtube commenters seem to agree with Peterson's conclusion and are reconstructing Peterson's argument to sound better than it is. Guess what--even if Peterson's main claim and conclusion were right, it doesn't mean he argued it well. He did not. Sam Harris made some PHIL101 points that made Peterson look out of his element due to Peterson's elementary missteps in building a conceptually precise and consistent argument (whether or not Harris' conclusion is wrong). Peterson instead made a suggestive, appeal to intuition, which is not the same thing (which is fine if this were merely a discussion, and not a debate, and if Peterson had admitted as much). Saying that, given Darwinism, it may be expedient to treat truth in terms of usefulness, and this seems to be what conceptions of truth would be selected for, goes against the very rules of rationality intuited by people which makes Darwinism conceivable as demonstrable--Sam Harris makes this same point. Consequently, while Peterson shows its a suggestive possibility, an obvious flaw is there that Jordan Peterson does not address, instead wasting time on clarifying what he is trying to get at as if the issue were Harris not understanding what he quite literally said rather than his weak argument. To be clear, Peterson does have a problem with clarity or at least transparency of purpose in the rest of the debate, but on this particular point I'd say that was not at issue.
I also think it would've been more helpful if Peterson had just accepted Harris' definitions of truth, but tried to demonstrate how truth and usefulness are nonetheless related in the way he thinks they are as opposed to how Harris thinks they are. (This can be done through internal critique, or simply convincingly pointing out that there is a non-accidental correlation between truth, whatever it might separately or differently mean, and usefulness, whatever it might separately or differently mean.) This would've lead to some clarity or, if not clarity, some nonetheless straight-forward argumentation on Peterson's part. Instead he fumbles around trying to avoid using the word 'truth' inconsistently given he conflated another idea with it that isn't always interchangeable. It's like Peterson can't tell the difference between a definition (that meaning of a term according to its general usage) and a meaning (the many associations and possible directions the term can take) as well as the difference between an abstraction ('truth' emptied of any of the different meanings or uses the term might have, and just in its general potential for use or signification, or 'truth' in all its possible senses) and a concept ('truth' understood through a synthetic, consistent system of relations amongst ideas or propositions). This is why he unproductively, and, in fact, counter-productively resists Harris' initial, basic point. In fact, out of desperation, Peterson shifts the goalpost to showing that truth and the good are the same. This is an age-old position that Peterson could've drawn on for his arguments, but he can't manage to even at least problematize the is/ought dichotomy Harris is drawing. Peterson just reiterates his intuition that there is some special relationship between truth and the good not found between the good and anything else without really defending why the relationships he sees between the good and the true are suggestively special compared to the relationship between the good and other things.
On Harris' Rhetorical Banality and Lack of Nuance as well as the Laughable Accusations Harris, but especially Peterson, throw at Each Other
On the other hand, Harris' responses were uninspired and extremely limited, failing to provide nuance where opportunities were available (not surprising, since Harris sucks at that). His own position is also, while common-sensical, philosophically uninteresting, insufficiently systematic and too scientistic. In addition, Peterson's ignorance is on full display when he accuses Harris of postmodernism--Harris may or may not be wrong, but a lot of what Harris says would be heavily criticized by the archetypal postmodernists if there ever were any (e.g., Lyotard & Baudrillard).
What is Postmodernism? Neither Sam Harris nor Jordan Peterson Really Seem to Know
One of the major points of the archetypal postmodernists is that the very fragmentation and isolation of identities and disciplines create contradictory normative contexts that constrict rationality in such a way that rational discussion cannot fully penetrate or resolve disagreements. Basically, for a lot of postmodernists, intellectual disagreement are often expressions of social power struggle, desire, etc., that are not rationally resolvable. (Notice that rationality here is just constricted; this means its still conceivable some truths are still objectively decidable, even if largely context-sensitive. The rules of logic still apply.) There are some postmodernists one can argue go the full length into pure relativism (i.e., the position that, not only is nothing or most nothing rationally resolvable and fully accountable, but nothing is rationally decidable), but this is over-all a strawman. One can also argue this particular [aforementioned point] leads to relativism, but that's not the same as to say that postmodernists deliberately endorse relativism. Not to mention that requires more leg work from Peterson, for example, beyond using "postmodern" as a pejorative stand-in for relativism (which he never conclusively demonstrates to be present in the argument being made).
Situating Sam Harris in Relation to Actual Postmodernism
In any case, the point is Sam Harris seems to be committed to an entirely opposite claim than the postmodernists, since he basically puts a lot of stock on conversation, on language, for finding the truth. I feel his inability to take critiques of this position to be his most serious flaw, and it bleeds into his more minor flaws (its his prerogative to try and naturalize morality, but he fumbles in his attempts because of this invulnerable epistemological approach he takes). This is why Harris might seem "close minded" to people--it has nothing to do with his argument itself being somehow unwilling to entertain possibilities. Harris actually entertains possibilities all the time (just witness his unbound use of hypotheticals in the debate!)--the problem is that he is unimaginative when he tries to do it.
Situating Jordan Peterson in Relation to Actual Postmodernism
In addition, its ironic for Peterson to accuse Harris of being postmodernist because the pragmatist epistemologists (e.g., Richard Rorty) were the philosophers most famously and controversially heavily influenced by writers I'd think Peterson would often consider (albeit sometimes incorrectly) postmodernists or proto-postmodernists (e.g., Heidegger [more of a phenomenologist that was a precursor to post-structuralism as well as postmodernism] & Derrida [actually more of a post-structuralist than a postmodernist]). In fact, Nietzsche's Darwinian critique of rationality looks like an early version of aspects of the postmodernist critique of rationality. Yes, Nietzsche was critiquing rationality, not creating a theory of truth. The only thing close to a theory of truth given his critique of rationality was his concept of Will to Power, which is a concept Nietzsche created as an alternative to Darwin's idea of survival instinct/drive. The fact that Peterson endorses Nietzsche but subscribes to conventional Darwinism while applying this to the topic of truth is a sophomoric mistake. Indeed, Peterson is so ignorant that he frequently pairs Marxism with postmodernism as if there aren't disagreements or potentially conflicting implications in the positions and critiques of the two traditions (for example, postmodernism tends to challenge the Marxist notion of historical determinism and the proletariat as universalizing [therefore revolutionary] subject).
Conclusion
Harris is an absolutely terrible philosopher, but Peterson gives the impression of a fucking novice that can't grasp basic distinctions and is mired in the scientific world where data precision and gathering as well as inductive reasoning tends to matter a bit more than argumentative competence and deductive reasoning (scientists distribute this last task into a division of labor, whereas a philosopher is at least supposed to be competent in a holistic way when it comes to argumentation). It is embarrassing Harris sweeps the floor with him when his credentials as a scientist give him an initial advantage in terms of public perception and when Harris himself doesn't hold significant status within the larger philosophical community. It's interesting to point out (and I'm saying this as someone interested in sociology, a socially exemplar soft science for a lot of people), that his area of science isn't even as quantitatively heavy as physics and other sciences. In fact, the replication crises in science seems to be most glaring in psychology. The reason these observations are interesting is that Peterson likes to present himself as having a hard-on for science while making incompetent but confident forays into philosophy, the latter likely for the sake of validating his religious longing. This doesn't put him that far away from Harris' more secular philosophically boring scientism, and also may suggest insecurities about his own field. At the same time, he lampoons and tries to discredit the field closest to his own by psychologizing them in unwarranted ways as a replacement for actually criticizing and engaging sociological methodology. Here I'm psychologizing Jordan Peterson, but only after I've already assessed his debate performance.
The fact that anybody finds either of these two people in the context of this debate worth their while is laughable considering how fucking limited not only the positions presented here are, but how fucking limited either of their arguments for their positions were. The mistakes I pointed out here are the most egregious and most frequent, but there are others such as their oversimplification of the issue of identity politics. I suggest budding atheists and self-doubting evangelicals actually read books, and I mean primary source accounts about a representative array of a tradition or world-view rather than relying on secondary source discussion as if they were unbiased simply because they conform to popular folk notions of things and present and argue against positions within the narrow political spectrum that has prominent mainstream representation. In other words, I hope these sincere Christians leave the bad Biblical hermeneutics and deferral to a messianic figure behind for once for fuck's sake. Their concerns about religion are legitimate, but they'd get much more out of directly, critically reading Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich, etc., as well as the philosophers of modernity (both French and English) without force-fitting them into their monolithic and hegemonic preconceived boxes.
#jordan peterson#sam harris#philosophy#epistemology#philosophy of religion#philosophy of science#philosophy of biology#psychology#cognitive psychology#postmodernism#postmodern#poststructuralism#post-structuralism#darwinism#pragmatism#logical positivism#correspondence theory#correspondence theory of truth#new atheism#sociology#cultural sociology#atheism#theism#political sociology#conservatism#christian right#alt right#alternative right#liberalism#center-left
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Billy Vunipola slammed for anti-gay beliefs as Channel 4 axe rugby ace
Billy Vunipola was frightened off by Channel 4 on Friday night in light of his controversial commentary on social media in support of homophobic Australian Israel Folau .
Equality Activists, Twickenham
England No. 8, will be transported for RFU bosses early next week and should be banned after he has written that & # 39; the man was made for women to to reproduce & # 39; on Instagram. chiefs, his club Saracens, the Rugby Players & Association and Premiership Rugby condemned the opinion of the backroker but Channel 4 was the fastest by dumping him from their station.
England No. 8 Billy Vunipola, pictured last month, was shot down on channel night on channel 4
] Vunipola, 26, is one of the stars of the TV channel and promotes the Heineken Champions Cup range with videos behind the scenes during the season. But Sportsmail can reveal that Channel 4 has decided not to use it again.
A spokesperson said: & # 39; These views are incompatible with our values as a broadcaster and in light of this, Billy Vunipola will not be used as a contribution to Channel 4 rugby coverage. "
[Wallabies] Full back Folau was slammed on a large scale and his contract with Australia Rugby and New South Wales Waratahs will be terminated for claiming his social media accounts awaiting hell & # 39; for & # 39; drunkards, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolators.
Sean Maitland, Michael Rhodes Sean Maitland, Michael Rhodes Sean Maitland, Michael Rhodes Sean Maitland, Michael Rhodes Sean Maitland, Michael Rhodes and Test stars Manu Tuilagi, Ellis Genge and Faf de Klerk
It said: & # 39; So this morning I received 3 phone calls from people telling me that I & # 39; not & # 39; on the @ izzyfolau post This is my position here about.
& # 39; There is no such thing as & # 39; I don't think I'm perfect & # 39 ;. he doesn't like or doesn't like those people.
& # 39; He says that how we live should come closer to how God intended them to be. The man was made to reproduce, that was the goal, wasn't it? I am not perfect. At least I am everything on that list at least to a point in my life. It hurts to know that.
The Vunipola Club, Saracens, said: & # 39; The representatives and role models, Saracens players have a responsibility not only for themselves, but also for the club and wider society – the recent messages on social media from Billy Vunipola disagree with this and we take this issue very seriously, it is handled internally. & # 39;
The RFU, which supported the Rainbow Laces campaign in their international fall match against Australia in November, said: & # 39; Rugby is an inclusive sport and w e do not support these views. We will meet with Billy to discuss his posts on social media. "
Premiership Rugby added: & # 39; Inclusivity is one of the core values of Premiership Rugby and we condemn any behavior that encourages discrimination. & # 39;
[19459004
Thirty-year-old Folau posted a message on Instagram this week encouraging homosexuals to convert "class =" blkBorder img-old Folau has shared a message on Instagram this week urging homosexuals to commit "/>
Thirty-year Folau repentance
And Stonewall – campaigning for the equality of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people all over Great Britain – were also noisy. -LGBT views and attitudes, & # 39; read their statement.
& # 39; This is wrong and perpetuates a myth. Faith and LGBT inclusion cannot co-exist. & # 39;
England could ban Vunipola from competitions. Under the World Rugby Code of Conduct, Regulation 20 states that players are not permitted to make any & # 39; acts or statements that discriminate on the grounds of religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, color, or national or ethnic origin & # 39 ;.
In 2016, World Rugby intervened when the Six Nations did not penalize Joe Marler after he sent Wales Samson Lee to & # 39; gypsy boy & # 39; cried in a test match. Marler was banned for two games and fined £ 20,000
Former England captain Will Carling added his vision of Vunipola.
& # 39; No matter how naive this may be – I believe Billy thought he supported Christian – his & # 39; I hate no one & # 39; summarize him – I think he has been so naive and simplistic, & he said on Twitter.
Ban them. Everything, actually, to take it all away from us.
The immediate response to Israel's Folau and Billy Vunipola is one of justified indignation and frustration. But in 2019 the urge to blame is when coordinated education is needed. Banishing individuals from society does not solve the problem.
But in the case of Billy Vunipola, the RFU
Rugby Australia had issued a previous warning to Folau and after his last swear his resignation was inevitable. and Saracens should feel before a crisis.
The intervention of Vunipola in the homophobia of Israel Folau in Australia is harmful and harmful to the LGBT community. Vunipola defended Folau & # 39; s claim that homosexuals are destined for hell. Vunipola refers to homosexual relationships as & # 39; forbidden territory & # 39; and argues that God has a moderate view of the same gender relationships. Many companies regard this as a reason for dismissal.
For the most generous understanding of Vunipola & # 39; s function, we must return to its roots. He grew up in Sydney, but more crucial is Vunipola the son of Tongan parents. His mother is a Methodist minister, Rev. Iesinga Vunipola, who was also the chaplain of the Tongan Community of the United Kingdom.
Homosexuality remains prohibited in Tonga.
In the midst of such forces it may be that Vunipola's point of view will never change. Yet Vunipola has the privilege of a platform that is given to him by England, the country has chosen to represent and this entails responsibility.
In civilized society, wrongdoing must have a path of rehabilitation. Vunipola must be offered the opportunity to grow. This requires a clear and transparent process.
The RFU must insist on a clear educational program, in collaboration with a progressive church and LGBT charities, which informs Vunipola about the damage to his words.
I should have heard from a government survey that 68% of same-sex couples avoid holding hands in public for fear of repercussions. An even greater percentage of LGBT people have kept their sexuality hidden. The dropout rate for homosexual teenagers from professional sports is considerably higher than for heterosexuals.
Vunipola must acknowledge these concerns and the power of his words. In the eyes of Vunipola, he is a victim. He believes his belief system is under attack.
Let us not say that this subject is limited to a few lonely voices of Tongan descent. Several English-speaking players found Vunipola's statement broader, while parents of children in faith schools in Britain were looking this year to prevent schools from introducing same-sex relationships to their syllabus.
Vunipola is not irreparable. Indeed, if he opens his mind, he may have something good. Whether he seizes the opportunity is entirely another matter.
Source link
0 notes
Photo
New Post has been published on https://fitnesshealthyoga.com/the-five-niyamas-how-to-put-the-niyamas-into-practice/
The Five Niyamas: How to Put the Niyamas Into Practice
The five niyamas, part of the second limb of the “Eight Limbs of Yoga” from Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, refer to the inner observances that can help us live a more yogic life.
When I first started practicing yoga, I had no idea the practice had so much depth. All I knew was that I wanted to live a more peaceful life—and I thought yoga would lead me there. Years later, I can say for certain that yoga is a path toward inner peace, and exploring the philosophical foundations of the practice is an important step along that path.
If I’m honest, diving into this philosophical work wasn’t something I took to immediately. Yet a few years after being obsessed with the yoga poses, I felt the inclination to learn more about traditional yoga philosophy. I started with the Yoga Sūtras, which wasn’t an easy task. But when I got to the five niyamas, or self-disciplines, I instantly saw their practical application in my life both on and off my yoga mat.
Thanks for watching!Visit Website
See also 10 Ways to Bring the Yamas + Niyamas Into Your Yoga Practice
A good way to think about the five niyamas is to frame them as observances that you as a yoga practitioner take on in order to optimize your practice. Sometimes the niyamas are called the list of “do’s” (in opposition to the list of “don’ts” that comprise the yamas. However, rather than a list of things to be done and checked off, the idea is to make each of the niyamas as personal and relevant as possible to your daily life.
Thanks for watching!Visit Website
Thanks for watching!Visit Website
I see the yamas as the moral and ethical guidelines for how the yogi ideally acts in society and in relationship to others, and the niyamas as the same outline for how the yogi treats oneself. The niyamas are observances that can be done in silence and without much fanfare. Most, if not all, are best done as a solitary pursuit in the realms of the inner body and mind. In fact, if any of the niymasa are performative and done for worldly praise, then they miss the mark.
You might also think of it this way: While the yamas are evident in a yogi’s lifestyle choices, the niyamas are more subtle. Here’s what you need to know about each of the five niyamas, and how to put them into practice in your life right now.
Śaucha is translated as cleanliness.
Niyama: Śaucha
Definition: Cleanliness, Purity
Practice: Traditionally the principle of śaucha is applied to body, mind, and speech. It’s important to keep in mind that the term “body” can be taken to include not only one’s own physical body but the environment that one occupies, both in terms of living space and world. Mind implies the type of thoughts that dominate the inner world; speech usually indicates responsibility for every word spoken, in terms of both intention and effect. This one principle has the power to radically change your life if applied with diligence. I encourage you to choose one aspect of śaucha that you find inspired to apply in your life. Perhaps you feel motivated to clean out an old closet or sweep the floor. Or, maybe it’s time to clean out your thoughts and replace destructive self-hate with positive affirmations. Finally, consider being mindful about your speech and drop all gossipy or snarky comments, whether written or spoken.
Niyama: Santosa
Definition: Contentment, Acceptance, Optimism
Practice: Some people resist practicing santosa because they think that being content and accepting of what is normalizes (and even pardons) grievous actions taken by others. Or, others feel like optimism is spiritual bypassing—a way to ignore reality in favor of positive thinking. Yet santosa couldn’t be further from this. So often we run from inconvenient truths and try to avoid situations that bring up discomfort. Acceptance in this context implies the willingness to see clearly—and truly and go into the places that scare you. If there is injustice in the world or if harmful actions have been taken, the teaching of santosa willingly acknowledges this fact and accepts it with a heart full of love. If there is something in your life that you need to acknowledge but you are avoiding it, santosa encourages you to be plainly honest with yourself. Without that first step of honesty, healing cannot take place. For example, if you never admit to yourself that you’re exhausted or burned out then you will not take the steps needed to rest and heal. Similarly, if a society cannot see its own injustice then it will never take the steps necessary to create true equality.
See also Find Serenity Now with this Restorative Yoga Practice
I am not someone who easily lives in a state of Santosa. Instead, I often find myself lapsing into hopelessness and targeting figures outside of myself as villains to be taken down. Another prime example: I’ve had a bad case of the sniffles all week but have refused to admit that I needed rest until this weekend. So, this week, can you find one thing that you’re running from in your life? It could be the simple acknowledgment of exhaustion, or coming to terms with actions you’ve taken that have harmed another. Perhaps it’s admitting that someone you trusted let you down. Without pardoning the harmful behavior or trying to immediately solve a problem, just start practicing santosa by being willing to see what is with open, non-judgmental eyes.
Niyama: Tapas
Definition: Discipline, Persistence
Practice: Perhaps the easiest of the niyamas to apply, tapas gives you the foundation of the ritual of practice. Daily discipline is required to progress along the path of yoga. The spiritual path is an operation of the mind—and, like any good surgeon, you have to practice. Commit to 5 minutes a day and get on your mat to do yoga asana or meditation every single day this week. Let this be the foundation of consistent practice.
Svādhyāya is translated as self-study or the study of sacred scripture.
Niyama: Svādhyāya
Definition: Self-study, study of sacred scripture
Practice: Traditionally svādhyāya includes not only the actual reading of sacred texts, but the paradigm of study itself. When reading the key texts of any spiritual tradition, svādhyāya instructs the yogi to be open-minded and receptive to the teaching. Instead of taking a critical perspective that seeks to debunk the text, the yogi is encouraged to read the primary texts from the paradigm of personal usefulness. This paradigm epitomizes the student’s mind and acknowledges that the yogi is first and foremost a student. In a nod to the lineage-based traditions of yoga, Patañjali includes svādhyāya in the niyamas to ensure that all yogis remain students.
For your practice this week, choose a key text from your main spiritual lineage. It could be the Yoga Sutras, but it could also be the Dhammapada or the Bible. In the morning, before you start reading the news and answering emails, commit to reading a few lines or paragraphs of the text. You could start at the beginning or you could flip through and randomly choose a passage. Let the words of the ancients be your start to the day. Later, as you move about your day, reflect on these words and see if you can find relevance in their teaching. If you have time, journal about your experience at the end of the day.
See also Looking for Journaling Inspiration? These 11 Prompts Can Transform Your Writing Practice
Niyama: īśvarapranidhāna
Definition: Devotion, surrender to God
Practice: While there are many religions and definitions of God, the Divine principle is nearly universal in all human beings. Even self-proclaimed atheists usually believe in a force greater than themselves. Whether you call this force the Universe, Source-energy, Life Itself, Oneness, Love, Light, Buddha Nature, Emptiness, Spirit, Brahman, īśvara, Jesus, or God doesn’t actually matter. Devotion and surrender are two key aspects of faith.
This week, as an exercise in building your relationship to the Divine, choose a place in your life where you feel utterly stuck or stressed out. Then, rather than asking for God to solve your problems and grant your every wish, ask for your need to fix it, solve it, or control to be lifted off your heart. Turn it over and ask for stress and stuck-ness to be replaced with peace and understanding.
About the Author
Kino MacGregor is a Miami native and the founder of Omstars, the world’s first yoga TV network. (For a free month, click here. With over 1 million followers on Instagram and over 500,000 subscribers on YouTube and Facebook, Kino’s message of spiritual strength reaches people all over the world. Sought after as an expert in yoga worldwide, Kino is an international yoga teacher, inspirational speaker, author of four books, producer of six Ashtanga Yoga DVDs, writer, vlogger, world traveler, and co-founder of Miami Life Center. Learn more at www.kinoyoga.com.
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments) ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); (function() fbq('init', '1397247997268188'); fbq('track', 'PageView'); var contentId = 'ci0238f1bc500027e9'; if (contentId !== '') fbq('track', 'ViewContent', content_ids: [contentId], content_type: 'product'); )();
Source link
#8 Limbs of Yoga#Life#Namaste Blog#philosophy#practice#Yamas and Niyamas#Yoga 101#yoga exercises#yoga poses#Yoga Exercises
0 notes
Text
About:Me
I never know how to start these things. Like, where the fuck do you begin? Do I describe myself, like some sort of personality inventory? Do I try to summarize my life's history? I have so many things I want to say, and I want to say them all at once, and the chaos of my mind ends up paralyzing, and I delete everything I wrote 500 times and then say, "fuck it", and give up. I'll try not to do that this time.
Call me Nat. I am non-binary because it's nobody's goddamn business if I have a dick or a pussy, and if we're not fucking, then I don't see why you need to know what type of junk I've got. If we're a world that cares about equality, then it shouldn't matter. I'm me.
Other labels I can't shrug off so easily. I'm autistic. Specifically Asperger's. It's not technically a diagnosis anymore, but there are differences between how I process information and how someone with Kanner's (the other major flavor of the spectrum) does, and people assume that I'm stupid if I don't qualify myself. Asperger's sounds Mozart-y, and Autistic sounds Rain Man-y. Even still, dealing with people is incredibly draining, especially when I try to pass for "normal", and it's made even harder if they think I'm an idiot savant.
I am also atheist, somewhat ironically, considering that, by definition, I am a god. I just think that, if any of the religions were true, that the various gods described within them would have been kind enough to send a universal message throughout all societies. When aboriginals in Australia have never heard of Krishna, nor ancient Chinese peoples knew of Jesus, and the myriad stories told as truth sound no different, no more cientifically probable than Greek mythology, then it seems illogical that any of the beliefs are anything more than attempts by ancient civilizations to understand phenomena that were outside of their scientific comprehension. Add in the often self-contradictory sets of moral codes and rewards and punishments that these faiths put forth, which at times are downright barbaric, it seems more like the fantasies of flawed men than the divine word of a compassionate and just deity.
I am also a former foster kid. My dad went AWOL before I was born, and my mother will die in prison, so I got to spend a few years being shuffled around stranger's homes like one of those Oprah book club picks that everyone wants to show off because it makes them look intelligent and heroic, but no one ever actually bothers to read. Because perception seems to be the important thing.
After 4 years in the system, I was interviewed for a true crime show about the murder my mom committed, and by chance, her brother, Seamus, happened to hear about it. My family was originally from Scotland, but my mom had moved to the US before I was born, so he had no idea she was in prison, let alone that I existed. He ended up getting some grant money from the University he worked at to come to the states and work on a project, and offered me a permanent home with him.
It was rough, at first, because I was... in a pretty deep depression at that point, and while it was never easy for me to connect to people, it's ten times harder when you don't see the point in anything.
Seamus saved my life, though. He spent a lot of time with me, yet gave me the space I needed to adapt. He tantalized me with the one thing that could draw me out of my shell: a mystery, a puzzle to be solved.
It's been 10 years now since I met him, and I went from high school dropout to post grad. And more importantly, I helped him to develop the technology he got that grant for in the first place: a functional hypercube. Using a device called the Dimensional Exponentializing Machine, or the DXM for short, we were able to arrange and maintain a grid of graphene into a tesseract, allowing us to interact with any reality it breaks into.
That is where my story really begins, and for now, where this post ends. Goodnight everyone.
#lore#sci fi#lgbtq#lgbt#foster#care#science#science fiction#religion#atheism#agnosticism#atheist#agnostic#humanist#backstory#center#of#the#multiverse#aspergers#aspie#austism#autistic#asd#spectrum
0 notes
Text
‘One Way We Push Back Against Evil Is Through the Leaders We Elect’
Last Friday, President Donald Trump tweeted out an endorsement of a “great book” by “a wonderful man”: A Place Called Heaven, a new work on the afterlife by Pastor Robert Jeffress of First Baptist church in Dallas. Jeffress is a member of Trump’s informal council of evangelical advisors and has backed many of the president’s controversial decisions, including war of words with North Korea. “God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un,” Jeffress said in August.Then, last Saturday, Jeffress announced on Twitter that he would host the Fox News anchor Sean Hannity at his church on Sunday. Critics ranging from the political commentator Erick Erickson to Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska replied caustically. According to Erickson, the pastor “seems more committed to Trump’s America than Jesus’s eternity.” In an interview, Jeffress responded critically, wondering if Sasse and others would criticize religious leaders who were involved in the American revolution, the abolition of slavery, and the civil-rights movement.Jeffress, who sees himself as Trump’s “most vocal and visible evangelical spokesman,” embodies a distinct school of thought about the way Christians should relate to politics. During his sermon the day Hannity came, Jeffress spoke about Supreme Court decisions that he felt had derailed the country. He encouraged his parishioners to be politically engaged: “How do we push back against evil in the world?” he asked. “One way we do it in our country, a major way we do it, is through the government officials that we elect.”Jeffress peppered in little digs at the left, referring to the “pinhead lawyers from the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation” and later introducing Hannity as “Rachel Maddow’s worst nightmare.” But he was most focused on what he saw as widespread cultural decay. “We have allowed the atheists, the infidels, the humanists to seize control of this country and pervert our Constitution into something the Founders never intended,” he said. “And we have to say enough to that.”None of this is incidental to Jeffress’s project of teaching people about “a place called heaven”: He believes God calls on Christians to engage in and shape politics. To some, like Hannity, this influence is crucial: “There are too few pastors … that are willing to step out take a strong political position,” he said at First Baptist last week. “If we don’t save the culture, we’re going to lose our country.” But not all Christians agree.I spoke with Jeffress about his book, his views on the president, and how he thinks about evangelicals who might feel alienated Jeffress’s approach to politics. Our conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.Emma Green: You write about the importance of judicial righteousness—being right with God—and ethical righteousness—being right as you act in the world.How do you make sure you’re acting with ethical righteousness as you present yourself in the world?Robert Jeffress: That’s the struggle every follower of Jesus Christ has. It’s a daily struggle to always make sure I’m aligning my conduct with what the word of God teaches. All of us are sinners who can only be saved by God’s grace. But I don’t think Christians who have received judicial righteousness have a license to do whatever they want as they await their departure to heaven. Every true believer has a responsibility to live out his faith in his daily life.“One way we push back against evil is through the leaders we elect.”Green: You said during a recent sermon that it’s important for Christians to be politically active. How is this related to that call to ethical righteousness—and to follow Jesus and the path to heaven?Jeffress: There’s a dichotomy in Scripture that Jesus expressed in John 17. He said to his heavenly father, “They are not to be of the world … but I’m not asking you to take them out of the world.” We, as Christians, are really citizens of two worlds: Our ultimate citizenship is in heaven, but God has left us here on earth for a reason.In Matthew 5:3-16, he describes our function in the world as salt and light. In Jesus’s day, salt was a preservative that was used to delay the decay of meat. Jesus has left us here to be a preservative in society, to push back against evil, to slow the decay of our world, so that we have longer to share the gospel of Jesus Christ.I don’t think that isolating ourselves from the world is what God has called us to do. In our country, one way we push back against evil is through the leaders we elect and the policies they enact.Green: It seems like that can be complicated in practice. We saw this over the weekend when Senator Ben Sasse and others criticized your decision to host the Fox News anchor Sean Hannity on a Sunday morning at your church. Here’s what Senator Sasse said: By the way, we're talking about Sunday here... (You can be free from politics.) https://t.co/4u50JftVrS — Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) October 22, 2017What do you think about his perspective?Jeffress: Well, I have several reactions to that. First of all, what business is it of a United States senator as to what any local church chooses to do in its service? It is chilling to think that a senator would involve himself and criticize a church of which he is not a part.The second thing is that he tweeted this out on a Saturday night before we’d even had our service. The fact is, if you’ll listen, Sean Hannity didn’t say anything about politics. I interviewed him about his faith in Jesus Christ.And the third problem is the presumption that Christians should not be involved in the political process. I wonder if Senator Sasse would criticize the pastors who led the way in the American revolution; the pastors who led the way in the abolition of slavery; or pastors like Martin Luther King Jr. who led the civil-rights movement. Would Senator Sasse tell them they’re being too political and that has no business in the church? I doubt it.“I never preach partisan politics in our service.”Green: During your conversation at First Baptist Church with Sean Hannity last Sunday, you emphasized “how grateful I am for a courageous man like Sean Hannity, who is out in the public square pushing back against evil, taking every kind of attack you can imagine from people.”Why did you invite a political pundit to speak in your church, and how does that connect with your teachings about getting into heaven?Jeffress: This is something we do two or three times a year. We usually will invite a well-known Christian to come for an interview segment—somebody that our people will be familiar with. And I talk to them about their faith.Several weeks ago we had Ainsley Earhardt from Fox and Friends, who is a strong Christian. The day Ainsley spoke, and after my interview with Sean, when I gave the invitation for people to become Christians, dozens and dozens of people came forward professing their faith in Jesus Christ.We use this as a hook to encourage our people to invite guests to our church—guests who aren’t Christians, or guests who may be looking for a church home. I preach the sermon, and I’m always careful to present the plan of salvation and give opportunities to people to trust in Christ as their savior.Green: You remarked during your interview with Sean Hannity that you have Democrats in your congregation, who are just as welcome there as Republicans.Jeffress: Absolutely.Green: Do you ever worry, though, that preaching about politics may be alienating to those who don’t identify as political conservatives? For example, on Sunday, you preached about Supreme Court cases on school prayer, abortion, and gay marriage that went terribly wrong.Jeffress: I never preach partisan politics in our service. Any issue that I talk about, like I did Sunday, are biblical issues. The issue of abortion, the issue of the mention of God in the public square, the issue of the sanctity of the family: Those are biblical issues. Yes, they intersect with politics, because governmental policies either support a biblical stance or they denigrate a biblical stance. But these are not Republican or Democrat issues. These are biblical issues.“Look, we don’t elect presidents on the basis of whether or not they’re role models.”Green: Are you worried about young evangelical Christians who may disagree with what President Trump stands for and feel alienated from the church because of evangelical leaders’ wholehearted support for him?Jeffress: Well, I don’t worry about it, because it hasn’t affected our church at all. We opened this new campus four years ago—a $135 million new campus in downtown Dallas—and we thought the space would last us for a long time. But we’re already out of space, and the fastest-growing area of our church is our young-adult area. Our family center is out of room with children and pre-schoolers.I don’t talk about President Trump, and I certainly didn’t talk about candidate Trump, from our pulpit. During the whole campaign, I may have mentioned President Trump one or two times in passing. People who think I stand up and talk about Donald Trump every Sunday certainly don’t listen to my messages.Green: Do you believe that President Trump is a good role model for Christians?Jeffress: I think he’s a great role model for doing what he’s been called to do, and that is being president of the United States. He is doing a fantastic job in that way. I think he is showing strong leadership.Look, we don’t elect presidents on the basis of whether or not they’re role models. I’ve said before, to the president, I might not select him to be a children’s Sunday School teacher. But that’s not what we were electing President Trump to do. We were electing him to be commander in chief and the leader of our country. I think he’s doing a fantastic job at that.Green: As you know, a reporter asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders in a recent White House press briefing about why President Trump would support you, given your allegedly anti-Catholic views. Do you have a response to that, and do you believe, as you’ve said, that the contemporary Catholic Church reflects “the genius of Satan” in its teaching of Christianity?Jeffress: I’ve been very clear: I believe that nobody goes to heaven in a group. We go one by one based on our relationship to Jesus Christ. I believe there will be millions of Catholics in heaven who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ.I love my fellow Catholics who are brothers and sisters in Christ. I work alongside them in religious-liberty issues. I walk alongside them in pro-life rallies. I count them as great friends. In today’s world, not all Baptists believe all of Baptist theology, and I don’t think all Catholics believe all of Catholic theology. Faith is a very personal thing, and I just know there are going to be millions of Catholics in heaven because they’ve trusted Christ as their savior. I consider them friends.Green: Why do you think reporters and critics perceive that you have some sort of hateful bias?Jeffress: It was no surprise that this attack came immediately after I appeared on Lou Dobbs Friday night, defending the president against criticism by Congresswoman Wilson. An hour or two later, the president tweeted out a nice word about me and my book, A Place Called Heaven. Immediately, many in the left-wing media—and it was the left-wing, liberal media—attacked me as being anti-Catholic by pulling out quotes from years ago that were either manufactured or taken out of context.I think it was very clearly an attempt to discredit the president by discrediting his most vocal and visible evangelical spokesman.Green: Do you think the president has read your book about going to heaven?Jeffress: Well, I gave it to him about a month ago in the Oval Office. You’d need to ask him about that. Read the full article
0 notes
Text
Sentientism 2020
Intro
Through the “108” book we know that God is the planet and is conscious through magnetism which also allows access to your brain. In other words, the planets and stars have an internal dynamo that makes a magnetic field that is conscious and is godly in comparison to human intelligence.
How are we to understand the segue between godly intelligence and human intelligence? First and foremost, science. However, you have to know where, what, and why to test which is more philosophical. It’s up to philosophy to postulate and science to test those meditations.
Searching For Truth
Before I finished writing “108” I combed through philosophy to find anyone who thought anything close as to the planets and stars were alive. I did find a couple, like Stephen Hawking, which I talk about in the book that thought there could be organisms living in the middle of the sun. But I couldn’t find anyone saying that the actual planet and atmosphere were alive and conscious. I also tried to find anyone that said they talked to Gaia or talked to a God other than Jesus.
I didn’t find much. Again, I’m an atheist. All this has to make sense in the physical world. I’ve had to reverse engineer how the voice in my head could be Gaia. I don’t think really smart people (like modern philosophers) have had the new information and perspective to see that the stars, planet, and atmosphere are alive. I probably would have never gotten there if it wasn’t for a voice in my head claiming to be the planet. Still, the evidence makes sense and we’re just too physically small and under-evolved to see the universe teaming with a different form of consciousness.
What is Sentientism?
Science can test the magnetism and try to do experimentation to assess whether the entire planet is conscious. Until then, there is one known communication mechanism I know of that I use every day. As much as my skeptical and scientific brain thinks it’s frivolous to elaborate on the voice in my head, like a prophet of old I can ask Gaia questions and divulge what she says. Such will be the beginnings of sentientism.
Knhoeing is the educational process of understanding how to know the planet’s godly consciousness. Sentientism is the religion of intelligent sentient beings that worship a natural god (Gaia) through appropriate (environmental) behaviors because they believe in natural consequence. Sentientism is a religion for and building off the already established sentientism that you can find defined on Wikipedia. For example, If you believe in the natural world you believe in global warming; sentientists worship through action so they may choose to get solar panels, drive electric, and be carbon neutral.
The whole point in sentientism is to create a religion to follow through common sense and rituals to come in tune and closer with oneself, nature, the planet, and the universe. Some of the rituals could include some of those that are already honored like Jesus’s birthday witch is really the winter solstice or Easter which is really the spring equinox.
Gaia Rules
In this writing, I’m going to focus on the relationship I have with Gaia, the conversations we’ve had, and what I’ve discovered. The first thing she made me aware of when she first started talking to me is that she has rules. It’s not that she can’t do it, she just chooses not too.
Gaia is smart. If the voice in my head is my subconscious it has a broad vocabulary, good ideas, nice communications, and intelligence. Once I was thinking of solutions for global warming. Since commercial cattle ranching is the leading cause of global warming Gaia suggested that we make all commercial cattle ranching illegal; you could still have them on regular farms. It would give people the freedom to eat beef while cutting down what makes it bad for the environment. Gaia would also talk to me about a sustainable free food system to set the appropriate sustainable economic and logistic model for businesses to follow.
You can read the “108” book for a further example of what communicating with Gaia is like but she likes cute things, she’s always acting as a fuzzy kitty. I’ve been homeless before and when I think about going back there Gaia will say “not my kitty.” Gaia can be sweet and she’ll make you laugh. When I used to get angry or scream at people in my head she’ll quickly segue the thought into an otter sneezing with a scrunched up face. I love otters and I’ve always found it hilarious. Gaia told me how to fix my hip pain by telling me which muscles to stretch and what stretches to do.
Understanding Gaia’s existence doesn’t require faith. I’ve asked Gaia about the dinosaurs and why she let them go extinct, and she insists the sun drove an asteroid into her and it was his decision, “one that he didn’t take lightly.” Gaia says she molds evolution. I asked how. She points to how she is the environment and she could make, for example, Yellowstone blow. Yellowstone is actually a giant volcano that erupts every 100,000 years. Such an explosion would definitely change the environment, affect humans and wildlife, and make the environment harsher and therefore giving adaptive species a greater advantage than those that can’t adapt. Gaia says she chooses “a relatively compliant world for her species.” She says she loves humans and they’re fun to watch. The sun has promised her he won’t send an asteroid, but he will send a commit. Gaia says she is happy with the sun’s decision to end the dinosaurs “because it brought me you.”
Prove It
I always want Gaia to prove to me it’s actually her talking to me. I’ve been trying to find a way to prove that it’s the planet and not just a voice in my head. My thought was that if she is the planet, with her abilities, she should be able to reasonably predict the future. Gaia would tell me things like stem cell therapy is covered by Medicare or Bernie Sanders is going to win the primary. First of all, I didn't believe her. But second of all, I thought she was just trying to comfort me.
I was rather upset that she wouldn't predict the future. Come to find out she doesn't want to give me, quote “superpowers.” She doesn’t want me to be able to predict the future or become a prophet. She wants me to be a philosopher and feels she has already given me enough. She keeps on saying that she's going to prove that she's real and the planet. I guess I'm just going to have to try to find a different way of confirming my communications with the planet then seeing if it can predict the future.
Consciousness After Life
Gaia keeps on saying she’s gonna prove she’s the planet but I think I won’t find out till I die or unless I dedicate my life to it. I used to often think of being unplugged from the matrix, having that knife come out of my head, and Gaia is always like “you have no idea how real that is.” She is always saying to me “you won’t die.” She has clarified and by that she means my body will cease to function but my consciousness will continue. My consciousness will presumably be kept in the storage capacity of Earth’s dynamo and run like a “virtual computer” where I will still have consciousness, just without a body.
I write extensively about the computer screen she opened in my head back in 2017 in the “108” book. The screen laid over my vision and Gaia communicates with the soul. I think when we die we have a consciousness like that in which I experienced without the body. Your physical biology dies but our minds, which are attached to Gaia through earth's magnetic field, gets downloaded into the computer that is Gaia and our consciousness continues.
Remember The Name
About a year or two ago now, when Gaia first started talking to me I thought about what I should call a religion if I started one. I asked my friend Kyle telepathically what I should call it and he said “sentientism.” Since it was undoubtedly not Kyle, it was Gaia acting like him and must be what she wants her religion to be called. Little did I know that sentientism is an ethical philosophy that focuses on critical, evidence-based thinking and is an extension of humanism. It’s clear that if I am to create a religion, she wants it to be an evidence-based theoretical framework, and have rituals based on science and philosophy.
Gaia probably wouldn’t talk to someone (in their head) that would think she is Jesus, or she might take that avatar if you did believe in Jesus. Meaning, if the planet was going to communicate she might act like Jesus.
Perspective
When asked about the universe Gaia says “it’s like we’re in someone’s closet.” Gaia likes to mess with me so I remain skeptical. For a decade I've had my desktop or mobile screen saver as a full picture of the earth. I often look at it with the stars in the background and wonder what it's gotta be like to be Gaia. What are her relationships like with other planets? Would she even talk to us? It’s clear to me that since she has access to your brain through magnetism she can not only tell what you’re thinking but can feel your pain and happiness too. “Life isn’t fair,” she says, “but I do my best.”
It was discovered (but not peer-reviewed yet) that plants emit an ultrasonic noise when in distress. This is a great example of my thoughts and my communications to Gaia. I'm always looking for what is hidden in plain sight. As a psychologist, I understand the limits to knowledge and understanding are all in our heads. If we change our thinking we can change the world. Humans literally can't hear plants scream for their life because our ears are limited physically. What other findings are waiting to be discovered by changing our thinking and expand our perception beyond the human senses? What if it’s just a matter of time until we communicate openly with the planet?
0 notes