Rays of Light
Sep. 8th, 2002 02:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vaxjediIn some ways it's been a dark weekend. But in some ways it has been a good weekend. So that's what I am focusing on - the good.
I really love Eleri. Yes, I know we seem to have a lot of argumentsa nd such. I guess those are to be expected in a marriage, especially with as intense a person as Eleri can be. However, it's that intensity that attracts me to her.
So I guess in my list of good things, Eleri ranks right up there. Yeah, I'm getting all mushy.
To love. It may not conquer all, but it's a damn good reason to fight.
The discussion on the Backtable stuff turned ugly, as it always seems to. The standard form is 1) Someone makes a nostaglic comment about the Table, 2) Some responds with something akin to "why do you all insist making a big deal of this again?" usually with "thinking of the Table as an entity is pointless/annoying/stupid" and "it was so dysfunctional" tucked in there for good measure, 3) defensive response about the Table and one's attachment to it.
I know this formula pretty well. I'm usually 1 and 3.
My first response was to be really angry about it. But this is about good things, isn't it? The good thing is that it provided me some revlatons that have left me feeling good.
One, the Table meant a lot to me, as an entity as well as the people in it. Maybe we were a sad collection of awkward and dysfucntional people in many people's eyes. But it was good for me, to me. I have friends for life, stories to tell and lessons to fall back on. It and they gave me things I did not find elsewhere. I fiercely defended the group (and still do) because it was the first community for which I could muster the emotion to defend - it was the first thing that really gave me a reason to fight. And maybe I have realized now that when people would talk about 'persecution complexes' and 'insular freaks' etc that I took it as an attack on me, because I had tied myself so tightly. I wasn't defending an institution, but myself.
Two, this has helped me understand others. To those who came after me or who were 'fringe Table', it didn't mean as much or the same as it did for me. That's why I seem so fanatical to them about it - they do not have the same basis. And this leads me to think about others who bind their identity to groups or ideals - devout people of all religions, hard-core members of subcultures (the gung-ho queer, the fanatical Cam player, the hard-core NRA member), the devoted patriot. I do not understand their intensity and have wondered what the big deal was. But maybe I understand now. They found something that meant so much to them that they took it onto themselves. And attacks on it become attacks on them.
Once I would have called this 'herd poisoning', thinking it was a sign of weak character. But I think that was incorrect. I keep thinkign that people are social creatures - we are defined as much by how we relate with others as by our internal thoughts. And how we choose to define ourselves in terms of community is a vital issue. What I once thought of as a lack of individuality is the opposite - the choice to share an identity is as individual as the choice to avoid such sharing. And I think, part of being human involves the sharing of some sort of culture or identity.
Additionally, this underlines that no one can truly understand what another person gets from a lover, a hobby or a community. Once again, this shows the uniqueness of people and the diversity of existance. In a world that so often feels like an exercise in mediocrity, this makes me feel better.
Three, the fact that some people don't understand my experience, honestly, feeds my self-esteem a little bit. I feel like I was special, that my friends were special and that my experience was special. I don't mean this to imply that other's experiences were less special, but this gives the attachment I have to these things validity - something that is a reflection of me and the people I connected to.
As I made these revelations, my anger went away. I wasn't being attacked anymore. It wasn't an issue of 'you are bad, dysfucntional people' anymore. I am at peace with it.
I feel more connected to my spirituality. This makes me very happy.
Part of my trouble is that my spirituality was partially based on the concept that I am a good person.
You see, when I was a kid, I was a Christian. But it occurred to me that if I was a good person, God would love me, whether I went to church or not, whether I followed the letter of the law or not. And I discovered that I wasn't so much a Christian, but a person who wanted to be Good (which most people equated with being Christian - however I didn't). I respected holiness, not because it was Christian, but because it was Holy. Religion was an expression of Holiness, not the other way around.
That was when I began to question Christianity. And I discovered that the doctrine's on holiness didn't match mine.
Right after High School, when I took up the mantle of Pagan, a friend of mine told me he disapproved. But he said I was a good person and that in the end, I would see the truth and that since God is Good, I would be given the chance to repent. And he felt, since I am a good person, that I would see the error in my ways.
I think I agree with him on some points. If at the end of my days, I am presented with the fact that God is Good and that the Christian conception of God is Good, then I would change my mind. For it is Good that I really care about, not God.
But I would not repent. Because I have attempted to live a good life in the best way that I have understood it. And I think that is what really matters. And if their God is ture and He is Good, that is what will really matter to him as well.
That's what I believe - Holy is as Holy does. Doesn't matter if it's the Pope, the Dahli Lhama or the pagan chick with her legs spread in the Temple of Joy. I cannot conceive of a Good that would be otherwise, no matter what God you follow.
I have found the expressions of that that make sense to me. They are allegories that I have formed myself. Part of this is because they mean more to me that way. Part of it is because I think that personal connections are what make people strong. I have personal connections to these ideas, as they are zeitgeists of the ideas I have encountered that have struck a chord in me. Someone else made notes, but I am conducting the orchestra. Almost sounds a bit - conceited, actually.
I read the book Cryptonomicon. In it, the actual Cryptonomicon is actually a collection of essays, papers and other assorted bits about cryptography. It's not a cohesive hole.
Now I mention this because what I have been trying to do with my spiritual path is create a sort of cohesive tradition - something I could follow. I think that's the wrong approach. Since my beliefs are so ecclectic and include the fact that truth can be found in all sorts of revelations, maybe something like the Cryptonomicon would be a better model. A collection of things where I find spiritual meaning, a sort of Theonomicon. My poem Seeds was about that.
I've run out of steam. Time to go on with the day.
I really love Eleri. Yes, I know we seem to have a lot of argumentsa nd such. I guess those are to be expected in a marriage, especially with as intense a person as Eleri can be. However, it's that intensity that attracts me to her.
So I guess in my list of good things, Eleri ranks right up there. Yeah, I'm getting all mushy.
To love. It may not conquer all, but it's a damn good reason to fight.
The discussion on the Backtable stuff turned ugly, as it always seems to. The standard form is 1) Someone makes a nostaglic comment about the Table, 2) Some responds with something akin to "why do you all insist making a big deal of this again?" usually with "thinking of the Table as an entity is pointless/annoying/stupid" and "it was so dysfunctional" tucked in there for good measure, 3) defensive response about the Table and one's attachment to it.
I know this formula pretty well. I'm usually 1 and 3.
My first response was to be really angry about it. But this is about good things, isn't it? The good thing is that it provided me some revlatons that have left me feeling good.
One, the Table meant a lot to me, as an entity as well as the people in it. Maybe we were a sad collection of awkward and dysfucntional people in many people's eyes. But it was good for me, to me. I have friends for life, stories to tell and lessons to fall back on. It and they gave me things I did not find elsewhere. I fiercely defended the group (and still do) because it was the first community for which I could muster the emotion to defend - it was the first thing that really gave me a reason to fight. And maybe I have realized now that when people would talk about 'persecution complexes' and 'insular freaks' etc that I took it as an attack on me, because I had tied myself so tightly. I wasn't defending an institution, but myself.
Two, this has helped me understand others. To those who came after me or who were 'fringe Table', it didn't mean as much or the same as it did for me. That's why I seem so fanatical to them about it - they do not have the same basis. And this leads me to think about others who bind their identity to groups or ideals - devout people of all religions, hard-core members of subcultures (the gung-ho queer, the fanatical Cam player, the hard-core NRA member), the devoted patriot. I do not understand their intensity and have wondered what the big deal was. But maybe I understand now. They found something that meant so much to them that they took it onto themselves. And attacks on it become attacks on them.
Once I would have called this 'herd poisoning', thinking it was a sign of weak character. But I think that was incorrect. I keep thinkign that people are social creatures - we are defined as much by how we relate with others as by our internal thoughts. And how we choose to define ourselves in terms of community is a vital issue. What I once thought of as a lack of individuality is the opposite - the choice to share an identity is as individual as the choice to avoid such sharing. And I think, part of being human involves the sharing of some sort of culture or identity.
Additionally, this underlines that no one can truly understand what another person gets from a lover, a hobby or a community. Once again, this shows the uniqueness of people and the diversity of existance. In a world that so often feels like an exercise in mediocrity, this makes me feel better.
Three, the fact that some people don't understand my experience, honestly, feeds my self-esteem a little bit. I feel like I was special, that my friends were special and that my experience was special. I don't mean this to imply that other's experiences were less special, but this gives the attachment I have to these things validity - something that is a reflection of me and the people I connected to.
As I made these revelations, my anger went away. I wasn't being attacked anymore. It wasn't an issue of 'you are bad, dysfucntional people' anymore. I am at peace with it.
I feel more connected to my spirituality. This makes me very happy.
Part of my trouble is that my spirituality was partially based on the concept that I am a good person.
You see, when I was a kid, I was a Christian. But it occurred to me that if I was a good person, God would love me, whether I went to church or not, whether I followed the letter of the law or not. And I discovered that I wasn't so much a Christian, but a person who wanted to be Good (which most people equated with being Christian - however I didn't). I respected holiness, not because it was Christian, but because it was Holy. Religion was an expression of Holiness, not the other way around.
That was when I began to question Christianity. And I discovered that the doctrine's on holiness didn't match mine.
Right after High School, when I took up the mantle of Pagan, a friend of mine told me he disapproved. But he said I was a good person and that in the end, I would see the truth and that since God is Good, I would be given the chance to repent. And he felt, since I am a good person, that I would see the error in my ways.
I think I agree with him on some points. If at the end of my days, I am presented with the fact that God is Good and that the Christian conception of God is Good, then I would change my mind. For it is Good that I really care about, not God.
But I would not repent. Because I have attempted to live a good life in the best way that I have understood it. And I think that is what really matters. And if their God is ture and He is Good, that is what will really matter to him as well.
That's what I believe - Holy is as Holy does. Doesn't matter if it's the Pope, the Dahli Lhama or the pagan chick with her legs spread in the Temple of Joy. I cannot conceive of a Good that would be otherwise, no matter what God you follow.
I have found the expressions of that that make sense to me. They are allegories that I have formed myself. Part of this is because they mean more to me that way. Part of it is because I think that personal connections are what make people strong. I have personal connections to these ideas, as they are zeitgeists of the ideas I have encountered that have struck a chord in me. Someone else made notes, but I am conducting the orchestra. Almost sounds a bit - conceited, actually.
I read the book Cryptonomicon. In it, the actual Cryptonomicon is actually a collection of essays, papers and other assorted bits about cryptography. It's not a cohesive hole.
Now I mention this because what I have been trying to do with my spiritual path is create a sort of cohesive tradition - something I could follow. I think that's the wrong approach. Since my beliefs are so ecclectic and include the fact that truth can be found in all sorts of revelations, maybe something like the Cryptonomicon would be a better model. A collection of things where I find spiritual meaning, a sort of Theonomicon. My poem Seeds was about that.
I've run out of steam. Time to go on with the day.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-09-08 05:07 pm (UTC)If you'll forgive a nosy question from a stranger... I wonder if you would care to explain this further?
Btw, I'm a Christian, but am truly not asking this in an attempt to start anything. Christian views on holiness vary enormously; I'm wondering both what Christian doctrine you mean, and what your own concept of holiness is. Personally, I'm more interested in the Old Testament understanding of holiness than most Christians.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-15 09:30 pm (UTC)What I disagree with is the concept that Grace is all that is needed for salvation. That ultimately, it is God's goodwill that determines if one is worthy - not deeds, not contributions, not intentions, but God's Grace alone.
Also, I dislike the concept that the acceptance of Christ is a requirement for God's Grace. Good people, if not Christian, aren't good enough. And bad people, if Christian, have a chance.
Now, I know this is a lot less rampant nowadays than it once was. But I still run into it a lot from Christians of many stripes.
I just prefer to think that, even if the Christian God is the Ultimate Truth, that buying into his PR is part of the requirements for being a good person.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-17 11:44 am (UTC)Hmm.. Until very recently, Roman Catholic theology was on your side. It’s the classic faith vs. works paradox, of course. I think the main reason for the emphasis on grace is that believing that works “count” seems to lead inevitably to legalism and judgmentalism, as is especially obvious in Catholicism. But most Christian theologians immediately follow up the idea of grace with “Faith without works is dead”.... if the understanding and acceptance of grace isn’t making a difference in your life, something is terribly wrong. Jesus and Paul were both faithful Jews, neither of whom rejected the Hebrew teachings about righteousness; they wanted to change the emphasis, the mindset for behaving with justice and compassion, not throw it out entirely.
Also, I dislike the concept that the acceptance of Christ is a requirement for God's Grace. Good people, if not Christian, aren't good enough. And bad people, if Christian, have a chance.
Now, I know this is a lot less rampant nowadays than it once was. But I still run into it a lot from Christians of many stripes.
I just prefer to think that, even if the Christian God is the Ultimate Truth, that buying into his PR is part of the requirements for being a good person.
I’m with you there, entirely. (So was John Wesley, as it happens.) Of course, many Christians will spout the purported saying of Jesus that “I am the Way...) etc. I choose to take that far less dogmatically; not as saying “the only way to know God is to believe in Jesus,” but as “anyone who finds their way to God has found the essence of what Jesus was teaching.”
Unfortunately, most Christians know squat about theology. So the mean-hearted become fundies who insist on grace alone, Jesus alone, and then still find ways to judge others; and the kind-hearted ones all too often can’t find any way past “I am the Way....”
no subject
Date: 2002-09-08 10:58 pm (UTC)*hugs*
rabbit
no subject
Date: 2002-09-09 11:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-09 01:18 pm (UTC)Also, I'm starting to increasingly believe that some of the negativity some people are directing at the Table are related to stuff you and I weren't involved in... Which makes me feel better as well.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-11 09:01 am (UTC)Pax tecum.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-15 09:33 pm (UTC)