A table built with four legs

Being a Theist, and joined at the hip to the gospels of the Nazarene is a personal choice (even though I’m not a religious man, in terms of “groupthink”) which I never attach any personal self-rightness too, as I know what a fool I am, as well as knowing what fools we all are, here on this rock; again, my own personal opinion – period; my own path; my own decisions. With limited tools to work with – in terms of our senses and their extremely restricted capabilities to perceive the world around us, as it actually is – I firmly believe it takes serious Philosophy, hard Science, sane Theology, and profound Art to even “begin” to scratch the surface of this existence, with these sensorial limitations at hand – let alone, behave in a manner which allows us to embrace this hard life in a loving way. In turn – to me – serious Philosophy, hard Science, sane Theology, and profound Art are all imperative.

Max Scheler states it in this way:

“A philosophy which fails to recognize and a priori denies the claim to transcendence which all non-logical acts make, or which allows this claim only in the case of acts of thought and those acts of intuitive cognition which furnish the material for thought in the domain of theory and science, condemns itself to blindness to whole realms of facts and their connections, for access to these realms is not essentially tied to acts of mind proper to the understanding. A philosophy of this sort is like a man who has healthy eyes and closes them and wants to perceive colors only with his ear or his nose!”

We seem to be entering a time when taking a saw to any of the four legs holding up the table we eat from, may prove to be unreasonable, even detrimental. One can always choose which leg, or legs, we place most our personal weight, knowing these choices are made thru our own combination of experience, biology, psychology &c. The beauty lies in decisions made, in a chaotic world, with these limited tools, for navigating such turbulent waters.



Dostoevsky don’t play

“love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing compared to love in dreams”

Dostoevsky does have a way of breaking through all the BS

I’m thinking: I open a book, watch a movie, read a bumper sticker maybe. I’m fooled — my imagination tells me I’m personally involved (which I am at some level — but at No Cost to me personally) in a truth; honorable deed; heroic act;  acts of love &c. When in reality; I’m just looking from outside in; just another fooling incited by someone else’s imagination who uncovered his or her fooling from a second hand source void of any action, any real care, or sacrifice — then put to paper. Maybe.

Dostoyevsky points out the fact that Love & Care are real;  based on action — in many cases — cost to the career can be much; a distinction should be made between imagination and deed…one can be had from a seated position, in a warm room surrounded by wonderfilled distractions. The other comes at a price.

Thank you Dostoevsky for pointing out — yet another flaw in my character.

That’s all I got imgres

%d bloggers like this: