Derivations on a Theme -- A "Queer" Embodiment of Tao

Trey Smith

In Scott's post this morning, he brought up the fact that he heard the word "queer" used in a proactive, not reactive, sense. After pondering this usage, he has decided to be an "aspiring queer."

One of the main points shared with us by Laozi and Zhuangzi is this idea that making distinctions separates us from our innate nature. We deem some distinctions to be good and moral, while others are deemed to be bad and immoral. As I often mull this ideation over in me noggin, it has spurred me to wonder if bisexuals embody Tao -- at least, in the realm of sexuality -- more readily than their heterosexual or homosexual brethren.

I write this as a self-identified heterosexual male. Though I believe the basic framework of an individual's sexual orientation is bio-chemical, in nature, I do think that environmental factors come into play as well. While someone like myself may be biologically predisposed to be attracted to the opposite gender, there are many things each of us may be predisposed to that we change or become changed throughout our lives. For example, a person might not favor a certain food, aroma or style of music when young, but then develops an affinity for the same thing when older.

Because I remain "turned on" by females and their anatomy, it concurrently means I am "turned off" by males and their anatomy. I have made a distinction between the two genders that is not that much different from those who are "turned on" by someone of their own gender and "turned off" by someone of the opposite gender. On the contrary, a bisexual individual doesn't appear to have this turned on/turned off switch which, in my mind, means they are able to love more freely and fully. They don't see these distinctions that the rest of us have created.

So, while the main of society views the bisexual as deviant, I am left to wonder if those of us who are heterosexual and homosexual are the actual deviants. It is we, not they, who have erected barriers and made distinctions where none may exist.

Derivations on a Theme -- About-Face

Trey Smith

Like most people, I sometimes fall behind on reading some of my favorite blogs. For example, I just read Bruce Gerencser's (The Way Forward) March 1 post, Liberal Christian John Shore Says People Like Me Never Were Christians. Bruce quote's Shore's reasoning:

As for Christians who renounced Christ, who are no longer Christian? Two things: 1. If they don’t care (and they can’t, since they no longer believe that Christ is any more real than the tooth fairy), then the question of what their new relationship is to Christ is the ultimate moot point; and: 2. As much ire as I know this will bring me [and it did: see below], my vote is that such a person was never really a Christian in the first place — by which I mean that their Christianity was always immature. And that’s certainly no crime.

As Bruce points out, Shore is advancing two explanations that, though Shore treats them as one, are two separate arguments. In Shore's opinion, individuals who have deconverted from the Christian faith either were never true Christians to begin with OR their faith was of an immature variety.

Here's what I want to know: Would Shore apply these same principles in the opposite direction?

Let's say there is a famous atheist who has led a very hedonistic AND public life. At some point, this atheist has an epiphany and becomes a Christian. Would someone like John Shore accuse this person of being an illegitimate atheist? Would someone like John Shore say this individual was never REALLY an atheist to begin with? If so, then all those hedonistic acts would have been the acts of a god-fearing Christian and all the criticism of a hedonistic atheist lifestyle would have to pulled back!

Then again, maybe it was just a sign that this real Christian merely was behaving like an immature atheist because we all "know" how those immature atheists act!

Derivations on a Theme -- Everything Is Recycled

Trey Smith

Usually when I do one of these derivations, I quote a snippet of another person's writings and then go off in a slightly different direction. This time, however, I did little more than peruse the article -- the heading itself is what caught my eye. On Thursday, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts posted, Nature’s Capital Is The Limiting Resource, and it is this title that motivated me to write this post.

Nature is limited because everything that it can be is already here. What we call "new" merely is a reformulation of the already present constituent elements. Every new being is made possible by those beings who came before and, if we go back generation after generation to the first beings, they came to life via the elements that were already present.

It is the same with ideas. When we prance around because we've had one of those seminal eureka moments, all we truly are doing is recycling old ideas into new forms. Today's ideas are built on the backs of previous ideas and every idea owes itself to the first one.

When we die, we don't actually go away. Yes, it may be true that our specific self-conscious ego is no more, but all the innate components that make you, you, or me, me, simply are released back into the realm of existence to be utilized by nature in some way.

I guess I'm trying to say that it seems to me that we exist in a closed system. Everything that was, is or will be is present at all times. It simply is reconfigured in innumerable ways.

Derivations on a Theme -- Inflections Make a Difference

Trey Smith

In a recent post, Nothing Lasts Forever, at A Quiet Watercourse, Richard writes.

Change is necessary for creation to occur. so it’s far from being a bad thing. Every act of creation requires the destruction of that which came before.

It's a lovely post that utilizes buildings in his local community to draw out an important point that we each should keep in mind.

What struck me is how the phrase, nothing lasts forever, might change in meaning based on which word in the phrase is emphasized (in speaking terms, the inflection). In my mind's eye, Richard's post treats the phrase as such: Nothing Lasts Forever. But what if we changed the emphasis or inflection? What if someone read it as Nothing Lasts Forever?

The first emphasis suggests change and transformation, while the second emphasis suggests that emptiness -- Tao -- is always present and, possibly, unchanging.

How could "nothing" ever be something that it wasn't in the first place? How could emptiness not last? How could nothing be anything but infinite?

No answers here. Just questions to ponder.

Derivations on a Theme -- The Fruits of Evil

Trey Smith

But briefly, he [Alan Watts in The Supreme Identity] argues for a God that, rather than being absolutely good, is the source of both good and evil (in the finite, relative realm), while transcending both Himself. Towards the end of the chapter he says something like how, from our limited perspective, evil seems absolutely terrible, yet, from the standpoint of the infinite, it is an integral part of the finite duality, and even the most atrocious acts are worth it, for the overall beauty of the whole Creation. He likens it to standing with your face pressed to a painting; stepping back, you suddenly see that those ugly shadows are what give shape, form, balance, and identity to the light and color.
~ from Was It Worth It? by Brandon at Notes From the Outside ~

I've been doing some pondering about the concept of heaven. Supposedly, it is a place of perfection. Depending on one's faith perspective, you may be feted by nymph-like virgins or so much is provided that you no longer have a care in the "world." It is a place in which all who enter are pure of heart and every pure desire is quenched.

How could a place like that genuinely exist? More importantly, who really would want to live there!?

Evil provides necessary definition to our lives, whether physical, emotional or spiritual. Love is a meaningless concept without its antithesis. If evil finally was vanquished, what would we be left with?

Absolute boredom!

Evil serves a necessary function. Without it, life simply wouldn't be worth living. There would be no challenges to overcome and no opportunity to gain wisdom.

Now this is not a backdoor way of arguing for hedonism -- all lives lived to achieve maximum individual pleasure at the expense of others. I am also not suggesting that we should strive to be evil as a way of providing our lives with deeper definition. All I am suggesting is that the love/evil dynamic is just as much a part of existence as the yin/yang dynamic.

Imagine a world filled with sages. Each person lives in tune with their inner nature (Tao). Would that mean that evil had been cast away forever?

Me thinks not. Even people pure of heart who follow their own paths will find that these paths sometimes collide. Colliding paths necessarily will engender conflict and conflict often serves as the root of evil.

Derivations on a Theme -- Hand Ball

Trey Smith

I have written quite a few posts in the past year in which I bemoan the lack of principles exhibited by the two mainstream political parties in the US. When the opposition party holds sway, the other jumps up and down like an angry 2 year old about this or that policy, yet when the opposition party grasps the reins of power, they end up embracing many of the same policies with glee. It can be a maddening spectacle for those of us who watch from the sidelines as the parties contort themselves -- all dependent on which one takes the lead role.

But we should know that this ongoing phenomena isn't reserved solely for the political scene. Political intrigue merely reflects how most of us live our lives on a day-to-day basis. DagoodS makes this point abundantly clear in a recent post at Thoughts from a Sandwich. In his post, he is not talking about political races; it's about refereeing children's soccer matches.

But these parents are not interested in being informed. These parents are not there to learn the laws of the game. The last thing these parents want is game instruction. They want their child’s team to win. Win, win, win! And any call (or lack of call) by the referee standing in the way of winning is the equivalent of a deadly insult.

I know this because I watch what happens when their own players commit the same actions and the parents are strangely quiet. Ball hits an opposing player’s hand? “Hand ball! Hand ball!” Ball hits own teams’ hand? Not even crickets chirping.

Last week I was refereeing and the red team’s player collided with the blue team’s player — the red player ended up on the ground. Behind me I heard, “Foul, ref! He just knocked our kid to the GROUND and you aren’t going to call anything?” (There wasn’t any foul.) About two minutes later, a red player tripped a blue player and the blue player ended up on the ground. The center (correctly) whistled for a tripping foul. The exact same parent yells, “Just because they end up on the ground, doesn’t mean there was a foul!” I wanted to laugh out loud — they didn’t even realize their own contradictory statements.

In my mind, this overall issue relates to this blog because the Taoist sages frequently discussed the matter of distinctions. They warn us repeatedly that, when the ego is involved, we tend to distinguish the aspects of life in an unfair way. We want to penalize or constrict those we oppose, while providing wide berth to ourselves or those we favor. In other words, if you commit some offense, it is wrong as wrong can be and you should be sanctioned. If I commit the same offense, I can ALWAYS provide a justification, so no sanctions should be applied.

Since we all behave this way in our everyday lives, is it any wonder that this same behavior is carried forth into the political realm?

Derivations on a Theme -- Dying To Know

Trey Smith

Here I am, alive. I'm a human being who can envision his own death. I enjoy life, but it's slipping away by the day, the hour, the minute, the second. I'm 63 fucking years old! My lifelong experiencing of one-thing-after-the-other is going to come to an abrupt halt with a final thing: the instant of my death. After that... nothing. Not even the awareness of nothing.

After waking up this morning, I felt pretty much normal again. Aware of death, of course, yet immersed in the living of life. Thankfully. But the primal fear I'd experienced last night was still lingering closer to the surface of my consciousness than it usually is.
~ from Uncertainty: the key to dealing with death and non-existence by Blogger Brian at Church of the Churchless ~

So much of our lives is basted in the juice of uncertainty! We desperately want to know unequivocally what comes next, be we know intuitively that there is no way TO know. We may latch onto myths and legends that seek to provide the certainty that inherently is lacking, but this only calms our surface consciousness. Down deep, the puzzle remains as intractable as ever.

As we grow old, it's hard not to contemplate our own death. Based on the history of everything around us, we are fairly certain that death will come knocking on our door. But even here, we can't be 100% certain! What we call death may turn out to be something akin to awakening from a dream. Maybe none of us was ever alive in the first place!

While we humans like to think we are each different and unique, there is one tie that binds us all together in a disjointed mass or blob: The desire for some modicum of certainty in an existence that provides none. It doesn't matter where we were born, the color of our skin, our religious or lack of religious beliefs, or whether we are poor or rich. None of this matters.

Every single one of us fears this thing we call death because, after all is said and done, none of us has the foggiest notion what it does or does not entail. We tremble in the face of uncertain uncertainty.

Derivations on a Theme -- Hanging It Up

Trey Smith

I think that almost every person who has authored a blog or website has thought, at one time or another, that maybe the time has come to "hang it up." Over at On Leaving Fundamentalist Christianity, Lorena mentioned this idea in a recent post.

So yes, I’ve been writing about it for six plus years, and I often think I’m done. This is it, I think sometimes. I will post that I’m closing shop and that I’m leaving the archives up for others to learn from my experience...

Have I ever thought about pulling the plug on The Rambling Taoists? Sure, the thought has crossed my mind a time or two. I get into periods in which I wonder if there is anything more to share. I might travel down that roads a ways and then I'm struck by a new observation or insight. As someone who loves to write, this brings me back to the keyboard!

For me, the number of issues, ideas and thoughts a person can blog about are endless. So, as long as Scott, Ta-Wan and I want to write, there will be things to write about. Because of my unique situation -- physical, mental and neurological -- I most likely will continue writing on this blog until that point in which I can no longer write...or think!

This is not to suggest that a blog is the SOLE way for one person to share with others. People walk away from authoring a blog everyday and find new ways to interact. It's just that my social interactions are limited -- by choice -- so this seems to be the perfect vehicle for me.

In other words, I suspect that I only will "hang up" this blog when the time comes to hang up everything for good.

Derivations on a Theme -- Water Balloons

Trey Smith

For many years I was a right wing, God loving, God fearing, racist and homophobe. I hated homosexuals. I thought they were vile people whom God had given over to a reprobate mind. (Romans 1) As a pastor, I regularly preached against the sin of homosexuality. My words were caustic and inflammatory, not unlike most of my pastor friends.

The funny thing is I never personally knew any homosexuals. Oh, I have no doubt there were people in the congregations I pastored that were homosexual but they kept their head down lest they find themselves under the wrath of God and the pastor.

I maintained this approach towards homosexuality until the late 1990’s. Eventually, my political and religious views began to moderate, and over time I came to realize that my bigoted views were dishonoring to God and hurtful.

I came to see that homosexuals are normal, every day people that deserve the same civil rights as anyone else. I also came to see that what people do behind closed doors is no one’s business.
~ from Why Evangelicals Fear Kurt Hummel by Bruce Gerencser of The Way Forward ~

In looking back over our lives, most of us can single out a few episodes here and there which we feel ashamed of. Sometimes it has to do with being lazy or not sticking to our principles. At other times, the incident happens at a time when our thoughts or beliefs had yet to evolve to the place we are now. What I will share below is in terms of the latter.

Growing up, I was not exposed to homosexuality. There was no one I knew or suspected of being gay. It wasn't a subject I ever thought about. As far as I was concerned, everyone was heterosexual.

It wasn't until high school that I even became aware that some people had sexual interests in members of their own gender. Since these sorts of interests made no sense to me whatsoever, I thought such people must be deviants. I guess we could say that I bought into the evangelical Christian depiction of homosexuality as a sin against God.

With this background in mind, I attended a Key Club district convention with many of my classmates in Little Rock, Arkansas. It was held in a ritzy downtown hotel. Unfortunately, our club's adviser had tarried a bit in sending in our required paperwork and, because of his tardiness, our group didn't get to stay in the ritzy hotel; we stayed at the Grady Manning Motor Motel, a few blocks away.

There were about 20 of us from our high school and we were spread out two-to-a-room on the 5th and 6th floors of what, I think, was a 9 floor motel. The building was far older than the one where the convention was being held and it was serviced by two noisy elevators.

Two of our members -- big wrestling jocks -- became all freaked out over an encounter they had in the lobby of our motel. These boys saw two "girls" and, being the egotistical jocks that they were, decided to hit on them. Somewhere along in the process of flirting, both of my comrades realized they were wooing drag queens!

They raced up the stairs -- they were so freaked out that they forgot that they could use the elevator -- to the floor my room was on and, within minutes, their sordid tale was disseminated to every member of our group. It was soon discovered by another member of our group that the bar in the basement of our motel was a gay bar!

Well, the majority of our crew headed over to the ritzy hotel for some evening activities. Not surprisingly, anti-social me chose not to go. My plan was to stay in my room and read. As luck would have it, my roommate (Roger) wasn't a very social bloke either and, after going with the group over to the festivities, changed his mind and returned to our room.

So, Roger and I spent the evening hanging out together. At some point, we realized that the Greyhound Bus Depot was right across the street and this gave us a crazy idea. I don't recall WHY we had two or three sacks of balloons with us, but we decided it would be fun to throw and/or drop water balloons on the departing buses from the window of our room.

We engaged in this juvenile activity for more than one hour. We hooted and hollered each time we nailed a bus with a water balloon. At a later point, we noticed that a large number of drag queens was gathering below us on the sidewalk near our motel. While throwing water balloons at large buses was fun, we decided it would be far funner to drop them on drag queens!

And that's what we did.

The drag queens did not see the "fun" in our activity. They screamed at us from the sidewalk below and, at some juncture, told us that one of them had called the police. This sent us into hysterics because we figured that IF the police arrived, they might pin medals on us!

Looking back on this episode, I still see quite a bit of humor in it. What strikes me as funny -- in a very pathetic sort of way -- is that we were so scared of the drag queens. Almost every member of our high school group acted as if we thought that, if a drag queen so much as touched one of us, we would instantly become a homosexual!

Fortunately, my thinking has evolved much like Bruce's. It is for this reason that I am ashamed of the fact that I ridiculed people I didn't know. I dropped water balloons on them without ever considering how this made them feel. I am now painfully aware that it was a terrible and petty thing to do.

Derivations on a Theme -- Without God

Trey Smith

Daoism developed before and distinct from Christianity. Its early development was not, as far as I know, influenced by Judaism or other forms of monotheism. It assumed the existence of spirits and ghosts and, as it took shape in interaction with Buddhism as a canonized religion, came to accept the ideas of an afterlife: a heaven and hell. But Daoism never seems to rely upon the presence of a singular god-like figure to provide moral guidance.
~ from Godless Goodness by Sam Crane at The Useless Tree ~

From time to time, contentious discussions break out on this blog on the subject of philosophical versus religious Taoism. Since the three scribes here all lean toward atheism, we naturally focus on the aspects of Taoism BEFORE it became a canonized religion. This is not to suggest that there is anything wrong with belief in or following the canonized form; it's simply not the path we happen to follow.

I think one of the appeals of Taoism (in whatever form an individual chooses) is that it is a belief framework without the need for a god or gods. This, of course, makes perfect sense for those of us who do not believe in gods anyway! Most of us believe there is no need for a supernatural entity to serve as the basis of morality and ethics. Humans can and do develop these on their own.

Speaking for myself only, I submit that the belief in a god or gods unduly complicates the issues of morality and ethics. In the Judeo-Christian belief systems, rules are set down in cement that God himself does not follow. What is an adherent to think when the ultimate role model doesn't model the actions he says are sacrosanct?

What a way to screw with somebody's mind!

Derivations on a Theme -- Santa, God and Unicorns

Trey Smith

I have mentioned before that one of my favorite blogs is Bruce Gerencser's Fallen From Grace. Week after week he churns out candid and thought-provoking posts. In a recent entry, Hating God, Bruce writes:

For some reason Christians simply can not wrap their mind around the notion that I do not believe God exists, not just the Christian God, but ANY God. Even when point blank told this, many of them insist that there is no such thing as an atheist. In other words, no matter what I say I am, they know differently.

Since I believe God is a fiction of the human imagination (albeit a fiction that many find great comfort and hope in), it would be certifiably insane for me to hate something or someone that does not exist.

I do not spend one moment hating God. With so many real things and people to hate why would I waste my time hating a fictitious being? This would be akin to me hating the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. You would think I was stupid and slightly off in the head if I went around spreading my hate for Santa Claus. And rightly so.

Like Bruce, I cannot recount the number of times that people have told me that, if only I would stop hating God, I would see the truth of Jesus, heaven and all the other stuff that goes with it. It is my anger with the divine that imprisons me.

And, just like Bruce, no matter how I attempt to convey to them that I'm not enraged with an entity that I don't believe exists, they simply repeat their mantra ad nauseam. Their steadfast refusal to accept whatever explanation I provide is annoying and highly irritating.

For the record, I do not hate God, the Holy Spirit, Allah, Santa Claus, unicorns, the Tooth Fairy, poltergeists, Satan, leprechauns, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Easter Bunny or Fred Flintstone. I do not hate ANY of these things for the simple reason that I do not think a one of them is R-E-A-L.

I think it isn't really possible to hate something that a person believes is fictitious. There are many characters in books, plays and movies that I dislike, but hate is an intense emotion that smolders in a person's mind. How can an individual truly be incensed to the maximum degree at something no different than a paper doll (unless you live in The Twilight Zone)?

Even further, I'm not sure if there is anything these days that I hate (in the fullest sense of the word). This is not to suggest that I never get angry -- I do -- but it tends to burn itself out very quickly. I realized long ago that hate is more damaging to the person that harbors it than the person or group it's aimed at.

Hate is negative energy on steroids. It is like a volatile chemical that corrodes whatever container it is held in. It eats away at a person from the inside and, if you're not careful, it can easily leave an empty crater where the heart used to be!

Aren't there enough challenges in life as it is? Why set a ticking bomb inside yourself that can quickly implode the entire structure?

So, I really, really, really don't hate god -- your god or anyone else's. I don't even dislike him/her/it/them a smidge. The reason I neither hate nor dislike him/her/it/them is that I believe all of them are human creations that only exist in some people's minds...just not in my mind.

Derivations on a Theme - The Creative Power of Angst

Trey Smith

It's interesting that I seem to need a source of conflict and disagreement, in order to have something to write about. This is not a bad thing is it?

I mean there is only so much poetry a person can write glorifying the beauty and perfection of a moment. When things are perfect I just want to sit and be and enjoy it, soaking in the moment of bliss in silence, only occasionally do I feel called to write about it. When there is nothing going wrong, I tend to not have much to say.
~ from Effortless Flow by Cym ~

In fact, in many ways, endlessly talking or writing about a problem or political issue or whatever, is a great way to avoid really dealing with it, really doing anything about it. It's easy to sit back and pop off about global warming, the 1%, political corruption, the hungry, the poor, the million different things a bleeding heart liberal like me can feel concerned about, but what it really achieves is a distancing, an objectivization, a rationalization... but not action.
~ from Notes from the Outside by Brandon ~

There is a beautiful song recorded by Céline Dion called The Power of Love. I think there can be no question that there is a wondrous creative energy that love produces. Yet, as the forces of yin and yang illustrate, a wondrous creative energy can be derived from angst as well.

Many of the world's greatest poets, authors, actors, singers and other creative performers are people who have taken the festering sore of angst and transformed it into the fuel to create something that dazzles the eye and ear. While I certainly wouldn't refer to myself as a great songwriter, angst was the foundation of my once prodigious output.

Until my early 30s, I was an angst-ridden individual. It's a typical response by a person with autism to a world that you don't really understand. A common refrain from Aspies is the feeling that you are living on the Wrong Planet!

My estrangement from the world ran even deeper than that. It was in my early 30s that I received a definitive diagnosis of Klinefelter's Syndrome (often referred to these days as XXY Syndrome). It was discovered that my body was producing too little testosterone and this lack of hormone meant that I faced a double whammy. Not only did my brain interpret the world differently than the norm, but I lacked the emotional energy to deal with it!

My worldview changed drastically when I started on hormone replacement therapy (a therapy I continue to this day). It provided me with the emotional foundation to begin to deal with a great reservoir of angst.

On the whole, it has improved my life immensely. It has helped to strengthen me both mentally AND physically. However, for all the positives, it has robbed me of something dear -- my poetic voice.

Before my diagnosis, I was known as a [published] poet and songwriter. The angst that nearly drove me insane and to suicide served as a platform for me to create beautiful works of written art. Creative writing seemed to be the only way I could open the pressure valve in my soul to let out some of the steam. If I had been unable to write poetry then, I am certain I would have done in myself long, long ago.

As a result of the hormone replacement therapy, I was better equipped to deal with many emotional issues. In no time at all, the angst began to ebb and, as the angst oozed from my mind and body, I found I couldn't write poetry anymore. I tried hard to rekindle the creative magic, but it was gone.

I still deal with a lot of anxiety issues and my obsessive-compulsive disorder, but these aren't the same as my former angst. I still write -- this blog is a testament to that! -- but, for the most part, I've switched to expository writing because that's the only vehicle still open to me.

Do I miss my poetic voice? Hell yes!! That said, I don't wish to trade places with my former self. I'd rather be healthier than poetic.

But I do understand the idea that angst (or conflict) is an engine that can produce things of great beauty and movement. Angst, though painful, is needed. Our world would be far uglier without it.

Derivations on a Theme -- Getting Away With It

Trey Smith

Over at Fallen from Grace, Bruce begins a recent post with the following:

Ken Ham, director of Answers in Genesis and operator of the Creation Museum had this to say about atheists and their ethics:

For atheists, there really is no basis for their ethics, therefore they believe they can do whatever they want if they can get away with it. What is “right” or “wrong” to such people is all relative...

For starters, right and wrong IS relative. It depends on the situation and the circumstances. For example, if I walk out of my house, see my next door neighbor weeding his garden and shoot him for the helluva it, that would be wrong. If, on the other hand, I find my next door neighbor attempting to rape my wife, shooting him most likely would be viewed as justified. In both instances, I would be responsible for killing or harming someone, but, because of the different circumstances, society would adjudge each situation differently.

But the real bone I have to pick with this Ham fellow is the basis for the ethics of fundamentalist Christians! From my experiences with them, anything goes. They can behave in the most unethical ways -- including repeated violations of so-called prohibitive Biblical "laws" -- and all they have to do is say "I repent" and everyone is supposed to let them off the hook!! This "I repent" defense frequently is meaningless because, once uttered, they repeat the same damn behavior again.

As study after study has shown, Christians, BY AND LARGE, are no more moral or ethical than anyone else. They suffer from the same human foibles as the rest of us and they wrestle with the same personal demons as the rest of us. Their divorce rates aren't all that different. They abuse substances and overeat like the majority of the population.

So, if we are to judge Christian morality on the basis of how Christians actually behave -- not what it says in some book -- they are no more or less ethical/moral than anybody else. Their actions, not their beliefs, seem to indicate that "they can do whatever they want if they can get away with it."

However, unlike the atheist, they seem to think they possess a magical "get out of jail free card." When caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar, all they have to do is say, "I repent," and everything is square with the house again. Simple as that.

Derivations on a Theme -- All Creatures Great and Small

All creatures are one with nature from the largest to the smallest. There is no life within that is marked as insignificant or meaningless. All these things have something to teach us if we are a good student. Their lessons can prove quite valuable. We can learn love, patience, power, self-control, grace, forgiveness. Man sees himself as being above all others but this is mere fallacy.
~ from Roshi Hogan's Teachings of the Tao ~

One aspect of my life that is a great blessing is to live in a small town on the edge of a forest. Far away from the hustle and bustle of urban life, I spend significant amounts of time almost everyday watching, hearing and/or experiencing nature.

The many mint plants in our front garden are flowering. Every afternoon for the past few weeks our front yard is inundated with bees, both honey bees and bumblebees. While my wife shies away from them for fear of being stung, I often sit quietly right next to the mint patch. My experience is that, while yellow jackets and other wasps sometimes are aggressive, bees tend to go about their business and only will sting if they feel threatened.

Bees represent an integral species for a healthy planet. Without them, many of our food crops would not get pollinated and food scarcity would become a major problem. There are many non-food plants that would not be pollinated either and we need lots of green plants to counteract humankind's penchant for actions that are leading toward climate change.

Compared to a human being, a bee is smaller than a fingernail. Yet, Mother Earth needs bees far more than she needs people! Our species could disappear tomorrow and the planet would be no worse for wear. However, if bees disappear completely, so too does life as we know it.

As Roshi Hogan tells it, "There is no life within that is marked as insignificant or meaningless." It would be good for human beings to keep this thought ever in mind.

Derivations on a Theme -- You Never Walk Alone

Many people suffer from loneliness. However, the one who belongs to himself and does not try to belong to the world is never lonely for he has himself and his place in the Tao. Human companionship is spotty at best. People change their minds, move away, or die. The Tao never does. It is always here. Those who make a friend of Tao are never without company for they can find it in everything. The Tao is in the sunlight and the shade, the mountains and the valleys.
~ from Roshi Hogan's Teachings Of The Tao ~

As an autistic person in a neurotypical world, I suffered from acute loneliness during my youth up until around the age 40 or so. I so badly wanted to part of a close-knit group -- people I could freely pal around with -- but every time I made the attempt to be more "social," it didn't turn out so well. I would feel the need to extricate myself quickly and return to my solitary existence.

I suffered a lot of stress from this push-pull dynamic. In my self-imposed isolation, I felt left out and miserable. When I tried to allow myself to be welcomed into a group, I felt suffocated...and miserable. For many, many years, miserable was the best word to describe my feelings about life.

But one day I discovered what Roshi Hogan writes about above. I wasn't really alone after all; I had myself (and the "voices" too). Upon this realization, I went through a metamorphosis of sorts. I still stayed to myself most of the time, but I was no longer miserable. In fact, these days I would describe my inner self as contented.

I came to realize that I had allowed external criteria to impact the way I thought. Society tends to look down on loners -- there must be something wrong with a person who spends so much time alone! Humans are social animals and, as the thinking goes, we crave constant attention from others. If you aren't part of the "in-group," then you simply must work harder to mold yourself into an "in-group" type of person.

That wasn't me. Never has been and probably never will be. Once I accepted me as me, the loneliness evaporated into thin air. These days I spend a lot of time each day by myself and I'm more than okay with it!

Derivations on a Theme -- The Biggest Fan of All

Yesterday the team from Japan beat the US team to win the Women's World Cup Soccer Championship. Bruce over at Fallen From Grace made this keen observation:

Hope Solo, goalkeeper for the U.S. Soccer team had this to say about Japan beating the U.S.

We lost to a great team, we really did…I truly believe that something bigger was pulling for this team…

Who/what/ it is the “something bigger?”

Was this a battle of national Gods?

I wonder how Japan views a God that takes interest in their team winning a soccer game but stands by while nuclear reactors melt and multitudes of people die or are injured from a tsunami? (also called an act of God)

I have always wondered about this myself. Why is it that the gods seem overly concerned with trivial matters, but take a hands off approach to the big issues?

In the realm of sports, gods -- particularly the Christian God -- seem to the biggest fans of all. I don't know how many times a member of the winning team will say that the team's win or the star player's big moment was directed from above. It was our destiny because of our belief in the almighty, you often hear someone say.

But when it comes to natural or human-caused disasters, these very same gods seem to be asleep on the job. To be sure, they often are lauded and praised for "saving" a stray person here and there, but a god that can deliver a sports win for a city, state or country can't seem to pull off the same kind of miracle to save the vast majority from pain and suffering in a city, county, region or state.

Does that mean that to a god sports are more important than life itself? It would seem so.

Derivations on a Theme -- A Many Splendored Something Or Other

I usually write a derivation based on a blog post or news story from somewhere else, but today my foil is Scott's earlier post, Love. It is a word and concept I often think about, yet it doesn't appear on this blog all that often.

I frequently hear people describe genuine love as selfless. It has a nice ring to it, but how can anything we experience be beyond the self? It is by the self that we think, feel and experience the world. It is the prism that everything passes through. If love indeed was an impulse or force that didn't need the self, then it would be a default behavior inbred in us. Sort of instinctual.

As we look out onto the world we live in, I think it is patently obvious that love divorced from self does not exist. If it did, there would be no war, no poverty, no injustice, no bigotry, no discrimination and no oppression. Taking it a step further, there would be no need for religion or god either.

But none of us loves -- regardless of which kind of love we mean -- everybody and everything. We have preferences. We have objects of our affection. People or things outside of this frame of reference don't receive the same treatment or thought. So, it seems to me that love emanates from the self.

I often hear some people remark that love is manifested when we can climb outside of ourselves. How exactly could we accomplish this? What happens to the self while we are gone? Is it on autopilot?

Whenever I hear this description, I suppose I envision a misty aura rising above a person's head and hanging in the air a few feet above. It would be tantamount to looking at yourself from afar. But if this aura is no longer part of the self left down below with its housing, what in the hell is it? How could it even recognize that it was derived from that form down there if it has no sense of self?

These are the sorts of weird things I ponder. No wonder I'm half crazy!!

Derivations on a Theme -- A Bit of Yin, A Bit of Yang

Brandon, via his blog, Moccasin's PCT Hike, continues to provide readers with periodic updates on the progress he is making as he hikes from the southern California border to Canada. In today's post, Big Bear Lake, he wrote of the travails of weather and blisters. He finished off the post with these observations:

The trail provides. Sure great to be indoors, as the weather continues to be freezing and it's currently raining out. We have showers, much food, movies, coffee. We all love the hiking, the mountains, all of that, but all of that makes us also love town more too.

I don't know about you, but this paragraph could aptly describe our lives, in general. Tao provides. For all of our love for doing some things, these activities make us love other activities too.

The last line of the quoted snippet made me think of the concept of yin and yang. Hiking in the wilds could be viewed as yang. Taking a break in town would be its yin. Taken together, they represent two aspects of one life.

One is not better than the other. Each one leads to the other and makes the other more productive and meaningful. Sounds to me like a great way to embrace life with both hands.

Derivations on a Theme - Personal Shortcomings As Public Policy

I am really impressed with the writings of Rania Khalek at Missing Pieces. In yesterday's post, In America Being Poor is a Criminal Offense, Khalek discusses the various state legislatures who have passed or are close to passing what could be termed as "preemptive" legislation targeted solely at the poor.

In at least 30 state Legislatures across America, predominately wealthy politicians are quite impressed with themselves for considering bills that would limit the meager amount of state help given to needy families struggling to make ends meet. Many have proposed drug testing with some even extending it to recipients of other public benefits as well, such as unemployment insurance, medical assistance, and food assistance, in an attempt to add more obstacles to families’ access to desperately needed aid...

She then goes on to highlight several of these states and to show the perniciousness of the legislation involved.

For me, the key point of her post is summed up in the following paragraph.

This is rather shocking because I can’t recall any Republicans or Democrats demanding that the CEO of Bank of America or JP Morgan disclose inventory of their vacation homes, private jets, and yachts before bailing them out in what amounts to corporate welfare. Nor did they insist that these CEOs submit to alcohol and drug screenings before receiving taxpayer money. No objections were made regarding the immigration status of the people running these companies or whether they happen to employ undocumented workers for cheap labor...

I always have had a strong dislike for the idea that personal shortcomings are tied solely to a person's economic standing. For years, many people have complained that poor people are lazy as if the latter naturally leads to the former!

Laziness is a personality trait that spans economic class, ethnicity, gender and age. While there is no question in my mind that there are people of limited financial means who indeed are lazy, there are a good many wealthy individuals who are just as lazy. History is filled with males and females who inherited great wealth and then frittered their lives away, some in a most hedonistic fashion!

So often, many in the general public view the issue of drug abuse as the poor person's problem. Statistics don't bear this out. People from all walks of life have succumbed to the bottle, the crack pipe or the needle.

There are people out there who will grant that these personality traits do, in fact, span the gamut of individuals in our society, but they reason that the public shouldn't have to bear the expense of those who live in poverty. Rich people, they declare, can afford to engage in destructive behavior and the rest of us don't have to foot the bill.

Really? We provide them with the same roads to drive on, the same fire department to put out their fires and the same basic infrastructure that makes modern life livable. We grant them tax breaks out the wazoo, bailouts when they screw up and all sorts of subsidies and loan guarantee programs.

In actuality, we provide so much more in public funds to rich ne'er-do-wells than we do to poor ones, yet we bitch and moan only about the latter!!

Derivations on a Theme - God Must Really Hate Me

In the comments section of the post, Let's Talk About Sin, at Fallen From Grace, Hoo Boy wrote,

Homosexuality is the unnatural copulation of like-sexed beings. Simple observation shows it is against nature as it does not lead to procreation. It is against the God-ordained order and is clearly ungodly and bad...

Of course, I have seen and heard this rationale countless times before. Homosexuality, we are told, is wrong because queers who have sexual relations can't make babies.

If that is the sole criteria for deciding what is godly and ungodly, then the Christian God must really hate me!! I can't play a role in making babies either.

Due to my genetic mutation (Klinefelter's Syndrome), my body doesn't produce sperm or, to put it as one of my doctors put it to me three decades ago, I shoot blanks!! I could copulate 24/7 and no babies ever will be born as the result of my activities.

And here's the operative part: God made me this way (if you buy-in to the "God" thing)!

Why would he do that? Why make a creature who can't procreate IF the inability to procreate makes one ungodly? This would seem to indicate that God -- who supposedly loves me -- wants me to be ungodly.

If he wants me to be ungodly, then how can he love me?

I think God needs a psychiatrist.