Monday, June 3, 2013
Who can't be in my heaven
You know who can't exist in my heaven?
Among others, people who hate other people because of who and how they love.
For three reasons:
Love your neighbor. Love yourself.
Among others, people who hate other people because of who and how they love.
For three reasons:
- Because the hate, and the inequity they are attached to makes them too grankly* to enjoy heaven or even to notice and experience it.
- Because it makes a hostile atmosphere. Heaven'd be a pretty hellish place if people could be there hating.
- And most importantly, because it's a lot easier to get some people to stop hating other people, than to get some other people to stop loving people. Not to mention it's better to promote love than to condemn it. The world needs love.
*grumpy + cranky + prickly = "grankly"
Love your neighbor. Love yourself.
Amen.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: heaven on earth, theology
Thursday, November 15, 2012
From Henry Nelson Wieman's "The Problem of Power"
I found this in the American Journal of Theology and Philosophy (Vol. 3 no.1)
It's from Henry Nelson Wieman's book Creative Freedom: The Vocation of Liberal Religion
Comments from thread on FB:
It's from Henry Nelson Wieman's book Creative Freedom: The Vocation of Liberal Religion
Comments from thread on FB:
- This piece, written in 1982 [edit: oops, published in journal in 1982], is actually quite accurate for today, if not moreso.
The statement in the box, I do believe. There is a giant mass of people in the US who are not able to (or choose not to) see the big picture and would not choose to allocate funds toward that which is needed in a complex society, and THAT is why we elect representatives and executives, who should do their jobs with as little corruption as possible when they've chosen to take on that specialized role in our society. Sadly, most of those who've been governing have been neglecting to do so with the common good front-and-center.
Wieman argues that in a democracy, the people tend to argue for their own interests to the degree that for anybody to get into office, they have to kowtow to the voters' ill-informed [see 'media reform'] or myopic localized private demands; and anybody who gets into office (or tries to get in) and attempts to divert the process of governing AWAY from supporting these local interests toward the big things that only government can do is quickly voted out. Somehow military and prisons still receive support, but I imagine that's because they represent private moneyed interests whom the government is no longer able to govern, but rather now acts as a siphon of public funds.
The two solutions he presents are problematic in that I can't see a way to connect the dots between the present situation and attitudes to what is required to get out of this: "1) Demonstrable truth concerning the common good which underlies and sustains the diversity of local and private interests but not identical with any part or whole of them. And 2) a form of religion which leads [people] to trust and commit themselves to the common good sufficiently to allow their government to command resources and concerted action in its service independently of local and private interests. Also this devotion of religious commitment must control the leaders as well as the people and control [men] who exercise the power of authority in high positions of government."
I think he sees "religion" here secularly, in a way similar to my view of it: the way we live our life, rather than the narrow view of all the buildings, rituals. "Religion" being "that which holds us together," and "politics" being "how we choose to be in community with each other."
The big problem I see with #1 is that the framework for talking about the common good needs to be rebuilt, and that won't happen until there are a preponderance of voices doing so in the media. A media revolution would be required. And with #2 the problem I see has to do with the argument that Bo has made (I here paraphrase and add my own extension): Why would you want to support a government with your tax dollars that is doing so much bad with it and NOT putting it to the common good (drones, wall street, military and prison pork projects....)?
I would rewrite #2 (CAPS are new): a form of religion which leads [people] to trust and commit themselves to the common good sufficiently to allow AND DEMAND THAT their government to command resources and concerted action in its service independently of local and private interests. Also this devotion of religious commitment must control the leaders as well as the people and control [men] who exercise the power of authority in high positions of government." IOW we have to develop the willpower to REALLY inculcate ourselves and our future generations about the importance of the common good. I don't have any idea how many people would agree with that philosophy, or would be willing to offer up that much of their energy toward that even if we did have a really accountable government. Anarchy (aside from the "if men were angels, no government would be needed" mantra) would suck. Totalitarian dictatorship would suck. Democracy IMHO, done right, would suck less.
C: Military and Prisons also receive money because they are directly associated with Fear and a hypothetical lessening of fear by penalizing "bad people". Sadly the really bad people aren't always the ones incarcerated.- I wonder just where are these really bad people hiding out?
Wieman may provide an answer to this: "In all ages and among almost all peoples excepting recent Western society, a few persons had privileges traditionally established which the masses did not have. They had leisure, did no manual work, could wear ostentatious clothing permitted to no others and develop manners and qualities of mind which set them apart from the common people... which made everyone view these privileged few as a different kind of being from the rest of humanity."
Labels: 5th UU principle, 6th UU principle, education, government, media, oppression, organized religion, our mission, theology, USA
Sunday, November 20, 2011
I ought to watch this video every day
Labels: Community, ecology, sustenance, theology, Universalism
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Sermon #6
“Fumbling for a Light in the Fog”
Delivered to First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco, June 13, 2010
I want to begin today by saying “Thank you.” I began my first sermon back in September by saying that, not knowing what I was getting into, but confident that this congregation would have some very important things to teach me, if I paid attention. I’ve certainly been witness to some changes. You’ve shown me a capital campaign for the Beyond Sunday position. I’ve seen difficult staff transitions, and a variety of responses. You’ve shown me a way of being together politically, sometimes obstinately, while edging closer to determining the purpose of this society. I’ve met with many people individually and heard a desire to find ways of setting aside the spirit of confrontational debate, and to feel the strength of unity. From my one-on-one conversations, I know this obstinacy comes not from within people, but rather seems a learned way of being. It feels like a transpersonal force at work, teaching expectations of difficulty to each generation of members as they arrive. I imagine that spirit has been active here for quite a few decades. And I realize that with our fifth principle (the one about the democratic process and the right of conscience), that spirit may just be part of the Unitarian Universalist way, yet that spirit has played havoc with our ability to readily determine our purpose and identity. With so much riding on how we are in the world, and what we do, I think it’s most critical that we have our bearings correct on who we are and our reason for being.
Before relaying my story of the San Francisco fog, I want to complexify a common notion. People often think of the big battles in life as good vs. evil, as light fighting to shine in the darkness, and that’s partially true. But also, in this age of information, I think the case is frequently about discovering the source of the light amid the fog reflecting and diffusing it with conflicting information and confusion. Now my story: A few years ago, I was driving to meet up with Stephanie at the UCSF nursing school on Parnassus. When I got to the city, it was really foggy. I remember turning off of Market onto Duboce. Inexplicably, the car was devoid of maps. With no map, compass, or GPS, I figured if I just proceed west, I’d hit Stanyan or Divisadero or Masonic or some big street, which would lead me back to Fell or Parnassus and from there, I can get to UCSF. I went west and the easy-to-navigate grid ended when I ran into Buena Vista park. I went a little ways around and my best guess is that I took a left onto Upper Terrace, which turns into an odd curlycue cul-de-sac. After getting turned around and around at least twice, and then being spat back out, I had completely lost my bearings.
I looked to the sky to see the position of the sun that morning, or perhaps which direction the shadows of the trees were falling? No such luck, because of the thick blanket of fog. I kept repeating my patterns of lostness, ending up twice on the curvy section of Market, and twice on 17th Street, but not quite sure which direction to get to UCSF. I was completely baffled in that fog and must’ve wasted upwards of half an hour. In this case, my confusion was of relatively little consequence, as it just meant Stephanie just had to wait a little bit longer to get picked up, and was a little amused.
But in the other kind of fog—that metaphorical fog—the effects of getting waylaid may be much less inconsequential. People’s lives may be on the line based on what we do or do not do. When we’re disoriented and not arriving in a timely manner, if people depend on us, there will be trouble.
That said, I think as UUs, we have a tendency to underestimate our importance in the world, AND strangely enough, to overestimate it at the same time. We underestimate ourselves when we forget that our rich discourse of theology and worldviews can lead to amazing transformations in individual lives and in cultures that we touch. Yet we overestimate our importance when we forget that that discourse provides only a rich bedrock foundation for determining one or more courses of action, and then following them. Without significant and meaningful action, our theology lacks teeth and meaning, standing inert in the world.
Along with the seven UU principles, our theology of a loving, all-saving God and of humans living up to their potential, shines a light to help inform our identity. As individuals in US culture, the point has been hammered home that we are consumers and workers. But that way of thinking tries to confuse the fact that you and I may want to choose our greater purpose to be that of sharer, problem-solver, advocate, or witness. Given conflicting messages, psychologically speaking, we become ambivalent, so we have a tough time deciding between courses of action, and then we may likely just fall back into our old habits.
In this congregation, our default purpose may seem to be that of staying financially solvent, or growing in membership, but those don’t tend to tug at people as strongly as might a haven of spirit and culture for personal growth, or the purpose of fomenting social changes in immigration laws, advocating housing rights for the homeless, or even a purpose as straightforward as training new ministers. (I did mention my gratitude, right? This congregation’s history of taking on ministerial interns has helped nurture many new UU ministers into our association. And in turn, every UU minister you’ve seen in this pulpit--including not only Greg and Fred, but also Kay, Denis, Alyson, and Jeremiah—every minister here has been trained as interns somewhere at a UU congregation.)
Just as with the individual level, if a congregation has conflict revolving around identity or purpose, it can lead to ambivalence and inaction, which presents as a tendency to shy away from changes and reversion to the basics of church survival. With the changes afoot this year, I am seeing the congregation pursuing the greater purposes. With the introduction of Rev. Jeremiah and the Beyond Sunday ministry and with Jeff’s passion for an empowering system of finance, I see this congregation moving into a place of discerning, fostering and fulfilling purposes that touch our neighboring communities deeply.
On the world scale, humanity’s purpose seems ill-defined and as foggy as ever. It seemed for a time that our purpose has been “progress” but to those paying attention, the technological progress has been matched with an equal or greater amount of regress in our ecology and our social interactions. Other purposes that we tend to fall back on are that of consuming the Earth’s resources to manufacture more products, or that of simply “not dying out.” I say the true purpose of humanity is simply, TO BE. To support life’s purpose, to synch up with nature, so that this planet Gaia can thrive again. The ambivalence sets in when we hear conflicting information. Despite a preponderance of clear scientific evidence indicating that global climate change is a real and looming danger, our system of media tends to give equal time to those who choose to deny that global warming is real. With such wide-reaching ramifications, ambivalence and inaction may prove to be globally perilous.
On many levels, it’s obvious that NOW IS THE TIME! That’s not just a handy phrase for the UUA fundraising campaign. In each of our lives, every day is a gift, and an opportunity to make the world better. Perhaps there is some longstanding unfinished conversation in your life that you’d like to have, that has been emotionally blocking you from moving forward. Perhaps there is something you’ve always wanted to try, but never have. Perhaps there’s something in your life you want to give up. Today is always the only day in which we can make changes. You can never do it yesterday or tomorrow. I recall musician Warren Zevon, living the last few months of his life with cancer, responding to David Letterman’s request for wisdom on life and death. He said simply, “Enjoy every sandwich.” That, to me, translates as, “Don’t waste a single heartbeat.” Uneventful days could become a habit, but we are called to make every day count, in some large or small way.
Now has always been the time for this congregation to recreate its place in the city. Under the guidance of Thomas Starr King, this congregation was once the flagship for Universalist Unitarian belief and action on the west coast. I offer a challenge, to resurrect that flagship, and to determine a course. I see the coming couple of years as a time when this congregation will unearth members’ passions and engage that passion with life-changing purposes. That may mean being a voice for homeless advocacy, so that when we read the phrase “take care of the homeless” in the SF Chronicle, people understand it to mean providence and assistance, not harassment and subsistence. Your passion may lead you to begin negotiating the long but rewarding path toward becoming a multi-generational, multi-cultural, anti-racist congregation. But those are just my thoughts, and I’m leaving soon. The purpose of this congregation will be of your own collective volition. One thing I do know is that this city NEEDS this congregation to shine like a beacon. To declare a moral compass and to boldly lead. I hope you are ready to take that challenge, to be a bold voice like Beacon Press, often presenting the unpopular before it becomes popular, if it ever does. This congregation has power deep down, to make its voice heard, all week long and citywide. A couple months back, Greg mentioned the WWJD--What Would Jesus Do wristbands. Imagine your friends saying, “WWUUD--What Would a Unitarian Universalist Do?” If you hear that happen, be sure to bring them by for a service, because they want to be here. They are lost in the fog with information that doesn’t come together quite right. The light of our beacon can bring clarity.
Now is the time for this world to determine its purpose. Not to waste another heartbeat, another day, another year. I’m not sure what the world enjoying a sandwich would look like, but applying the Warren ZEvon quote from earlier would at least imply “Enjoy.” I daresay much of this world right now is not enjoying the experience. The birds in the Gulf of Mexico, the people being exploited for their labor in developing countries (and this country), the trees being clearcut in Brazil, and the ocean life in the pacific all are not enjoying their sandwiches. So what would UU do?
We need to be unafraid of the tremendous impact our religion can make on the world, and share it. Now is the time for us to have maximum impact. There is an angel at work here. A very large, deep, compassionate angel that spans the ages. As it arrives, the world is taking notice. The arrival of this messenger is an eschatological age-ending event, a game-changer, causing a paradigm-shift. As if it’s the rapture, but in theological terms to which we can relate, with no people magically disappearing. The ongoing media coverage of the leak in the Gulf of Mexico is waking up more and more people to some new realities. With the end of easy petroleum resources upon us, humanity struggles to get enough oil to energize the world we’ve made.
The book of Revelation, chapter 8 refers to 7 angels sounding their trumpets, and 1/3 of the Earth being despoiled and 1/3 of the sea being despoiled. I sense we are getting pretty close to that. Knowing UUs as I do, I realize many of you may be skeptical of the sacred texts of revealed religion—and perhaps rightly so—after all, we could deconstruct the text, equating angels with messengers, and the trumpets with the clarion call of what the Earth is trying to tell us. However, in our nation, there are many who live their lives based on a concrete understanding of the Bible, and they will be called on by somebody to act. By whom? Us. We can call on them! Today, for the online listening audience and Christians in the crowd, I’ll put my voice out there. We are at that time, one-third of the Earth, one-third of the water. The Gulf of Mexico is just one of many oil spills, and raw sewage makes its way into our streams and oceans. Don’t forget the giant growing collection of plastic in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. We are in a time of much needed change. We can either have the change happen to us, or we can shine our light and work in concert to make the necessary changes in a controlled fashion.
So what is the light we hold? Our theology of a loving God is one of real saving grace that can help people get past the guilt, shame, sin and anger, and onto serving the world as love and justice-bearers. We have a growing religious inclusivity that is learning to make way for the many theologies and worldviews people bring upon first entering our doors. We each carry our own copy of truth and meaning, and know to value each other’s spirituality. And we know that community and action are every bit as important as having right beliefs, if not moreso.
In fact, in religious terms, it’s safe to say that the light we share when our words and deeds are at their best is nothing less than an expression of the divine working from within us. I believe that light is critical in our interfaith and ecumenical dialogs, because the light of our reason helps to orient and focus the lights of others like a Fresnel lens (the really bright amplifying one you find spinning in lighthouses). If we hold back our light (or are unable to deliver) when it’s expected or needed, it may indeed be the case that an inactive lighthouse is more dangerous than a reef.
Our nation, and some of its religious bodies, tend to think in terms of war. There are the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our government has declared a war on terror, a war on drugs (which is also a war on people of color), there was a war on poverty (and now it seems there is a war on the poor). Some Christians have labeled the penchant of merchants to say “happy holidays” as a war on Christmas, Fox News has been labeled a war on journalism, and the band Wilco has even declared a war on war. It’s rare for the US government or people to declare peace on something.
The peaceable people of this country have tried to declare peace many times, but it seems their overtures have been outright rejected. Faithful Fools Bible Study meets at Fools’ Court on Thursdays at 10 a.m. Each of you are invited. David, a regular at the Bible Study, introduced to me the concept of declaring LOVE on someone. When you declare love on somebody and mean it, they can’t fight you as they may be wont to do. It is love that comes from the heart level. Intellectual arguments and our search for truth have their place, but the way the light we carry is going to reach people is going to be when we complement it with a declaration of love. Perhaps that’s our purpose.
To the glory of light! Blessed be.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Interesting video on sexual healing, with an extra Christian slant
Labels: personal growth, prayer, sexuality, theology
Friday, June 3, 2011
Lyrics revisited, right side up: "In an event horizon, mining my soul for 100k years"
Labels: song material, theology
Lyrics to "The Song People Talk Through" a.k.a. "185"
A.K.A. "Drill Bit*"
Full alternate title: "Drill Bit: (Amalgamated, Exonerated, Consolidated, Collective-activated, and Recapitulated)"
Labels: guitar, inter-faith, John 3:17, music, prayer, song material, tattoos, technology, theological sources, theology, Universalism
Thursday, May 5, 2011
god as santa claus
A friend just forwarded this message to me via email. I never forward this stuff. Never. But there is something so compelling about this I felt like I just had to post something, somewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We don't know who replied, but there is
a beautiful soul working in the dead letter office of the US postal
service.
Our 14-year-old dog Abbey died last
month. The day after she passed away my 4-year-old daughter Meredith was
crying and talking about how much she missed Abbey. She asked if we
could write a letter to God so that when Abbey got to heaven, God would
recognize her. I told her that I thought we could so, and she dictated
these words:
Dear God,
Will you please take care of my dog?
She died yesterday and is with you in heaven. I miss her very much. I am
happy that you let me have her as my dog even though she got sick.
I hope you will play with her. She
likes to swim and play with balls. I am sending a picture of her so when
you see her you will know that she is my dog. I really miss her.
Love, Meredith
We put the letter in an envelope with a
picture of Abbey and Meredith and addressed it to God/Heaven. We put our
return address on it. Then Meredith pasted several stamps on the front
of the envelope because she said it would take lots of stamps to get the
letter all the way to heaven. That afternoon she dropped it into the
letter box at the post office. A few days later, she asked if God had
gotten the letter yet. I told her that I thought He had..
Yesterday, there was a package wrapped
in gold paper on our front porch addressed, 'To Meredith' in an
unfamiliar hand. Meredith opened it. Inside was a book by Mr. Rogers
called, 'When a Pet Dies.' Taped to the inside front cover was the
letter we had written to God in its opened envelope. On the opposite
page was the picture of Abbey & Meredith and this note:
Dear Meredith,
Abbey arrived safely in heaven. Having
the picture was a big help and I recognized her right away.
Abbey isn't sick anymore. Her spirit is
here with me just like it stays in your heart. Abbey loved being your
dog. Since we don't need our bodies in heaven, I don't have any pockets
to keep your picture in so I am sending it back to you in this little
book for you to keep and have something to remember Abbey by.
Thank you for the beautiful letter and
thank your mother for helping you write it and sending it to me. What a
wonderful mother you have. I picked her especially for you. I send my
blessings every day and remember that I love you very much. By the way,
I'm easy to find. I am wherever there is love.
Love,
God
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I started reading this and got goose-bumpy, moved by the idea that a little girl could get so much comfort from something so little as writing a letter to a God that she still sees as personal, embodied and not only connected to her, but also aware and protective. That's a pretty amazing thing for a little child to have in a world where the adults all seem so afraid all the time.
But when I got to the part where the book arrived in the mail, I started feeling uncomfortable. I LOVE Mr. Rogers, and love that somebody thought to give the little girl the book. Mr. Rogers -- actually Rev. Rogers, a Presbyterian minister -- does a great job of explaining hard life circumstances to children in a way that allows room for their imagination, honors their array of emotions, and lets them know they are not alone.
But there was something about the letter. It's a view of God that I don't share. I don't see God as and anthropomorphic being who watches over us, protects each of us individually, and determines which of us deserve salvation in the afterlife. I see god as being the energy that connects us, the constant creation that keeps the universe ever-growing, ever-changing, moving in the direction of greater love, knowledge and justice. I see god as more of a verb than a noun.
I could talk a long time about my vision of a loving god that is co-creator with all of creation. But that's not the point. The point is that the God described by the author of that letter to that little girl, is the mainstream view of God, a view that frankly I have a hard time distinguishing from the myth of Santa Claus....the old bearded man who sees everything and gets to determine who's been good and who's been bad and therefore who is worhty of salvation and who is not. the point is that the person who wrote that letter believes in that God, and the healing power of that God, enough to take the time to buy a book, write a letter, wrap it and send it off.
No wonder that image of God is so powerful, so pervasive, so present in so much of the western hemisphere today.
So, where do we stand, we religious liberals, who have a different view of what is holy, of what is sacred, of what it is that binds us together in what we Unitarian Universalists like to call the interdependent web of all existence? What are we willing to stand up and say we have faith in, and how that affects our views of life and loss and love? What are we willing to do to help a child reaching out in pain? Ask more questions? Or actually do something bold, and do it with conviction.
I like to think that had I been the person in the lost letters department faced with that letter from little Meredith, I would have sent her the book with a note from myself, thanking her for reaching out, for seeking the help for her dog, for caring, and for giving me the blessing of connecting with her in such a meaningful and profound way.
How would you respond?
Labels: personal religion, theology
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Speech for Graduation from Starr King, May 20, 2010
Someone asked me if I might talk about the eschaton made immanent. That's hard to do in two minutes. Actually it's not hard to say, but it is hard to be.
I believe the eschaton becomes personally immanent with the enlightenment of knowing what we can know and then believing and acting from that awareness. It is engaged connection from our innermost selves. It means opening up to the world in a spirit of vulnerability and faith, confidence and grace.
The world you experience before you is the world as it appears.
I had a dream a couple weeks ago. I was looking at a highlighter marker with words printed like text messaging on the side: "We r 2 b.” I looked over and Dr. Parker was kind of snoozing in a rocking chair. A rare sight! [shrug]
And I am truly glad to be here among people who know that going forward, in order to be at all, to survive, and to thrive, we need to be beloved community, and ask questions toward that end. Glad to be among people who know that beloved community is not the goal, it’s a determined and self-evolving way.
You are me.
I am you.
You are you.
I am me.
We are us.
Our connections are the connections they are for the purpose of life.
All that is still just reflexive words -- open to interpretation. So I'll say it another way with the hope that today our inner angels might meet up in pre-worded existence.
[end with silence until bell]
pax hominibus,agape to all,joel
Labels: sermons, theology, Universalism
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Great Lectures at Unitarian Universalist General Assembly 2010
.
A list of all available videos from UU GA is here.
A session from a truly inclusive humanist about the connection between folklore, religion, and raising children is here.
Here is an excellent session on the past and future of our UU theologies by former UUA president John Buehrens, and Starr King President Rebecca Parker, one of my favorite professors. There is also an article on Earth as Paradise at UU World magazine by Rebecca here.
The Ware Lecture this year was delivered by former Vice-Presidential candidate Winona LaDuke.
Some great handouts on personal and institutional discernment available here.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
A list of all available videos from UU GA is here.
A session from a truly inclusive humanist about the connection between folklore, religion, and raising children is here.
"My kids know what I believe and why, and I think that's important. I've had people say to me every once in a while, 'I really don't want to indoctrinate my kids so they don't even know what I believe.' That's a mistake! I don't think we need to hide ourselves from our kids. You are not indoctrinating as long as you then turn around to them and make it clear what you want them to do.
My kids will know that I invited them to turn over every rock and question every assumption. And that's all I would ever ask of a theistic parent--that they share the experience of their faith and say 'Here's what I believe with all my heart, it's very important to me, and I think it's true, but these are things each person has to decide for herself.
And I want you to talk to people who have different beliefs so you can make up your own mind. You can change your mind a hundred times. There's no penalty for getting it wrong, and I will love you no less if you end up believing differently from me."
Here is an excellent session on the past and future of our UU theologies by former UUA president John Buehrens, and Starr King President Rebecca Parker, one of my favorite professors. There is also an article on Earth as Paradise at UU World magazine by Rebecca here.
The Ware Lecture this year was delivered by former Vice-Presidential candidate Winona LaDuke.
Some great handouts on personal and institutional discernment available here.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: Humanism, personal bookmarks, religious community, theology, Universalism
Monday, January 25, 2010
Euler's Identity may be key
.
I can't believe I somehow missed this beautiful piece of mathematics from Leonard Euler. Perhaps I just wasn't ready for it at 21.
Today, while perusing modblog, I came across this beautiful piece
that some guy decided to print on his back (the hard way).
For about a decade, I've thought that when we figure out the connection between pi and e, we would be able to get a handle on the nature of the universe, since both of them are transcendental numbers. The fact that this knowledge has existed for centuries already obviously means either that I was wrong, or that we haven't dug deeply enough into this secret. I am actually amazed, almost tearful, at the beauty of this equation, because not only does it have e and pi, but it also has 0, 1, and i, which are pretty much the other top three starting/continuing points of the mathematical universe.
Just... wow. I guess I'm just behind the times. Now, to study up. It might take a lifetime or more to figure this one out. Maybe I'll get lucky. Then again, I still haven't learned circular breathing for the didgeridoo either.
lyrics:
"A torus is a geometer's thing.
It's a ring encircling a ring.
They come in many sizes and shapes.
And they have wings.
The ring torus, most common, is king.
The spindle torus has a football-shaped thing.
The horn torus has deep meaning.
A single point in the center,
Where everything comes together.
At a special place called the origin.
Where at every instance we always begin.
At this nexus we're creating our spirit
Our here and our now touching everything near it.
The pictures are denser than poetry knows,
So I'll try and explain it less densely in prose.
colors:
mood: busy.
chant/prayer/mantra: Revelation is not corked.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
I can't believe I somehow missed this beautiful piece of mathematics from Leonard Euler. Perhaps I just wasn't ready for it at 21.
Today, while perusing modblog, I came across this beautiful piece
that some guy decided to print on his back (the hard way).For about a decade, I've thought that when we figure out the connection between pi and e, we would be able to get a handle on the nature of the universe, since both of them are transcendental numbers. The fact that this knowledge has existed for centuries already obviously means either that I was wrong, or that we haven't dug deeply enough into this secret. I am actually amazed, almost tearful, at the beauty of this equation, because not only does it have e and pi, but it also has 0, 1, and i, which are pretty much the other top three starting/continuing points of the mathematical universe.
Just... wow. I guess I'm just behind the times. Now, to study up. It might take a lifetime or more to figure this one out. Maybe I'll get lucky. Then again, I still haven't learned circular breathing for the didgeridoo either.
lyrics:
"A torus is a geometer's thing.
It's a ring encircling a ring.
They come in many sizes and shapes.
And they have wings.
The ring torus, most common, is king.
The spindle torus has a football-shaped thing.
The horn torus has deep meaning.
A single point in the center,
Where everything comes together.
At a special place called the origin.
Where at every instance we always begin.
At this nexus we're creating our spirit
Our here and our now touching everything near it.
The pictures are denser than poetry knows,
So I'll try and explain it less densely in prose.
colors:
mood: busy.
chant/prayer/mantra: Revelation is not corked.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: Math, metaphor, personal bookmarks, Process Thought, theology
Friday, January 15, 2010
Answers to a friend's questions
.
A friend asked me some questions on Facebook, and I want to answer them here, so that Facebook doesn't try and claim some weird rights to them, and because I realized that I haven't really blogged on the trinity for some strange reason (but thought I had)....
Here it is:
Hey Joel,
I've been meaning to ask you two questions. Your FB post today lends a third:
If you don't mind,"what does it take to be a Unitarian Universalist minister?","What does it mean to be a UU minister?", and now,"What do you know about the Holy Spirit?".
I hope the evicted fellow you were attempting to help is doing well,
1. What's it take:
2. To me being a UU minister means that one upholds the 7 unitarian universalist principles, works as a prophetic agent for social justice in multiple arenas, tends to pastoral care needs in a congregation or community, and probably several other things, including sending handwritten "glad you came to visit us" cards to new visitors. :)
3. What do I know about the Holy Spirit? "Knowing" is the realm of epistemology and metaphysics, and in my studies, knowing has turned out to be conflated with believing far too often. As a dyed-in-the-wool universal agnostic who recognizes the ubiquity of metaphor, I come from a school of thought where we must operate within a consensual reality based on reason, extended by faith, whenever truth is impossible to ascertain....
To answer the actual question: from a Unitarian standpoint, I'd say the trinity is a human-made construction of meaning, applied to divinity. As a "Transcendental Trinitarian Unitarian Universalist,"I recognize a model of divinity in which there is a divine whole, undivided into sections. In addition, I also recognize the trinity as a model for understanding the nature of divinity, dividing it into three parts, cognitive handles that may help us grasp the divine in all its complexity and beauty:
Divinity Beyond: Commonly known as "God"--that which is beyond conception, beyond understanding, or even imagination. At one time, we didn't understand the Sun, or the seasons, molecules, or the inside of the human body/mind. As we learn more
Divinity Within: Commonly known as "the Son", but exists within everyone--it involves going deep to find that still small voice of conscience and drive within oneself; and
Divinity Between or Among: Commonly known as the Holy Spirit, which is a connection or glue that holds us together in beloved community--interpersonal communication with a quality more like a caress or kiss than an invasive/phallic communicative endeavor (to put one's words/ideas/psyche into another) or an enveloping/yonic endeavor (to inconsiderately frame another's words/ideas/psyche into one's own structure). I also touch on the Holy Spirit a little in the previous post on John 2.
Those three parts of this trinity can be kind of exemplified by a paper clip turned into a triangle. It's a scalene triangle--the sides aren't all the same length. We're not really sure which side/angle represents the within, beyond, or between. And the edges are curved, meaning there's a little bit of gray-space or overlap between each of the two where they meet. I could elaborate I suppose but I won't. I'm going to bed instead.
4. The evicted fellow is doing pretty crappy actually. He's fully living on the streets now (sleeping on the sidewalk) and took off mid-way through yesterday's Bible Study, leaving his coat and umbrella behind. I had intended to hook him up with some resources, but won't see him again until NEXT Thursday. Unfortunately, he is one of multitudes of people on the streets with mental illness who are unable to participate or navigate within the system--a system which would be nonplussing/stymieing for anyone, really.
lyrics: world wake up today
colors: black, brown, white
mood: long day
chant/prayer/mantra: !!!
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
A friend asked me some questions on Facebook, and I want to answer them here, so that Facebook doesn't try and claim some weird rights to them, and because I realized that I haven't really blogged on the trinity for some strange reason (but thought I had)....
Here it is:
Hey Joel,
I've been meaning to ask you two questions. Your FB post today lends a third:
If you don't mind,"what does it take to be a Unitarian Universalist minister?","What does it mean to be a UU minister?", and now,"What do you know about the Holy Spirit?".
I hope the evicted fellow you were attempting to help is doing well,
1. What's it take:
- A calling
- A decision to answer the call
- Successful completion of an M.Div degree: ~3-5 years in seminary (I'm just finishing at sksm.edu)
- A one year internship in a parish ministry or community ministry setting
- A three month chaplaincy internship
- One needs to pass a preliminary and final review board composed of peers (ministers and lay people in the UU movement)
- And one needs to read this ever-looming pile of books: https://secure2.uua.org/leaders/leadership/ministerialcredentialing/16224.shtml
- Finally, it requires a congregation that sees fit to ordain/bless the minister's ministry
2. To me being a UU minister means that one upholds the 7 unitarian universalist principles, works as a prophetic agent for social justice in multiple arenas, tends to pastoral care needs in a congregation or community, and probably several other things, including sending handwritten "glad you came to visit us" cards to new visitors. :)
3. What do I know about the Holy Spirit? "Knowing" is the realm of epistemology and metaphysics, and in my studies, knowing has turned out to be conflated with believing far too often. As a dyed-in-the-wool universal agnostic who recognizes the ubiquity of metaphor, I come from a school of thought where we must operate within a consensual reality based on reason, extended by faith, whenever truth is impossible to ascertain....
To answer the actual question: from a Unitarian standpoint, I'd say the trinity is a human-made construction of meaning, applied to divinity. As a "Transcendental Trinitarian Unitarian Universalist,"I recognize a model of divinity in which there is a divine whole, undivided into sections. In addition, I also recognize the trinity as a model for understanding the nature of divinity, dividing it into three parts, cognitive handles that may help us grasp the divine in all its complexity and beauty:
Divinity Beyond: Commonly known as "God"--that which is beyond conception, beyond understanding, or even imagination. At one time, we didn't understand the Sun, or the seasons, molecules, or the inside of the human body/mind. As we learn more
Divinity Within: Commonly known as "the Son", but exists within everyone--it involves going deep to find that still small voice of conscience and drive within oneself; and
Divinity Between or Among: Commonly known as the Holy Spirit, which is a connection or glue that holds us together in beloved community--interpersonal communication with a quality more like a caress or kiss than an invasive/phallic communicative endeavor (to put one's words/ideas/psyche into another) or an enveloping/yonic endeavor (to inconsiderately frame another's words/ideas/psyche into one's own structure). I also touch on the Holy Spirit a little in the previous post on John 2.
Those three parts of this trinity can be kind of exemplified by a paper clip turned into a triangle. It's a scalene triangle--the sides aren't all the same length. We're not really sure which side/angle represents the within, beyond, or between. And the edges are curved, meaning there's a little bit of gray-space or overlap between each of the two where they meet. I could elaborate I suppose but I won't. I'm going to bed instead.4. The evicted fellow is doing pretty crappy actually. He's fully living on the streets now (sleeping on the sidewalk) and took off mid-way through yesterday's Bible Study, leaving his coat and umbrella behind. I had intended to hook him up with some resources, but won't see him again until NEXT Thursday. Unfortunately, he is one of multitudes of people on the streets with mental illness who are unable to participate or navigate within the system--a system which would be nonplussing/stymieing for anyone, really.
lyrics: world wake up today
colors: black, brown, white
mood: long day
chant/prayer/mantra: !!!
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: heaven on earth, homelessness, inter-faith, mental health issues, Multitheticalism, parousia, theology, writing
Thursday, January 14, 2010
John 2 and the JIT Business Model
.
Today at the Faithful Fools Bible Study, by asking for 3 one-digit numbers from 0-9, and given 8, 6, and 4, then adding 100 to 864, and multiplying by 2, we ended up at page 1928 in The Message translation of the Bible that was at my seat, which brought us to chapter 2 of the Gospel of John. Inside I groaned a little at first, because it's the story of the wine miracle, and then JC casting out the money changers from the temple. Both of which I've heard so many times...
But a closer examination brought a few new insights, so I'm glad we did it.
According to the story he made approximately 150 gallons of wine (starting from six 20-30 gallon pots of water). That must've been a heck of a big wedding, or a lot of drinking happened. Actually the part I liked the most was the symbolism. The wine miracle story needs to be understood on the symbolic level, or the reading of it is almost entirely wasted.
The vessels were for Jewish vessels for purified water. Turning the water into wine--not just wine--but 150 gallons of really awesome wine is symbolic. This was our reading of the story: The wedding party had apparently been going alone just dandily until they were almost out of wine. Jesus' mother asks him to do that one trick he does, and he kind of snubs her, telling her it's not yet time for him to out himself, and not for a wedding (in the Gospel of John, he has not yet performed any miracles, so this would be the first). Then he decides to do it anyway. No doubt the bridegroom would've been pretty embarrassed to throw this big shindig and run out of wine.
The wine is the Spirit. Water is the raw materials (the unanimated, unenlightened life), but then when it's come alive, it's wine. (FWIW, the Spirit isn't some indefinable mojo that only the Church or some formalized Kergyma group has access to--it's simply our down-to-Earth connection to one another as divine beings. It is namaste and recognizing the light between ourselves and each other.)
But the party had run out of wine, and Jesus (as Christ) introduced a ton of it (actually closer to half a ton).
So the bridgegroom then would be the controller of the party. The party is life itself. And when life all around is debased to its raw materials, and for sale, and individualized, and neglects our connections, it's time for Christ to bring the miracle, to let loose with an abundance of connective Spirit.
The fact that it's a wedding, a joining together of two people (or in the thinking of the times, a man acquiring a woman) can be seen in terms of process theology. Things in the world coming together in a concrescence of events. This can sort of be shown a bit by the nexus within the horn torus in the video sermon I showed on Jan 3 at UUSF, which I'll eventually provide a link to once I finalize the images in the video material.
Also at the Bible Study, somebody pointed out how the story expresses Jesus' unwillingness to perform miracles* at times (his push-back on his mother, his denial of Satan during the trial in the desert, and his refusal to do much of anything at Herod's request). IOW, don't do your miracles (or your work) at the devil's request.
*multithetical belief allows for the possibility and impossibility of miracles--both the certitude and certain denial....
Regarding bringing things together, and the Just-in-Time business model, or "just-in-timeness" in general...
This quote is what led me to want to comment on it: "The philosophy of JIT is simple: inventory is waste." I would offer a contradictory/complementary philosophy: "Inventory is security."
"Inventory is waste" combined with "Inventory is security" tells a lot of story, and sometimes one is true, and at other times, the other is true. When the inventory we're talking about is critical for life, inventory IS security. Having enough food, clothing, shelter, and health-care on hand in case of emergencies is really important. In the case of Toyota producing cars, inventory may very well be waste. Imagine creating 10,000 more gas guzzlers than is necessary, and then they're just left sitting on the lot. Or creating way too many of any product--whether it's a raw material being pulled from the Earth, semi-finished materials like gaskets, mufflers, and circuit boards, or final products such as a car or an iPhone--creating too much is indeed a wastefully large buffer. Even though people may clamor for luxury goods, we will be able to continue living if there are hold-ups due to buffer underruns. Not so with critical goods like food. The Mormons are supposed to keep a year's supply of food on-hand, and Joseph told Pharoah to prepare for a seven-year famine. For food, we have the ability to create enough for everyone, to transport it to everyone who needs it, and to keep more than a JIT inventory. For our leaders and property owners to neglect to do so is criminal. Witnessing the tragedy of this week's earthquake in Haiti when many of our church buildings and other buildings in the developed West are earthquake retrofitted at the cost of millions per building sometimes tells a bigger story about inequity. Spending trillions of dollars toward war that would be much better-spent on emergency preparedness is another example of the US government choosing destruction and neglect over creation and preparation. I pray that the US govt, other countries, and other agencies will be able to deliver a strong response to save as many in Haiti as possible.
I envision a world where anyone can plant gardens in the public parks, on the roadsides, and even in the medians (for anyone to tend and to harvest), so that the neediest will never go hungry. Further, I envision a world where our namaste connection is between each of us to every other, even those we've not yet met. Where the call of that light between us makes us recognize who among us is more needy, and make sure their most basic needs are met, and that the buffer for the basic needs is always larger than the buffers for luxury items.
And of course, JIT is not just limited to production of material goods--this understanding of just-in-timeness can also apply to provisional teachings in religion. Hopefully we can explore that some time.
lyrics: Once in a while, the zebras run to the spaceman and his gun, in the spider's web.
from Superhumans, by Flaming Lips
colors: pink and yellow
mood: procrastinatey
chant/prayer/mantra: let justice roll down like waters, with a half-ton buffer made out of wine (apologies to teetotalers and alcoholics).
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Today at the Faithful Fools Bible Study, by asking for 3 one-digit numbers from 0-9, and given 8, 6, and 4, then adding 100 to 864, and multiplying by 2, we ended up at page 1928 in The Message translation of the Bible that was at my seat, which brought us to chapter 2 of the Gospel of John. Inside I groaned a little at first, because it's the story of the wine miracle, and then JC casting out the money changers from the temple. Both of which I've heard so many times...
But a closer examination brought a few new insights, so I'm glad we did it.
According to the story he made approximately 150 gallons of wine (starting from six 20-30 gallon pots of water). That must've been a heck of a big wedding, or a lot of drinking happened. Actually the part I liked the most was the symbolism. The wine miracle story needs to be understood on the symbolic level, or the reading of it is almost entirely wasted.
The vessels were for Jewish vessels for purified water. Turning the water into wine--not just wine--but 150 gallons of really awesome wine is symbolic. This was our reading of the story: The wedding party had apparently been going alone just dandily until they were almost out of wine. Jesus' mother asks him to do that one trick he does, and he kind of snubs her, telling her it's not yet time for him to out himself, and not for a wedding (in the Gospel of John, he has not yet performed any miracles, so this would be the first). Then he decides to do it anyway. No doubt the bridegroom would've been pretty embarrassed to throw this big shindig and run out of wine.
The wine is the Spirit. Water is the raw materials (the unanimated, unenlightened life), but then when it's come alive, it's wine. (FWIW, the Spirit isn't some indefinable mojo that only the Church or some formalized Kergyma group has access to--it's simply our down-to-Earth connection to one another as divine beings. It is namaste and recognizing the light between ourselves and each other.)
But the party had run out of wine, and Jesus (as Christ) introduced a ton of it (actually closer to half a ton).
So the bridgegroom then would be the controller of the party. The party is life itself. And when life all around is debased to its raw materials, and for sale, and individualized, and neglects our connections, it's time for Christ to bring the miracle, to let loose with an abundance of connective Spirit.
The fact that it's a wedding, a joining together of two people (or in the thinking of the times, a man acquiring a woman) can be seen in terms of process theology. Things in the world coming together in a concrescence of events. This can sort of be shown a bit by the nexus within the horn torus in the video sermon I showed on Jan 3 at UUSF, which I'll eventually provide a link to once I finalize the images in the video material.
Also at the Bible Study, somebody pointed out how the story expresses Jesus' unwillingness to perform miracles* at times (his push-back on his mother, his denial of Satan during the trial in the desert, and his refusal to do much of anything at Herod's request). IOW, don't do your miracles (or your work) at the devil's request.
*multithetical belief allows for the possibility and impossibility of miracles--both the certitude and certain denial....
Regarding bringing things together, and the Just-in-Time business model, or "just-in-timeness" in general...
This quote is what led me to want to comment on it: "The philosophy of JIT is simple: inventory is waste." I would offer a contradictory/complementary philosophy: "Inventory is security."
"Inventory is waste" combined with "Inventory is security" tells a lot of story, and sometimes one is true, and at other times, the other is true. When the inventory we're talking about is critical for life, inventory IS security. Having enough food, clothing, shelter, and health-care on hand in case of emergencies is really important. In the case of Toyota producing cars, inventory may very well be waste. Imagine creating 10,000 more gas guzzlers than is necessary, and then they're just left sitting on the lot. Or creating way too many of any product--whether it's a raw material being pulled from the Earth, semi-finished materials like gaskets, mufflers, and circuit boards, or final products such as a car or an iPhone--creating too much is indeed a wastefully large buffer. Even though people may clamor for luxury goods, we will be able to continue living if there are hold-ups due to buffer underruns. Not so with critical goods like food. The Mormons are supposed to keep a year's supply of food on-hand, and Joseph told Pharoah to prepare for a seven-year famine. For food, we have the ability to create enough for everyone, to transport it to everyone who needs it, and to keep more than a JIT inventory. For our leaders and property owners to neglect to do so is criminal. Witnessing the tragedy of this week's earthquake in Haiti when many of our church buildings and other buildings in the developed West are earthquake retrofitted at the cost of millions per building sometimes tells a bigger story about inequity. Spending trillions of dollars toward war that would be much better-spent on emergency preparedness is another example of the US government choosing destruction and neglect over creation and preparation. I pray that the US govt, other countries, and other agencies will be able to deliver a strong response to save as many in Haiti as possible.
I envision a world where anyone can plant gardens in the public parks, on the roadsides, and even in the medians (for anyone to tend and to harvest), so that the neediest will never go hungry. Further, I envision a world where our namaste connection is between each of us to every other, even those we've not yet met. Where the call of that light between us makes us recognize who among us is more needy, and make sure their most basic needs are met, and that the buffer for the basic needs is always larger than the buffers for luxury items.
And of course, JIT is not just limited to production of material goods--this understanding of just-in-timeness can also apply to provisional teachings in religion. Hopefully we can explore that some time.
lyrics: Once in a while, the zebras run to the spaceman and his gun, in the spider's web.
from Superhumans, by Flaming Lips
colors: pink and yellow
mood: procrastinatey
chant/prayer/mantra: let justice roll down like waters, with a half-ton buffer made out of wine (apologies to teetotalers and alcoholics).
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: Christianity, favorite scriptural passages, metaphor, parousia, religious community, restorative justice, theological sources, theology
