Arghh . . .

I am trying to write about being and it is very difficult. It is a dilemma asking three basic, yet related, questions: a) what am I, b) what am I doing, and c) what do I think I am? These are not easy questions, but these are perhaps the key questions that need to be answered in order for me to move forward. I would like to give a nod to how it is that we have organized such thoughts in the past: namely, religion. That is the core set of beliefs in which we have traditionally wrapped ourselves. As one raised in the judeo-christian tradition I have been given a set of tools for answering life's aforementioned questions - there is a hierarchy (heaven/earth/hell), there are rules (10 main ones and many inferred), and there are lessons along with many pieces of advice (some sensible/some not so sensible). Additionally, there are other belief systems out there that I have, at one time or another, ascribed to: spiritualism, philosophy, buddhism, academia, etc. Pick your poison.

What I have come away with at this point is that religion is, obviously, a man made thing. Religion doesn't come from the outside (there is no there there); rather religion (and I use the term very loosely) is a reflection of how we see ourselves. In Christianity adherents see themselves as children, buddhists have a belief system in which they see themselves as sufferers, scientists are Cartesian - machines adhering to the laws of the universe, and capitalists self-identify as consumers of goods. Of course, along with these identifications come a bit of guidance about what adherents should pursue: Christians follow teachings and honor the father, buddhists meditate on suffering and seek enlightenment, scientists isolate and identify, and capitalists consume and grow.

So, how does one identify what is important? Why does one person pursue academia and another chakras? Worse yet, which one is right? I ask these questions not so much for others, but rather for me. So, how do I see the world? Well, first I do not ascribe to any type of divinity: there is no god. Thus, I have denied myself any set of assurances that someone is watching out for me and that there is a place beyond this. Further, I know that the planet Earth is going to come to an end . . . there is a meteor out there or something coming . . . it's happened before, it will happen again. But not to worry, disease will probably get humans in the next few centuries anyway. It's going to happen. So, how do I live with this knowledge. What does an artist pursue when he is confident that the work he does, the people he comes into contact with, his family, the culture and the species to which he is a part . . . is coming to an end?

This all to say that the classical reasons for creation are no longer valid: there is no god to glorify/appease, there is no high-culture to emulate, no future to try to influence . . . the thought of contributing to a dying planet makes any effort irrelevant. Besides, one is hurtling toward non-existence . . . so one's life is meaningless anyway. Inherently meaningless, that is to say. I, for some odd reason, hold out there is possibly some way to create meaning . . . invent a reasoning that one is seeking. This is basically what I see the spiritualism movement to be all about - and all belief movements. We need a reason to occupy our shells and so we invent one . . . again, typically reflective/indicative of how we see ourselves in the world.

In the end, we are all essentially powerless against death. We only get one chance at sentience and it is an interesting, but not miraculous, mistake of the universe that I am here at all. So, it comes down to living and what living is all about. How do we modulate the mortal coil. I think in the world today, we are replacing our outmoded/archaic belief systems with fantasy: television, film, Internet, etc. And creativity - the ability to envision, establish, and communicate an alternative reality - is where the real issue is. We want a god, a reason, we don't want to feel that we are simply a collection of coordinated cellular data flying through the ether. We desire security and assurances that simply do not exist. We network through our religion and we identify ourselves by our network.

So, I think I have put forth, for now, my answer to the first question: what am I ? I am a thing existing on this planet, breathing in O2 and consuming vegetable and flesh. I sleep, I shit, etc. There is little beyond this and though some might see me as partner, or lecturer, or unshaven guy on the bus, it is irrelevant to who I am internally. I guess that I could say that I am not a null set and that I am part of other's realities, that is that I hold a position is someone else's pantheon - I might be a son, a friend, the guy next in line. People have a place for me in their system. Out of empathy, I typically ascribe to this. And in return, they can be part of my network and I can ascribe all the meaning I want to them. But, this does not, at present, assist in applying any meaning to myself. It does not answer, to my satisfaction, who I am internally.

Which is why I think that I, along with others I have known, tend to define themselves and seek a lifestyle that has been presented beforehand. We are emulators. We live, more or less, the lives of other people, we compare ourselves to those we think are more beautiful, wealthier, happier, complete, etc., and try to align our lives with these rubrics. Where is the inner voice and what would it say. What does it sound like? Do I have the patience to wait for it to arise again. Is this the endgame? So, what am I doing? I am waiting for the inner voice. Patience. I think somewhere along the way I have been ignoring this inner voice and allowing external voices to drown it out (media, institutions, friends, etc.). So, I am waiting.

Alas, it becomes more complex than this. And I want to let this stew for a bit.

jg