Life Matters - E.C.Nemeth (most inspirational books of all time .txt) 📗

values between its members using a particular set of symbols based on a certain set of commonly held beliefs. Language, then, can be seen as the vehicle of indoctrination into the cult of that particular culture. The conclusion to be drawn is that language is the current expression of the values of its members. As the values of the society change, so too does its language change. Language, in fact, was not invented to communicate but to prevent communication. It was a way to segregate and separate and control. It was and still is a way to define differences that otherwise would have been, and still are, extremely difficult, if not impossible, to discern.
The stillness of God is the perfect counterpoint to this idea. The language of God never changes. The language of God is the Truth, with a capital ‘T’. And the Truth never changes.
The language of God is also designed to share values among its members. But the values God shares are universal and completely inclusive. The language of God is unifying because it stresses the similarity, the sameness, of all creation. The language of God is Love.
This is the closest that perception-based reality can come to a visualization of Truth.
From here on the truth becomes increasingly illogical to the time-bound. This is because there is a threshold to cross before comprehension can arise. There has to be a relinquishment of old beliefs in favor of the new. There must be a fervent faith in truth in order for the truth to be seen. In order to have faith one must first believe, and in order to believe one must first be aware of the Truth.
If you were not before, you have now been made fully aware of Truth.
It is now up to you to believe it.
Pray for it, meditate on it and open your heart to it.
See the permanent, not the temporary which rides on top of it.
See the Truth and have faith.
Six
FLORA
synchronicity, the little voice, values, threshold #1
I think therefore I am f***ed
I am a product of my environment.
I cannot claim to share the values of, say, Victorian England’s society. In the same way, I do not have the mindset of an Australian Bushman or an Eskimo. Nor do I have the outlook of an Iranian or an Argentinean, although the last may be closer to my own upbringing. I cannot even say I share the Hungarian soul, although that is the blood of my ancestors, as we like to say. I am a Canadian, with distinctly Canadian morals. But of all the countries in the world, does Canada even have a soul, distinct from other countries. And if it does, wouldn’t the native and indigenous populations have the right to claim that soul as theirs?
And if I am a product of my environment, and I live in contemporary society, what are my values? Where is my soul? Do I even have one?
When contemporary society speaks of “the way things are” it sounds as though it somehow spans all sectarian, religious, political, national and historic modes of understanding. Science has superceded all other ways of seeing the world, but has it increased our understandings in a valuable fashion? Science claims intellectual superiority. It claims impartiality. It claims to be the spokesperson for truth.
I claim that it is not science that knows of truth, because science as a body of knowledge is in constant flux. Science is, at best, a cataloger of disjointed facts. Science is not intellectual, it is only a tool, a method for collecting information. An expert in cosmology holds exclusive and specific understandings that such a person cannot transfer to other areas like, say, psychology. Not without a great deal of help, anyway, but that’s not where I wish to take this discussion.
Science’s foundation rests upon philosophical interpretation.
It is the realm of philosophy that bears the responsibility of tying together the discoveries of science into a comprehensive whole. Yet, philosophy’s purview is more expansive than that, and far more lofty. Philosophy has the solemn duty to uncover the truth.
It stands to reason, then, that there is a reason why science dominates our thinking. It must be that philosophy has given science a place of honor in regard to truth. It would serve us well, then, to understand where the love affair between science and philosophy started.
I am not an expert. But if experts are notorious for being unable to reconcile their work with that of other fields of scientific endeavor then perhaps that’s best. Here is my not so humble take on the situation. It is not so humble because it has taken a lot of counter-training to see it. And so I cannot afford to waver on this point because it is the foundation of what I believe. I also believe that there are many who feel the same way as I do but have not been able to explain their uneasiness with the dogma of science. We go along with the story, paying it lip service because of its seemingly impressive track record, but inside we have a feeling that there has got to be more to the story that is not yet revealed.
In my previous book, All Just Is, chapter five, I wrote of the famous statement: I think therefore I am. At that time I argued that the statement should have added a qualifier: I think therefore I think I am. I won’t go into the details of that previous discussion because they are not particularly pertinent at this point. To understand the statement correctly however, and its tremendous transformational power, it must be put into its historical context.
The statement was put forward as a new way of looking at the world. The problem was that philosophy had backed itself into an intellectual corner that, for over a hundred years, stalled further progress. Two schools of thought collided and neither could shake the other’s position sufficiently to gain superiority. Basically, the problem was one of certainty or verifiability. It is not even necessary to understand their dilemma in detail. The statement I think therefore I am ended the dispute between the two opposing views by making a choice. Philosophy chose to accept the input of the senses and their scientific and technological extensions as reality so long as everyone agreed with the data so received. Repeatability became the basis for certainty. But by giving observation prominence left conclusions based on those observations in a secondary position.
In other words, the choice to choose was the choice chosen.
I now wish to restate my version of this truism as: I think therefore I am f***ed.
I thought of many other ways of conveying what I meant with more acceptable words. My second most favorite was: I think therefore I am lost. My third choice was: I think therefore I am insane. But I must stick with my choice because its “flavor“ is exactly right. To be lost only infers that your plight is hopeless and to be insane only implies futility. My word is vulgar because the belief in the authority of personal thought is a vulgarity - not upon the truth, but upon our ability to grasp the truth.
The choice to choose the senses as unbiased reporters of reality was a choice to subjugate subjective reality to objective reality. It seemed reasonable to suppose that since the universe was so immense and the individual so insignificant in comparison, was a valid criterion for siding with outside evidence when searching for the truth. The individual could not be counted on to remain objective when analyzing internal information because it could not ever be verified or repeated by others. And there was also no reason to think that the internal world of the individual had anything to do with truth in the first place. The individual’s world was populated by ambitions, desires and value fulfillment - what had that to do with truth.
What, indeed.
Synchronicity
What is value, anyway? Isn’t value personal? Does it vary from person to person? Do other forms of life have their ideas of value? Do you have to be sentient in order to have values? Does a star have values? Does an atom?
These sort of questions must be the source of our problem because it is on the basis of how we value our lives that we decide whether we are fulfilled or not. It is what we base our happiness on. Value, or lack of it, determines our next course of action. To a certain degree, value also determines our current mood. What we value determines the quality of our lives.
I cannot claim this soliloquy on value and quality to be my personal intellectual property, just as I cannot claim any of the preceding work as my own. It is a matter of synchronicity. Let me elaborate on this, then I want to get back to this discussion of values.
It is so very important to understand how reality works, so imperative to make this connection, that I simply cannot stress this point enough. I know this from personal experience because it is my problem too. I have trouble holding on to this transformative thought as well, we all do. If we didn't, we'd be transformed. Enough beating around the bush.
My intentions, aligned with the universe and my Source, are immediately enacted and manifested, and in the most perfect, timely and beneficial fashion. This description has been correctly termed, synchronicity. Carl Jung pioneered this idea along the course of his dream analysis. He experienced it firsthand, and vividly.
My contribution to this marvelous body of work, this mode of thought, of experience even, is only to compile it and express it as a unified whole. The Chart of Reality that I made was, at the time, only a summary of what I had so far put together based on scientific propositions and extending those ideas along lines that I felt they naturally inclined. It was when The Chart stood in front of me that I began to see how coherent it was. But I didn’t know the proper language set yet to express what I could intuit was important and relevant at the highest levels of meaning.
Somewhere beyond words themselves there is a field of immediate comprehension that can be directly tapped. Einstein spoke of it, so did many other great thinkers. As a whole, The Chart is a symbol of a progressive truth not bound by limitations of time, space or illusion but inclusive of them. As such they are a bridge to the real world. When this idea first struck me about the Chart, I was almost a complete virgin to spirituality. I didn’t even know what the difference was between religion and spirituality. As I pondered this question I turned to many esoteric bodies of knowledge like Tarot, Astrology and I Ching. Here is where the synchronicity of events began in earnest, to Ernest.
Revelation
I have just had an episode, a revelation is the only proper word. It began as I wrote the last paragraph and I really realized, maybe for the first time, how exactly perfect my life has been to orchestrate my coming to this very moment, this now. After finishing the above paragraph I took a breather, literally. As I breathed in, something made me think to visualize the breath of life entering my body and entering each cell, uniting the body in a common mission. That something had a commanding presence without any intrusiveness.
Then I saw the whirls of energy that make up my physical manifestation here on earth. I say saw because what else do I call it? These weren’t my usual thoughts, my accustomed way of rationalizing. As a matter of fact, I felt the gentle correction