What is Thoughtful, Loving Structure?
It's sometimes far too easy to come up with resonant catch phrases. If someone were serious about having a phrase actually mean something it would be their responsibility to look for every way possible to place a foundation under that phrase that would help to support it.
On the one hand, I try to do that by indicating the what and how of someone responding to the events going on everyday, given the dictates of "thoughtful, loving, structure." That is why I make the posts of events that you see in both of my Blogs.
On the other hand, though, it is useful to have a descriptive shorthand by which to express the idea. I'd like to take a stab at that now.
As I have often said it is the attempt to aspire to a balance where, on the one hand is the encouragement of curiosity, meaning, understanding, and a discipline of trying to seek for the deeper questions, always keeping a sense of humility towards that which we do not understand; and on the other hand do that while also keeping faith with empathy, nurturing, sharing and all of the other heartfelt bonds of connection that humans are capable of.
In this balance then do we seek to temper reason with intuition, giving with practical necessity, responsibility with wisdom, and selflessness with individualism as ready to ask for a hand up, as it would be to give it.
This is a balance that recognizes that there can be knowledge beyond what we can objectively measure or test, strength in so many other aspects of how we behave and hold true to ideals, but which never loses sight of what our best efforts to determine what is factual in any given moment. and what is the best course of action given those facts; knowing that there will always be tension between these different aspects of what make us human and that the choice of how much of either side of the balance is appropriate, moment to moment, will never be easy.
Understand, of course, that this is just my take on what this balance should be. Is is also an open source idea that you must apply to your life with your own mix, and your own adaptations. Hopefully, in the interplay of the many variations we can find a general consensus through which we can go on cooperating with each other with. In my mind that would be enough.
Are You a Cosmolosophist?
First and foremost, understand that this is just an idea. An arrangement of meanings that will hopefully have inner, as well as outer, relevance as you plot your course through existence. As such, resist whatever temptation there may be in making rigid orthodoxy out of anything I suggest here. Remember that meanings are always temporary arrangements of things that make sense in both a practical, as well as heartfelt context.
Sentience is a fundamental part of the bigger context that it exists in. This is so because there must be object for there to be boundaries, and so there must also be systems of objectification. But object and boundary themselves are not enough without something to make, and hold, meaning of the gaps between each; meanings which automatically imply connection. With connection then comes the linkages that make for held structure, and the possibility to start layering collected objectification upon collected objectification.
In this process there must be observation, and so an observer, utilizing a singular point of reference to establish relative demarcations of where one thing ends and another begins, as well as to then, through the process of experience association, begin to understand the practical significance of juxtaposed things, both in terms of counts, and what might be there to count in the first place.
But even as sentience gains greater skill in counting, and better tools to count with, it must not be forgotten that the observer, as well as the tools utilized, are part of what is being observed, and that the very act of observing, as well as the choices made in making the observation, cannot avoid affecting the results; which is no more than to say that truly objective observation has its limits. It follows, then, that from this we must also concede that objective meaning also has it limits.
What else, then, do we ascribe to the power of connection, and the fundamental requirement that things, however objectified, come together and exchange?
It is here, of course, that our form of sentience has always had a great deal of trouble with; the intangible, that we feel in various ways, made worse by the ignorance of our infancy as a sentient species. Evolution has given us not only the ability to objectify and question, but to also know fear, lust, nurture, unmet need, and all forms of deprivation thus engendered. And so we invented myths and deities, and all manner of rites, and belief systems to go with them. Structured cooperation was essential for survival certainly, but also so susceptible to not only outright corruption, but the rigidity inherent in the social inertia of any organization made by sentient beings. One set of beliefs becomes orthodoxy. The hierarchy of power relationships becomes fixed, and suddenly it is blasphemy to question any obvious contradiction of orthodoxy. And those in power can throw down retribution without limit.
So for now, and subject to individual interpretation, let us agree on something approximating the following:
1. The Elemental Embrace, or Love, depending on your point of view, or scale of consideration, is one half of what makes the entirety.
2. Mind, or the fact of objectification, observer and meaning processing, is the other half.
3. The purpose of these two fundamentals, as far as a Cosmolosophist is concerned, is the creation of thoughtful, loving structure so that more of the entirety can be observed, known, and appreciated, to the best degree possible. A purpose that is essential for any reality to walk the path between completely unstructured interaction and absolute entropy
4. In this sentient beings must aspire to work a balance between objective, and subjective, truth; keeping in mind that there is a place for both the rational and irrational in all interactions. That faith and spirit walk hand in hand with proof, and the practical considerations there of.
5. The entirety may, or may not, be a recursive question answer engine, with each answer automatically forming the next question, but the essential assumption ought to remain that there is more to the connective power of meaning than what can be quantified within it; as well as more channels to mediate these links than we may be able to perceive at any given moment. Something that does not require any form of deity, even as it continues to allow for the possibility of same.
6. Anything is possible. That is the both the curse and the boon that we exist within. There is always inertia to consider, and everything will always have to deal with relative probabilities, but make no mistake. Sentient beings are fundamentally involved in how the entirety evolves. We can make every kind of hell, and every kind of heaven, that we can imagine. It just seems to me that neither extreme ought to have that much appeal to us.
7. Be a Warrior of the Heart, but choose your weapons, and how you use them, carefully. Just as a pen can be mightier than the sword, an idea can be more destructive than any bomb. And keep in mind the fact that strength can be expressed in so many more ways than mere muscle, or its extensions, can encompass. As such, never acquire power merely for the sake of power itself, nor hold on to it whether needed or not.
8. As you would treat others as you would have them treat you, always question yourself as you would question others as well. And always consider your own possibility of being wrong.
9. Try to find balance in both being and becoming, as well as doing for yourself, and doing for others. In both cases, both are important and neither completely outweighs the other.
10. Tolerance and cooperation. Cooperation and tolerance. These are essential to the survival of our species. Recognize that there will always be modes of thought, and living that will seem anywhere from wrong, to unconscionable, to one group, as opposed to another. The difficulty here, as anything is possible, especially when it comes to uncertainty, is that no one group will ever never know exactly when it is right to take action against others, even when the way the others live becomes extremely objectionable. Sometimes action must be taken, and sometimes it must not. In this violence to stop violence must be considered in only the most dire circumstances, precisely for what is at stake. At the end of the day, every group, or individual, must be very clear on what they risk in either taking, or not taking action, and why they feel the need to do so in the first place. In my view, if people can vote with their feet at the very least, then any situation that people might find themselves in has a non interventionist solution. And in that the offended group can always provide aid. If others choose to remain in that situation then the offended must give great weight to restraint.
11. People have the right to be stupid, and even destructive to at least a certain extent, because you cannot eliminate such modes of thought, or behavior by force alone; and even if you could you would risk becoming what you loath most to do it. Not only is what constitutes "stupid" subjective, but where what is helpful ends, and where what is "destructive" begins, is also subjective. Curing what we find offensive can be a fool's errand if taken too far. And That's only for starters, as history is abundant with examples of how evil came to be inherent in the organized efforts to crush whatever one belief system found offensive in another.
12, Stepping out to the stars is mandatory not only because the universe needs to be observed, and appreciated, but also because different ways of being need distance from each other so as to lessen the natural irritation those differences engender. In this Earth needs to become a no conflict zone, whatever our differences, so that we may all work together towards making that big step possible.