Much like the rest of the Journal, and much of my life, there is no particular order other than chronological.  I'll no doubt skip around on subjects and repeat myself. . .probably often.  As a "train of thought process", that sort of thing happens. You return to certain concepts in order to advance an idea, or proceed in another direction, to verify or even alter where you've been. Someday, I'll organize it all into Chapters of some sort. . ..

There are a lot of concepts that tweak my interest: Knowledge and Knowing, Perspective, Attitude, Emergent Properties and faculties.  Then there is "Belief".  Despite what a thesaurus or dictionary might say, Belief and Faith are different animals in my book: There are people who BELIEVE Elvis is still alive.  I have FAITH in the fact that there will be no appearances.  As used today, "belief" and "believe" tend to fall short of accomplishing what they should.  So many people "believe" in so many kinds of "beliefs" that the words can seem rather flimsy.  And though all of this may be mildly entertaining from a grammatical and psychological standpoint, I find that the words belief and believe rarely serve as effective answers to meaningful questions, so I'll try to avoid them.  Plus. . .it'll be a challenge to write about what I'll be writing about without using them. . .very often anyway.

Starting at about 20 years of age, my journey has lasted just over 45 years so far.  Religious investigations alone would probably fill a book or two.  Suffice it to say that along the way, I became disenchanted with how most organized religions are practiced today. Exaggerations, misinterpretations, guilt, tribalism and commercialism are a few reasons.  Denominations and sects often seem more interested in information about religious differences, than what the religion is supposed to be religious about.

In these entries, I'll try to avoid specific Religions, though there may be references to certain ideas and agreed upon concepts.  Primarily, I'm just not interested in promoting or denigrating any of them.  They all have things to offer, but it's up to every individual to research and decide whether they wish to fully participate.

I would never pretend that any religions or philosophies are indispensable.  Revered or not, they are the work that others have done and some continue to be invaluable in my life.  Nor would I ever deny the passion of those who have found a path through any of them.  To each his own.  For some people, however, a variety of perspectives and information along with personal observations and deductions are successfully integrated; and for that reason, I don't ascribe the title of "The Only path" to any single doctrine or method.  I find delight and fulfillment in an open minded perusal of all that man has devised.

Science is not out to undermine God.  It's not out to sidestep philosophy, particularly if there is substance to be offered toward perspective or method.  It is, however, resolved by definition to overcome superstition and ignorance with fact, or I should say, with information closer to certainty.  I am confident that, If mankind survives long enough, all investigations will lead to an inevitable holistic understanding.

 

How could it possibly be more beautiful, more complete, more humbling or more personal.  Responsibility in and to our position should be obvious. The gift is individuality and free will and the ability to recognize what can be discovered.  The joy is in realizing exactly what it is we are an aspect of.

This short introduction should provide at least this basic philosophical sentiment:  All that is "THE TRUTH", ("IT") and God are the same thing, which is all that the universe has been and is being, and of which we are an aspect.  The Truth, of course, is certainly not confined just to that .  The Universe too is but an aspect of IT . All Universes are.

I have faith that "The Truth" has always functioned exactly the way it's suppose to. . .and always will.. .and that we are responsible for the aspect of IT that we are. (Joseph Holbrook)

The grandeur of "The Truth" is most assuredly greater than any one group of humans, or for that matter. . . all humans.  It's not logical to presume that the quest for understanding would depend exclusively on ancient doctrines.  As stated in another Journal entry:

"The Truth is available to everyone, with or without memberships, dogma, rituals or robes.  God and Religion are not mutually exclusive."

I can't seem to find my favorite book of quotes (which bothers me a lot) but one of my favorites (from a Christian monk. . .maybe 17th century) is:  

The quote states perfectly how this Monk loves the God of his Religion, but just can't bring himself to deal with life, if he has to do so without completely adhering to The Truth.  His separation of the two concepts perfectly outlines his dilemma, which was also once mine.  Finally, as it turns out, it was only an imagined one for me. . .I don't know about the Monk.