Maebius Musings

Interesting article from LiveScience hints at a “brain location” for spirituality.

Technically, it is more related to a personality trait called self-transcendence. Self-transcendence “reflects a decreased sense of self and an ability to identify one’s self as an integral part of the universe as a whole.“

http://www.livescience.com/health/spirituality-brain-link-100211.html

My thoughts on this study are a bit divided. On one hand, it’s always kinda interesting to me how Science keeps tapping away at the walls of our unknown in search of the hollow passages and studs behind them.

On the other hand, while the physiology is described here as a deficit, could it not be that lessened Ego is actually better, and those unspiritual types are less adapted? (like having webbed feet, which are cool, but not most efficient at perambulating around town?)

I still think there’s not enough details here to really base a potential-filled claim like “Brain Bits that cause Spirituality” so I’ll simply choose to ignore and gloss past that particular facet of the headline. The study itself holds some nugget of muse-worthiness at least.

Food for thought, but I’m not sure of there’s empty calories here, or whole grains.

3 Comments »

I have been attending services at our local UU church for just about two months now, and have even helped out in the kids program after showing an aptitude/interest for “kid friendliness” playing outside with my own son after the services. It’s a nice place!

However, the more I am studying up on UU principles, the more I fear that initial “Yay My Group!” feeling I had towards them is shifting to a sideways “eh, nice group” feeling.

It is nothing against the church. The services are varied and interesting, and welcoming of all manner of faiths. Over the weeks I’ve met a “hardcore wiccan” and a muslim from Pakistan who all meet up for community and fellowship each sunday. The coffee-chatter time is enlightening, as are the somewhat open-ended “sermons”. Yet, for myself, that openness does not fill the void I am finding in my spiritual practice.

I initially started ‘going to church’ again in order to help my son experience a faith-based community and education. In this regard, things are Great. For myself, the lack of steady ritual, beyond a simple candle-lighting, feels almost shallow. As if there is definitely spirit there, but not quite the Divine Spirit (capital S).

I am thinking the flow and content of the services is intentional, to allow for all faiths to pray as they see fit, and the vague wordings towards “Spirit” or “Higher Power” are well suited for personal perspective. Yet, in allowing all paths in, the road is over-broad and unrestrained.

I find I miss my old Lutheran services, or at least parts of them. The hymns, the processions, and the Pageantry of it all is distinctly lacking in the UU church (by design?). Yet it is what which drew me to serve as an assistant minister as a youth. I felt the power and draw of United Ritual, and knew it to be Godly.

Later, when my Path led be outside definitive Christianity, I simply changed the image of God in my head. I realized, deep down, I still held on to the appeal of Ritual.

Perhaps this is why I love drum-circles so much. While the rhythms and ’songs’ are spontaneous, there is an almost standardized “flow” to them that seems ritualized, regardless of the participants. Likewise, some of my most powerful Spiritual Experiences have been during a more formalized ritual.

Going back to the topic of the UU church, I still get the sense that there are groups operating within the UU congregation/community, but have not integrated with them yet to feel welcome and invited. Almost every weekday, the church has something happening, yoga, Spiral Scouts, CUUPS, garden club, Bingo night, etc.

I still feel there is some potentized Spirit available within that church community, if I can shed my “visitor” feeling. However, the actual sunday services have gone from being spiritual meetings to Community meetings. This does not discredit them for what they are. It merely took me a few months to realize my own goals were slightly different than what I originally sought out by going to Church.

In summary, I’m discovering that I still need to find a “church” outside of “church”.

4 Comments »

Nettle tagged me for this:
What religions do you find most interesting apart from your own? Would you pick one of the major world religions? Say Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism or Judaism? Or would you pick something more obscure, like Wicca or Taosim or Rastafarianism or Gnosticism? Would you pick irreligion, say Atheism or Agnosticism? Or if you’re not Christian, would you say Christianity?

To participate, state your own religion (or irreligion) as your first preference, state the other religions that interest you most as your second and third preferences, then pass onto five others. If you’re feeling brave, say why they interest you.

My answers to follow.

Browsing the Blog-o-sphere, there are many awesome answers to this, so I feel somewhat redundant and like I’m saying the same thing here, or at least redundant, in my answers, but here goes:

Interestingly enough, while I think the entire Search for Spiritual Truth is interesting in it’s many manifestations, the most interesting general “religion” to me is Atheism.
The reason for this is probably that the concept as a [non]spirituality is so foreign to me that it intrigues me to no end. When growing up, I’d love getting into a deep and involved discussion on the lack of a Divine with anyone I could wrestle into chatting with me.
(Aside: I almost have to put Agnostics in a different category than Atheists. I know two very “Devout Agnostics” who reconcile themselves that the Divine is unknowable but not yet not unproven, which to me still has a slight Spiritual Path involved, even if simply cloaked in the term “Morality and Ethics”. Spiritual here being a path of self-improvement. I may be missing the connotation of the words and context of the original Meme though so I’ll stop digressing.)

All other religions of the world, from Hindu, to Asatru, Yazdi, to Gypsy, all have at their core a belief in Something Other. The names and practices are changed across the spectrum, and the Myths are sometimes as immiscible as oil and water. Yet at their heart, most spiritual practice, by definition, contain the concept of Other. This I understand, and can relate to both intellectually in studying their trappings and ritual, and on a deeper harmonic level as a facet of Truth.

The true Atheists. Scientists or otherwise, totally baffle me.
In college I was a physics and astronomy major, and I ascribe to the Scientific Method with the best people. Yet even as I can quote kinematic equations and offer Darwinian experiments to explain evolution, I can not distance myself from the idea that Life and Love resonate beyond the physical world. We are bundles of neurons and biochemical flesh-sacks, yes, but we are also Alive and Divine.

My own Religion is something that probably could be called Christian Mystic Druid Pantheist Pagan. If you want more details, I’ll mirror Nettle’s comments and say there’s a whole bloggy Archive here on this very site. Feel free to browse it!

Also, as per the meme, I should pick two more Religions that interest me. For this, I’ll choose the Catholic Church, for being immensely popular yet strange to me for it’s guilt-ridden focus and exclusivity clauses. Third choice would be the eastern practices of Shinto/Zen, mainly because they sound so interesting and useful for day-to-day living, but are so different from my western upbringing that they feel “false” when I try to practice their tenants.
Yet here again I seem to be repeating Nettle’s answer regarding dogmatic vs Gnostic religions. I think the quest for Personal Growth is a universal drive among us humans, and it’s all pretty interesting from a cerebral standpoint to consider the myriad methods that different groups have formed that drive into a collective culture, which is what Religion is at it’s heart. Religion is the trappings and ritual and beliefs laid over the Searching-for-Divinity that I call Spirituality.

Similar terms, but much different connotation in my mind. It’s all semantics, and you are welcome to argue them anytime.

1 Comment »

I admit, with all the media spam about this new movie, I’d at least try to run alongside the bandwagon and hitch a ride on the rails for a post or two.

I so totally want to go see this movie the more I read about it.   This link was sent to me by a kindly lady at work to warn me that Sendak appears to be a rude SOB and it’s a scary movie potentially inappropriate for my son.    I read the interview, and am actually more willing to take him now.

In summary:

Ever since the media got word of the film, reporters have hounded Sendak, Eggers, and Jonze. One of the main questions reporters are asking is, Will this film based on one of the best children’s books of all-time be appropriate for children?

Reporter: “What do you say to parents who think the Wild Things film may be too scary?”

Sendak: “I would tell them to go to hell. That’s a question I will not tolerate.”

Reporter: “Because kids can handle it?”

Sendak: “If they can’t handle it, go home. Or wet your pants. Do whatever you like. But it’s not a question that can be answered.”

The main issue I see, is concerned parents being actually interested in the movie and wanting to apply their filters to anything inappropriate or not.   This is a good thing, and it is beyond MY ability to say if your particular filter deems one thing or another “bad”.

The author seems to be thinking along those lines (but being particularly witty/snarky/pompous in his wording). He can not tell one person if this movie is inappropriate or not.  And if it is found to be “bad” to a particular person, it is not his fault.

The other subtext here is one of overprotective parenting.  I myself have steered my child away from some topics.  He isn’t going to be watching “Saving Private Ryan” this year, even if it would foster a discussion on war, or social injustice, or bravery.    Yet  think I’ve tried to be  open enough to let him try new things and offer to discuss his thoughts afterwards.

It’s a fine line, we parents try to tread, but I agree with the author’s (presumed) point here.  They made a movie about being a kid, not a movie For kids.  It’s not his job to then tell us parents if it’s appropriate or not.

1 Comment »

Sandy over on Though Soup just posted an interesting bit on Initiation practices.  I’ve often mused about such topics, but after searching my own blog, I don’t think I ever really wrote them out here.

I agree that for many, the concept of initiation in simply a membership into a group.  This pans out when you look at the accepted Definition of the term:

I think many people forget part C.2 above, where the initiate is “invested with a particular function or status“.   Initiation is both for the benefit of the group being joined, as well as the person joining.   It is a sort of liminal, transitional, empowering state.

For myself, I was active in the local Boy Scouts of America program in my youth.  One facet of that organization is a sub-group called “Order of the Arrow“. You do not apply for this group, you are invited.  (The mission statement for this group: The mission of the Order of the Arrow is to fulfill its purpose as an integral part of the Boy Scouts of America
through positive youth leadership under the guidance of selected capable adults.)

It is steeped in a cloak of not-quite-authentic Native American symbolism and pseudo-morality, but I’ll forgive that since I never considered it when I was first made a member.  At that time, it was the “cool mysterious group who got to go on extra camp-outs and do more stupid work-projects in the community“.

The group itself had a number of ritual trappings, from the dramatic “invitation” itself, to a number of service-oriented events.  Yet the one thing I really connected with was the “initiation” camping trip.   As Sandy mentions, a Good Initiation prepares the initiate. They do not simply join up.   The initiate is held accountable for their actions and decision.

In my case, the invitation was made, I attended the usual initiate’s camping trips, complete with a bit of good-natured hazing, but also with lots of personal decision making.  We were given a history of the group, told what to expect, and then told to find a project to work on.

It’s a classic example, in my mind, of how “leadership training” should work.  We weren’t given projects, we were told to go find a project and complete it. The details of what project, necessary materials, and even what constitutes a project, were left unsaid.  The initiate had to organize the pool of non-initiates, formulate a plan to complete something, and then do it.

The end result of this, which was felt to be “stupid making us do all the work” by some, was that those who finished all the tasks requested of them, were able to undergo the Initiation and join the ranks of this leadership council.

To those of us who did it, more than one of us realized in hind-sight that after all we did, we already were in the club.  The ordeals and lessons and challenges provided to us just helped us realize that fact.

And in realizing it, that was the shift.

The big ceremony afterward was more for the group and those spectators attending it.  To the initiate, the ‘lines of energy’ were already set  in place.   We were initiated, and then just had to formalize it in a ritual setting to let the others know.  

1 Comment »

Imagine this setting:

A young boy is playing a video game, involving the usual slaughter of fantastic creatures and gaining more and more power.  The character portrayed assembles a collection of allies to help fight, including a tall dark-skinned desert-warrior with a staff, and a strange moon-creature with a machine gun.

In this game, the characters carry a supply of water, which slowly is reduced over the course of play, and can be refilled by stepping into clear puddles, or purchasing in-game bottles of water.

Consider the fact that when they first join the party, the Desert dweller has a moderate ‘water supply’ limit, and can hold a few quarts of water before any special items increase that maximum.   The moon creature can only hold a small bottle.  This means the moon creature must use some special items to increase this water-limit, or risk taking more damage (due to thirst) or carrying a lot of inventory bottles to refresh the small amount he holds.

The kid smiles as this last character joins the group, and excitedly turns to his parents to confide in a conspiratorial stage-whisper that “the Desert guy obviously had more water since in the desert you need to carry water a lot and there’s not much room in the moon suit, right? Right? Cool, huh!”

Multiple choice test for all you readers.  No right answers, but I’d like you to honestly consider and discuss WHY you may choose a particular result.  (and yes, it’s biased, but that is intentional)

What are your thoughts on the above situation?

A)  Why is a kid playing so many video games? Running around killing imaginary things is not good lessons to learn.  Go outside and play!

B) Why is a kid playing so many video games?  Yes, they are fun, but you could be doing crafts and other family oriented activities.

C) That’s nice, but now turn off that game, and lets hit the Library to research Desert peoples, and the scientific feasibility of actually living on the barren moon.

D) You know, the kid’s pretty bright, to have made such a connection at something like a simple Video Game.  Do you sit and play with him, or just let him do his own thing until he asks for help?

E) Nice observation! Lets talk about deserts and moons (see # C) tomorrow after school.

…

…

Your grade, according to the local community educational institution, is apparently the letter of the choice you made.    Need a re-test?   :/

3 Comments »

This is a shorter post than I honestly want it to be, but I wanted to toss out a rough-draft for commentary and archival purposes, since I’m doing a bit more on the topic behind-the-scenes.

I’m guilty of it too, but why is it that people are so frikkin afraid of thinking for themselves?  Related topic: why are Debate clubs and such seen is such a negative light by the “cool kids” and harbor suck a “geeky” label?  Heck, in that regard, why are Geeks/nerds shunned so in our younger years when those same types often turn around and be “successful” on the corporate community?

I digress.

As a gamer, I enjoy the playing and discussion of various electronic games in various formats.   Yet all across the internet, stating a preference for one game almost invariably results in hostile commentary in the forms of “Us vs Them” from other game-preferring crowds.  Even among the same game (such as World of Warcraft) one faction is all but universally reviled as “the enemy” from players of the opposing faction.

Tobold makes a few points more related to this topic here: http://tobolds.blogspot.com/2009/09/art-of-discussion.html

Likewise, the recent speech by our president is shrouded in all sorts of “news-worthy” drama and incidents of blatantly ignorant avoidance. (ignorant in my opinion, which I do also understand follows my own Us Vs Them complaints).

Some schools refused to broadcast the event, to appease protesting parents and avoid in-fighting between the supporters and opposers of our President.  To me, this totally goes AGAINST the message itself.   His message was not controversial, unless I’m just failing to see how “Work hard, do better” is controversial.

Granted, Sharon Astyk mentions that perhaps the common school -> college -> consumer-job -> house+car+stuff is not the best option, but I still think that the message from our president was broad enough to work.  Hard work = good results. In today’s society, at least, school is still a very good indicator of opportunity.  What gets my goat is that some schools refused to show it, out of fear or something, in order to appease those who disagreed.

In my opinion, school is about learning.   Learning is more than just 2+2=5 [sic], or that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 14-hundred 92.  It is about thinking bout things, and being exposed to (without being force-fed) concepts you disagree with, in order to figure out for yourself Why you disagree.

Even if your dream is to be a street-corner prophet, having a basic grade-school education will help your plans and influence public opinion more than a being a drop-out.

In my own life, our elementary school cut recess last year. The state mandates Phys-Ed (gym) a certain amount of time per day.  This didn’t fit the schedule so they cut free play-time.  For High-schoolers, this isn’t an issue, but for my own kindergarden child, I and many other parents protested. We lost, since the decision was that Gym was active time too. (I still disagree and the war’s not over…)

Yet there again is the point I’m thinking here.   Did you read any of the above examples and feel either a smug agreement or a trickle of bile at my “wrongness”?

Why is it that many topics, from games, to real philosophical issues, can be so hard to discuss fairly and intelligently?  Do our ape-subroutines kick in that hard, and emotions naturally still rule over rationality?

No wonder we are where we are at.  Such huge strides in some cultural sectors, such slow ruts in others.

Your thoughts?

5 Comments »

Due to some mis-planned lack of vacation over the course of the year, I found myself with over four weeks of paid time for work, which I needed to use up before the end of September.   The end result of this is I’ve been working either half-days at night-shift, or staying home completely for the last two weeks.

I noticed some interesting personal habits during this time, not least of which is that this vacation-time has been filled by camping, travel, and a surprising lack of actual “stay at home time”, which I had expected.

Initially, I spent the first day or two just lounging around.  I played on the computer late at night, I slept in (relatively speaking) with the kid during the day, and otherwise didn’t do a whole lot of anything that might be easily called “productive”.

Then the cabin fever started to kick in.  Either that or the guilt of letting dishes pile up.

The few days I was at work (today and tomorrow) actually feels enjoyable, which surprised me.   I also had found myself spontaneously making plans for chores around the house, like vacuuming the upstairs, mowing the lawn on my day off, and other such stuff that usually gets reserved for weekend free-time.

It’s actually kind-of neat, and strangely telling, how once the initial joy of non-work fades away after a few days, I naturally try to fill the time again with stuff resembling ‘work’ that is usually avoided when hip-deep in “real job” daily life schedules.

I’m not alone in this, according to many many anecdotal stories of self-employd people, retired family&friends, and other blogs.

Must be a natural part of the human condition, to constantly adapt to change, and fill that time with “stuff”.

It makes me realize a bit how before the modern 9-5 job was forced upon us as a societal norm, the old artisans could afford to spend hours and hours of their craftmenship.  Perhaps it was more than just working for a living, with a pride in their craft.   Perhaps it’s human nature to “do stuff”.

It’s just a matter of making sure the “stuff” we do is healthy, beneficial, and encouraging, lest we fall into bad habits.

Habits, after all, are habit-forming.  

No Comments »

I’ve hesitated to keep this entry private, or post it for commentary, because it’s a bit more personal and still feels a bit scary for me.  Paradigm shifts are tough.     Forgive any rambling uncoordinated phrasing and paragraph structure. I’ve re-written it twice now since last Tuesday…    It’s a wall of text.

I’ve always loved fire circles.  Sitting around a campfire,whether roasting marshmallows with friends and family, or drumming and dancing for alchemical transformation, are soothing and soul-healing events in any flavour. Continue Reading »

2 Comments »

I hope Hrafnkell Haraldsson does not mind me cross-linking his blog, but it is a wonderful read.

One of my own favorite parts of my studies to become a minister of my Lutheran church, was the deeper bible-studies through a scholarly lens, rather than the somewhat more important Religious lens.  I was lucky enough that my mentors wereopen minded, and understood the bible could betaken as fact, or as Myth, and challenged us to find our own perspective on it.

This, coincidentally, is what eventually led me away from direct adherence to a Lutheran themed Christianity, to a more polytheistic framework of spirituality.  To me, God exists, in all His glory, just like Allah and Kali, and the artist formerly known as Prince. ;P

So, it is without insult to the Good Book, that I enjoy these more intellectual trips down cross-reference lane.  It’s only be seeing the work honestly, that we can draw inspiration, or revulsion, or any deeper Meaning and Emotion to it. I personally see the stories in the Bible as historical Myth. There’s plenty of good life-lessons included if you don’t take things too literally. Others may disagree. I’m fine with that, and welcome your comments!

First, a comparison of Paul and certain details found in the book of Acts.

http://alheithinn.blogspot.com/2009/07/paul-vs-acts-of-apostles.html

Next, his Big List of Bible Contradictions.

http://alheithinn.blogspot.com/2009/07/my-big-list-of-bible-contradictions.html

Enjoy!

2 Comments »