Imagine for a moment that you and I find ourselves stranded on an island with several of our closest friends.  Imagine that we slowly become proficient at basic survival skills: some of us learn to hunt and gather, others to farm, others to make rope, clothes, and still others develop their talent for building huts, and we create for ourselves some measure of ‘quality of life.'  Now imagine that soon after, one or two of us decide that being bigger or stronger means they should choose what's best for the rest of the group.  Say they decide that the burden of our management should entitle them to a greater share of the resources and begin taking from what each of the rest of us works hard to produce, yet in return, all they do is order us to do the things we were already doing anyway. Imagine about half of us are terribly bothered by this, and decide to go set up a new camp on the other side of the island.  Knowing this will cripple the resources available to the original group, however, and fearing retribution, our new group must gather and provide resources to spare one or two of us for the charge of preparing our defenses - just in case. Now, neither group has quality of life.  A dynamic is in place that will keep both camps working ever harder to compete over fixed resources, and competing within each camp to prove who is most fit to be the coveted ‘leader' of each respective group.

From this perspective, we can see the silliness of allowing this narrative to play itself out in this way; It is easier to recognize that if everyone could just get back to working together, with each of us performing functions that contributed real ‘value' to the group, we would collectively be a lot better off.

Yet, our representative thought experiment still has nothing on the real world when it comes to silliness and wastefulness.  Unemployment, for example: imagine we had enough clothes for a while and a drought creates hard times, so we decide to lay-off our cloth-maker (or tanner or whatever) so we can conserve resources for our leaders by not having to feed the clothier or repair his or her hut anymore.  What!?!  This sounds completely moronic and inhuman if not downright insane, yet, these ‘tough decisions' are being made by our ‘leaders' every day here on Earth Island!

Let's not stop there! Imagine one or two of our leaders have decide that all the thinking they are burdened with, burns more calories than working, and therefore they require even more and ‘better' (harder to get) food than the rest. Let's even say that some of our children starve to death while our leaders feast; doesn't it sound like something out of a movie about an ‘evil' Monarch or something? Yet it takes on a different flavor in the setting of a small community, where the starving are in the hut next door, does it not? Yet, put an ocean between the leader and the starving and suddenly we can be sympathetic to the leader's claim that their autonomy and their acquisition of an even greater percentage of resources is of greatest benefit to the world.  What!?!

Let's even go so far as to imagine our island leaders decide that for some reason it's important for them to create poisons and toxins and place them behind our huts and in our fields. We would think our proverbial island residents were foolish sheep for not gathering together and insisting against these detrimental ideas. Yet, ‘out of sight, out of mind,' applies on Island Earth I guess.

Where at first, our actions aimed at finding and providing ‘value' for the group, a small and selfish element has disrupted the efficient, pragmatic, necessity driven system we started with, and left the majority of working class ‘citizens' constantly working to provide more and more for the ruling class...sound familiar?

I've heard it said that our world is ‘shrinking' exponentially converse to advances in our technology; I think that eventually, enough of us will become aware of our collectively permitted madness, to have the political power to introduce some sanity and humanity - and my kingdom for some bloody common sense - into the mix. I hope I'm alive to be a part of it; or perhaps I should hope to survive being a part of it?

greetings gaians.  just poking my head out into the larger world to share my excuses for not being around much lately.

after closing my business this fall (the one that afforded me the free time to be concerned for, and connected to, this 'human netowrk'), i made the decision to try to keep the house and the relationship that i had put so much effort into ;D  this meant getting a job *gasp*

in case you've been marooned on an island for the last year or so, let me tell you, it's hard to get a job right now!  particularly when owning your own business doesn't qualify you for much of anything (business owners being generalists while the labor market seems to prefer specificity).  i was fortunate enough, however, to get an IT company to take pity on me and allow me to try fixing computers for them on a part-time basis.  now, i'm not exactly sure where on my padded resume they thought they found an aptitude for such work; i think, perhaps, they are just in the habit of throwing large quantities of desperate pooh against the wall and seeing which sticks. 

at any rate, desperate pooh is just what i was and there's nothing like desperation to increase one's adhesive qualities ;D.  the learning curve has been a sharp one for me; i've had to memorize endless lists of IT acronyms *whee!* and take about a dozen certification tests, but i'm not complaining; i enjoy the work (fixing broken stuff for people is fun!). 

anyway, that's my excuse, and i'm sticking to it ;P   i just finished my last required cert, so i'm taking advantage of this brief window of opportunity to share and try to catch up with some of the inspired posts around here - i feel like i must have missed so many.  

any additional 'free' time is largely going to depend on where my path leads next.  if i choose to continue along the path of an IT pro, i surely have years of study ahead of me.  alternatively, if i decide to plan and start-up a nonprofit...well, that will likely require a great deal of time and concentration as well, soooooooo, unless i am able to develop the skill for splitting my concentration, in the way of many of my favorite multitasking gaians, i'm probably going to be relagated to 'read only' user status for a while yet.  so let me just say thanks for all the brilliant and inspiring posts and thoughts that i will continue to enjoy at the expense of your time and effort ;D

wishing you all the best til next time :D

as our collective economic 'crisis' continues to unfold, the environment for change regarding the way we manage our global resources appears to be ripening. 

in an attempt to find the fault and avoid a repeat ‘crisis' there will be many who see 'capitalism' or money as the culprit, others will find 'evil', greedy, selfish people as the responsible parties.  either way, much anger and conflict seems likely to result if we begin pointing fingers and demanding 'justice'.  studies (see ‘game theory') show that we are generally willing - even determined - to bring added suffering upon ourselves in order to 'punish' others if we feel they deserve it.  likely a highly efficacious deterrent in a small village, but becomes detrimental and dysfunctional, and is unsustainable in a global civilization.  to point out the obvious, the punished will likely not feel that they are deserved of punishment, and they or their friends or family may seek their own revenge upon the punishers, perpetrating a potentially perpetual (whoa that's a lot of 'p's :D) destructive cycle.  we have all seen this play out between individuals, families, nations,...etc.  it seems like one could more easily forgive the rogue, ‘maverick', who runs off and does something thoughtless and/or foolish that does injury to his-or-herself and/or causes suffering for those around them, than our collective selves, ie., nations, for committing the same gaffe.  doesn't it seem like we should be smarter together than we are alone?  why are we not? if two heads are better than one, do we reach a point of diminishing returns when we hit; 100? 100000? X?  is the limitation in the scope of our imagination?  does it lie in the fact that two people can agree on a common goal and 6 billion cannot yet?

when together (not just at the thoughtful fringe), we identify that we have a problem, we will have taken the first step toward recovery.  we may find our difficulties are a direct result of greed and selfishness, but we can't just run around preaching, ‘hey everybody, stop being so greedy and selfish!'  if instead we ask 'why do some never grow out of these youthful tendencies (tendencies we've all had at one time or another)?'  i would submit that most of these immature folks have grown up (physically) in an environment where 'winning' earns them respect and acceptance among their peers - that we all are born with a desire for - and with a lack of any more authentic surrogate (love, respect and acceptance even when we lose), they quickly learn how greed, ambition, selfishness, dishonesty,...etc, can be effective utensils for a temporary sating of that inborn hunger. 

within our universe, it is the environment that determines what flourishes and what does not within it.  we can create environments for certain types of plants, and those plants will flourish while others cannot take root;  if part of a system is lacking in a particular ion, or pressure, or temperature, they naturally attract and gravitate toward balance.  i believe the same must be true of human traits and tendencies and the heading of their development.  in an environment of freedom, education (or at least time and resources for an open-minded exploration for truth and knowledge - maintaining freedom), security, and love, we grow and develop along consistent lines of increasingly larger perspectives and ever greater civility.  in an environment that lacks freedom, education, security, and unconditional love (or even just peer respect and acceptance), we devolve, and our scope becomes ever more self serving because we have not met or resolved the necessary requirements for the individual, we are personally unsecured, and so are barred from growing into concern for ever larger groups of our brothers and sisters.  if our environment demands that we are each responsible for our own survival, many of us will have no time to learn about and understand and be aware of our own natures, leaving us ready victims of our village instincts, and manipulation of them by those who know us better than we know ourselves.

why should we believe a small worldview is devolution and a larger evolution?  there are those who think this view is akin to making cookie cutters to fit the shape of existing cookies, and then moving them around according to a particular preconceived agenda; the cookie that most looks like the theorists goes on top - hierarchical cookies.  after all, one may look back and see that our ancestors would never have survived without these selfish, hording, aggressive traits.  a trait surely cannot be evolutionary, if we cannot survive it.  however, nurturing a larger and more conscious perspective is also about survival - not surviving our past, we have no more need of that, but surviving our present, and our future.  only those creatures with the ability to effectively adapt to changing circumstances, and who use their resources efficiently, have ever survive for any length of time in our changing world.  this holds for individuals as well as collective organisms:  ants, bees, humans...etc.

as we approach the 7 billion mark on the population scale, our ability to do such a simple thing as feed ourselves has become ever more tenuous and reliant on technology, efficiency, and cooperation.  for many of you, none of this is new.  many have recognized the increasing urgency for collective cognitive, psychological and spiritual maturation - and the empathy and acceptance that are their hallmarks and, perhaps, our salvation; to move away from operating first from our ‘reptilian' brain, to make our way up the spiral, for more consciousnesses to individuate, to become more aware, more contemplative, to cooperate instead of compete,...etc.  doesn't it seem like a ‘catch 22' if we should first have to discover our most authentic selves to create the kind of environment that allows us to attain the potential of our most authentic selves?  similarly self-defeating, is the advantage our current environment provides to the unscrupulous.  should it be any wonder that our world leaders set our collective course based on the traits they had to possess in order to become leaders?  we've unwittingly created an environment that rewards selfish, hording, aggressive traits.  awareness and conscious consumerism has the power to begin to change this faux pas.

an epic conflict is resolving itself within our collective psyche.  on one side ego, dysfunction, self-destruction through unconscious fulfillment of individual desires, a drive to ratchet up conflict, coupled with a lack of knowledge or consideration of consequences - not conscious in other words, nor aware of the connection between all things and the connection between our actions and the future they propagate.  in contrast is our drive for harmony, empathy, peace, fulfillment, connection, love, and open-minded exploration. 

this conflict has been nagging at us for centuries, but now, perceived threat and crisis have brought it to the forefront of our attention once again.  most of us must generally resolve this conflict in our own minds as we mature.  we can see the unfortunate results in an individual who is unable to ‘reason' their way out;  they are ever destined to harm themselves and others around them, never awakening to the connection between that harm and their own thoughtlessness.  they become walking case studies for dysfunction.  sure, a nagging voice may whisper that something is wrong, but lacking an understanding of their own nature, they remain unable to cognate the problem.  as a global collective, we have surely been in a similar state for millennia.  our conflict has waxed and waned between periods of peace, freedom, life, contemplation...etc, and periods where our self-destructive tendencies held sway.  so what's different about our environment now than during any of these historic swings?  why should there be any reason to expect our collective to undergo a lasting evolutionary epiphany this time?  in my view, this communications and video technology we have been enjoying here has made us collectively much smarter and more aware than in the past, and getting smarter, faster, with each new shared perspective.  this may lead to an exponential growth rate in our understanding.  it could be integral to an awakening of the collective - just as a bit of knowledge and perspective is required for an individual mind to have something to contemplate, question, and challenge, perhaps so too goes the world.  if millions of debates and link exchanging in the blogosphere could be indicative of a type of consciousness (after all, isn't this sort of how our individual minds are thought to operate; linked neurons that sort of 'debate' with one another as an idea is formed; some providing knowledge, evidence, others deal with method, others still providing empathy, some demanding revenge or whatever) then perhaps our emerging 'We' consciousness will follow many of the same dynamics. 

we are only now learning how to best use this emergent resource.  as our capacity to communicate, exchange and organize information and perspectives improves, and as more and more individuals awaken to their desire to connect and share...perhaps something truly wondrous will emerge.

...don't mind me...just thinking out loud :O

to be continued when there is more time :D

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of Being and ideal Grace.
I love thee to the level of everyday's
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I love thee freely, as men strive for Right;
I love thee purely, as they turn from Praise.
I love thee with a passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith.
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints, --- I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life! --- and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.

by Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806-1861)

where the unknown is concerned, those who give some value to every imaginable possibility would seem to be closer to truth, than those who choose only one.

within all of our collective writings and thoughts through history, we have likely uncovered much truth.  the problem is, we often have no way to 'know' what is true and what is not.  the 'unknown' is a very large realm indeed.  for nearly every view can find conflicting contenders which cannot all be true simultaneously.  further, history has shown us that our knowledge and understanding evolve (both individually and collectively), and what may have seemed true one day, may seem highly unlikely the next.

therefore, to me, where my mind is concerned at least, truth should be viewed as a probability, rather than a determination.  we are free to attach very low probabilities to those views we see as unlikely to our personal experience, or high probabilities to those we feel more likely.  historically, i think it is in the 100% truths where danger of control and suffering have lurked.  if this is 'true', and if the laws of cause and effect were put in place by a supreme intelligence, such absolutism could be seen as anathema to this intelligence.

often, i feel like many cultures and organizations inject us with a sense that we must choose one thing over another; that a thing must either be true or false, that we only have two choices if that.  this is not true.  it seems we have the capacity within our 'higher' minds to consider many options, though it may 'feel' good to decide our favorite is the 'truth'.

some profess truth can only be found in spirit, others in our feelings and emotions, yet others suggest intellectual inquiry.  perhaps we are closer to truth in the overlap; where our spirit, our intellect, and our emotions are in agreement.  perhaps we are closer yet in the collective, where there is overlap in the espoused truths of our past and present.

trouble in tibet. please visit; http://pods.gaia.com/is_there_a_god/discussions/view/260025 and http://www.avaaz.org:80/en/tibet_end_the_violence/73.php/?cl=67253686 to sign petitions of support for diplomatic solutions over violence.  

    Let us imagine for a moment that we are artists of near limitless skill and capability. Let us imagine that we wished to create a universe that will be our opus. Because we are so gifted, we would build randomness into each tiny particle so even we will not know everything about how our own creation will unfold, for what fun would it be if we knew everything. We would truly marvel at ourselves our ability to release a few tiny particles w/ particular properties, and after a fantastic chain of events, have them assemble themselves into beings who could appreciate and reflect upon our great outpouring of creativity. Might we not have build in some type of reward system, and/or properties that would produce particular historical trends that could be uncovered by these beings as they developed? Perhaps to induce our desired behavior among our prodigy? Perhaps we would, but we must be careful in extending our natures and emotions - that have evolved for our survival and development - to a Creator who would presumably not have needed them. However, bearing this in mind, It is the kind of thought experiment that we must perform if we are to explore the possibilities that exist regarding our Creator and our Purpose.
   Did the Creator of our universe build a system of reward/punishment into its nature? Do we find continuity in historical trends? Do similar actions tend to produce similar results whether positive or negative? What trends do we find in the natural progression of our universe and/or our natures?
   I think it's a possibility worthy of further exploration. If it is true, then among the myriad traits, tendencies and historical trends we might choose to discuss, would be our capacity to imagine more than one or two possibilities. I would suggest that this ability fits very nicely along our historical  progression of consciousness and that it has developed more recently than say; our ability to memorize, or our ability to imagine or accept only one possibility (the one we are taught, whatever),...etc. I would further suggest that considering multiple options, over only one, contains greater advantage or ‘reward' within the nature of our universe.
  One who considers all possibilities becomes capable of formulating improved strategies that would propagate an improved future. If only for the benefit of having planned for a wider range of divergences from what they 'believed' would happen, and would be better prepared for achieving their desired outcome as conditions change. We also might notice a built-in ‘punishment' for having a limited and/or rigid view of any given topic. History seems rife with examples of suffering caused by strategies formulated by those with rigid views. In a small village it may have been beneficial to not get bogged down in too much possibility. We surely developed an early tendency to choose 'decisive' leaders. However, in a world that is becoming covered by converging multitudes, where cooperation, and tolerance, and open-mindedness, may be key to our ability to survive and prosper, and where rigid, linear thinking, could be said to have caused much destruction, it is difficult for me not to see the possibility of Divine directive in our capacity to imagine ever greater ideas.
   Does it not seem at least a remarkable coincidence that we may have developed the skills that we may need to live peacefully together in an interconnected world, before we truly needed them? Traits that develop, not by a conscious effort to strategically avoid death and destruction, or to reap the greatest potential rewards, but that are products of our conscious evolution already existing in our natures. 

   Many psychologists and philosphers have noticed some fascinating trends in human development;
Jean Piaget - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9014865592046332725
Carl Jung - http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/jung.html 
Clare Graves - http://www.clarewgraves.com/home.html
Lawrence Kolberg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
Don Beck - http://www.spiraldynamics.net/  and  http://www.mcs-international.org/downloads/045_integral_spiral_dynamics.jpg
Ken Wilber - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber 
Jane Loevinger - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loevinger's_stages_of_ego_development 
   While some focus more on moral development, others on spiritual, cognitive, conscious, or social development, there are some remarkable parallels, and not only where they are influenced by one another. The information is readily available to those who seek it out,  but therein lies the problem - for the most part it is only available to those who seek it (and far too often, those who can pay for it). I can think of many times in my life where knowledge of a human growth paradigm would have helped me through times of inner conflict along my own path, and i feel for those who are currently experiencing those growing pains without the comfort and aid of such knowledge.
   A very brief summary; We begin life with little more than our instincts and will to survive - seek pleasure, avoid pain. At this point there is no real sense of God, not even an awareness of a separate self. As we age and learn our minds become capable of considering an ever larger world. We develop a desire for status and relationships for ourselves among our family/village/cliche/peer group, we want to acquire material things and social standing, and if its at the expense of one who is not in our peer group, so be it; outsiders are to be kept down. Our emotions hold great sway. Any God may be viewed as a mysterious force that are is control of events, or one that just happens to view our 'village' as most important.  Prayer may take the form of demands or pleas.
    A time may come when even larger concerns become paramount.  We may develop a concern for our nation, and a respect for law and order. Often accompanied by a decided lack of tolerance for - even a desire to strike out against - any who do not share our new larger more important circle of interest or are not within our 'nation'.  We may value competition in its ability to motivate growth.  Violence may be the form of 'correction' for the 'lawless' and is rationalized as being for the greater good. God may become personified and absolutistic; the ultimate law maker, and His laws just happen to be our laws. Prayer may take a conversational tone. 
    If we continue to learn from our experiences, consciousness evolves further. We develop an appreciation for knowledge, logic, and anaylsis over law.  We may begin to value cooperation over competition.  We extend our desire to understand and manipulate our universe. The value of keeping an open mind is recognized. We may reject our previous thoughts of God for their lack of compatibility with our newfound appreciate for logic and reason. Our new sense of God is much more distant and emotionless when the possibility is acknowledged.
    A little more experience and we realize that taking care of our neighbors of the world can have greater benefit for us all.  Our concerns expand to encompass all of humanity, for if God created everyone, then everyone must be important to God. Our appreciation for knowledge and logic is accentuated by strategy and planning, We gain a sense of how things change through time and how we are able to positively affect our future. We may begin to see things as a whole, with ourselves being less separate from that whole than we once believed.  We develop a more profound respect for any Creator who could produce such a remarkable universe and we may find there a great desire to play a positive role in this creative process. 
   If the growth from the ealy stages of development to the latter could be seen as a shift from a focus on the body to the mind, the final commonly recognized stage could be seen as a shift from focus on the mind to the spirit. We become aware of our connection with all that has existed or will exist. We seek to integrate all that we have learned and all that we are. Our new awareness leaves little room for a separate self. The Creator's will is our will. Prayer may take the form of meditation, where words are irrelevant, and we may seek to hold an awareness of our connection to All. 
   As we ascend, we do not discard our tendencies from previous levels. They are ever there, but recognized for what they are and held subject to our 'higher' orders. We may still feel anger or jealousy or elation when knowledge and reason are most important to us, but we may not act on those emotions the same way as we would have when we were at an emotional stage of development. We do not lose our bodies when our minds become paramount. Indeed, our minds require our bodies, and our spirits require our minds. The health and development of each subset affects the health and progression of those that are built upon them. There seem to be particular conflicts along the path that an individual must resolve in order to evolve a new worldview...etc. For more on this please follow the opening links.
   Kohlberg suggested that just knowing that there is a path of development can raise one's level along that path. I'd be curious to know if my suspicions are correct, that the same phenomena could be observed in the other developmental theories.
   It should be said that i have no wish to create my own developmental paradigm here, only to attempt a summary of the most general overlapping aspects - that i find most fascinating - of those already proposed, and to suggest that there may be value in teaching and scaling these developmental hurdles.

   Ever fewer debate that our universe appears intelligent, so this is where we begin—on what we can mostly generally agree. This intelligence has been given myriad handles and personifications through history (God, Creator, Gaia, Ala, Brahmah, Father, Mother, Kosmos...etc), but for our purposes the nomenclature is irrelevant. As long as we maintain this awareness and do not try to get too specific where the unknowable is concerned, the words are interchangeable.
   In the arguments for and against a Creator much ado has been made of the precise nature of the properties of the building blocks that make up our universe, and that their various properties have led them to assemble themselves into ever more complex systems. They do this despite (or paradoxically because of) their entropic nature. While the core components decay and move toward chaos they are somehow able to cascade into the formation of higher more complex systems along new and higher orders of magnitude; what theorists have called emergent phenomenon. Briefly; Quarks and leptons and such cool to form protons then simple atoms, which are pulled together and fused within stars and to form complex atoms. Which are spewed out in the star’s inevitable cycle to form molecules and planets and on those planets, more molecules. The jostling molecules form cyclical reactions. The more successful become cells. Those cells bump into other cells that have complimentary reactions (the discarded molecule of one cell happens to be what another cell needs to continue it’s reaction, and so on). The survivors thrive until life begins to evolve into ever more complex and successful forms until they develop conscious life. Then consciousness itself seems to evolve ever more complex forms.
    Even the most infinitesimal change in the properties of the smallest building blocks, destroys their ability to form anything higher. For it’s the properties of those tiniest constituent parts, that define the properties each of their higher representations. One cannot have a molecule without an atom or a cell without a molecule and so forth.
    Many see this as evidence that this universe must been created by a, necessarily unimaginably intelligent Creator. Otherwise it would have had to have happened merely by chance and coincidence. A bit like having all the raw materials for an auto assembly plant, by chance, come together and begin building cars. 
   The argument against using this as evidence is that it is given. Meaning that we cannot use the properties of the universe that we find ourselves in as evidence simply for that reason...we find ourselves within it. It is the universe as it exists, with the properties that it exists with. Of course we must find it remarkable for it produced beings capable of inquiring about it. A bit like saying that something was meant to happen just because it has. A valid point. However, it does nothing to reduce the value of the historical record of our universe’s remarkable achievements. And it seems inescapable that those achievements provide—if not proof of fact— evidence of the possibility that we owe our existence to some vastly superior intelligence. If not then our meditations should be focused on little other than our own survival for survival’s sake. But if so, then survival would seem to be a prime directive and would be contained therein anyway.
   The other factor of resistance to the possibility of a Creator, is that it is so difficult to conceive the level of intelligence that would be required to produce our universe as we continue to discover it’s intricacies. Such a concession can be seen as a great step down in the minds of those who take great pride in theirs being among the greatest intellects in the universe. For as one’s knowledge of the nature of our universe expands, the greater the Creator of such a universe must be and comparably less we must be. Particularly when one considers the that we have likely not yet uncovered how many more layers our universe is built upon or how many exist beyond our view. 
   There are those who seem to love to poke at the religious and spiritual with comments of creating an imaginary friend/father/Purpose for comfort sake, but I’ve never heard fired back comments of the comfort those that deny the possibility take in trying to maintain their positions as the greatest beings in the cosmos. 
     On the other side of the aisle, I've heard it said that the will of God can be found in the ancient writings of men. But why would God create a universe with human beings whose natures are prone to error and dishonesty, particularly where matters of perceived personal benefit are concerned, and where logic and reason and curiosity (and spiritual persuits?) beget such great success, and then require unquestioning belief in words on a page from authors we've never met? Where matters concerning the Creator and purpose are concerned, when the written words of my fellow beings conflict with the ideas presented by the universe itself,  I will value those ideas that are backed by the nature of our universe. Would God create a universe where the achievement of thinking beings would seem to be so highly valued, and then say, ‘do not think, just listen to this guy'? Additionally, the written word would seem an odd medium to convey Divine Truth for it must necessarily be based on language which is prone to ambiguity and imprecision. I am not saying that there are not Divine truths, or even Truths, contained in such works, only that the ideas presented should not always be taken literally and not without some Divinely prescribed thought.
   Any spiritual path that is truly intended by God, would seem to necessarily travel the lines of free thought, reason, cooperation, development, curiosity, imagination (and perhaps spiritual exploration, love, compassion, tolerance, and respect?), where the benefits of such are evidenced within the nature of the universe itself.
    If we continue our inquiries under the premise that our universe contains an element of intelligence, and we call that Intelligence God or just Creator; if a supremely intelligent Creator creates a universe, said Creator should have had a good reason, or Purpose. Further, we must have been given all of the necessary ingredients to realize our part in this intended Purpose, whatever it may be. Such valuable information would have been left in places that only the Creator could have left it; within our universe, within its nature and our natures.