Showing posts with label dogma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dogma. Show all posts

Friday, 3 October 2014

God’s Egoless Consciousness

Written by Mathew Naismith  

I was once again watching a movie that came out in 1999 called Dogma with Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Linda Fiorentino and Salma Hayek playing the major parts in this movie.  I wasn’t wrapped in all the scenes but in all I think it’s a good movie. Towards the end of the movie God, who is a woman, tries to do a handstand but falls over. Now to a lot of people this is ridiculous, God wouldn’t fail in such a simple endeavour plus it made God look ridiculous, God wouldn’t want to be seen as looking silly in anyway.  I’m not absolutely sure of this and I will try and point out why.

Is the source, God’s consciousness, egotistically driven in anyway?  To me this God’s consciousness isn’t egotistical so would it matter to this consciousness, in any form it takes, if it failed and looked silly in anyway? To answer this we need to ask another question, what part of us doesn’t want to look silly or inadequate?  The ego of course, but this conscious source isn’t controlled by an ego so I don’t think this kind of conscious source would care to be seen looking silly and inadequate in anyway and in fact it most often does.  

Highly intelligent people are usually astute within their thoughts and actions, they certainly don’t want to be seen looking silly and especially inadequate in anyway, to them this is a sign of some kind of unintelligence. What is more aware and wise than this God’s consciousness?  Nothing, so in our way of thinking, this conscious source would have to be astute within it’s thoughts and actions, so God looking silly and inadequate in this movie isn’t a true depiction of this conscious source, I beg to differ on this!!

What are we all apart of? We are all a part of this consciousness so how often do we look silly and inadequate expressing such consciousness? You could state that a highly intelligent person doesn’t look silly or inadequate but isn’t expressing the ego in such destructive ways silly and inadequate? We have more highly intelligent people running the world than ever before, is the world any less destructive? Actually it has become more destructive, wouldn’t this not look silly and inadequate to a much more aware and wiser consciousness like to the source of all creation?

We look silly and inadequate in many ways, is God’s consciousness worried about looking silly and inadequate? Well actually yes, when it’s highly destructive within it’s silliness and inadequacy it’s a worry. The point is, is failing to do a handstand destructive in anyway?  The answer is no, anything not destructive isn’t a worry to this conscious source. How do I know that this conscious source is worried? We are a part of this conscious source, we are this God, are we worried about our destructive egotistical ways collectively?  We are certainly becoming concerned so God’s consciousness is also concerned as it’s truly one consciousness, one source……well to me anyway.

The point is it’s OK to look silly and inadequate and even to fail at our endeavours as long as it’s not destructive to others and ourselves.  Egotistically it’s destructive to look silly and inadequate in anyway, to an egotistical person this is destructive but to someone like me, being highly egotistical is destructive and yes it looks silly to me to be so expressive of such destructive egotism. The moral of the story is, is failing to do handstands and looking silly within this failure for such an aware and wise consciousness destructive?  God’s consciousness obviously doesn’t care if it looks silly or inadequate, we are proof of that, but it does care if it’s going to be continually destructive within this silliness and inadequacy?  

I utterly love the depiction of God trying and failing to do a handstand in this movie, it depicts that such an intelligent, aware and wise consciousness doesn’t have to abide by any of the rules of egotism and neither do we.       

Tuesday, 22 July 2014

Focusing on Our Purpose

Written by Mathew Naismith

I wrote the following for an IONS site but had a feeling to blog and share this more.

"There is a purpose to all that is, what that is has different and varied interpretations but no matter what the interpretation of what purpose that is there is still a purpose. One should always focus on the purpose itself, not on the interpretation of the purpose."

I wrote this when I was invited to a private Google community, at the point this came into my head, we were talking about friends but it relates to many different spheres of life I believe.  

I believe one of the spheres or concepts this covers is science and spirituality, the interpretation relates to the reasoning and logics used and if we are too focused on the interpretation being used, we just might miss the purpose........

Both science and spiritually aware people can and do miss this purpose because they are too focused on the interpretation of such purpose instead of on the purpose itself. Dogma is an ugly thing in any ideological principle.

Interpreting in this case relates to our concepts or ideological principles we use in everyday life, through interpreting, we are supposed to become more aware but because we become so fixated to our own ideologies what we became aware of is limited. I believe once we start to interpret our purpose we become dogmatic to some extent at least, however on the other hand, if we only focused on the purpose instead of the interpretation of such purpose, becoming dogmatic wouldn’t become an issue.

To me dogmatism doesn’t belong in any concept or ideological principles.   

Saturday, 19 July 2014

Ideological Principles and Dogmatism

Written by Mathew Naismith

Ideology just doesn’t refer to a belief system but any system of thought we take on from science to religion and principles refer to a code or value used in conjunction with an ideology.  What makes an ideology dogmatic? It’s all to do with the code not the ideology itself, many people, especially science minded people sadly enough, will look at the ideology itself being dogmatic instead of looking at the inflexibility of the code attached to such ideologies.  

Now the code itself refers to the program or a certain protocol which can be or not be dogmatic within a certain principle, no matter what ideological principle we take on, it’s totally influenced by this code.  What actually makes this code dogmatic, has it to do with the ideology itself or is it something else?

Dogmatism can and does exist in all ideological principles including science ideologies, many science minded people I have mentioned this too totally refuted such claims to the bitter end thus proving my point.  If anyone thinks their ideological principles are the be and end all, above all other principles, that is dogmatism.  Thinking that their principles can no way be dogmatic in any circumstance is a good indication of dogmatism however again it’s not the ideology that is being used that is dogmatic; it’s to do with the code used with such ideologies not the ideologies themselves.   

In a sense the code is a small program which influences another much larger program such as ideologies for instance; ideologies are just programs we have programmed our minds with which can be infected by a corrupted codes/virus which will make the reprogram/ideology  react quite differently, in this case it’s dogmatism, dogmatism is a virus in any ideology.

What creates such a code?  The belief or knowing that my ideology is more truthful and accurate than any other ideology, it’s the be and end all, in other words it’s our egotistical behaviour which makes up these codes to become dogmatic in the first place which influences such ideologies.

I posted the following interesting question to actual scientists, “If science today couldn’t prove that the earth is spherical that would have to mean the Earth isn’t spherical to a scientist even though it is?”  This was either not answered or it was answered in away without actually giving an answer too such a question.  The reason for this is it obviously points out flaws within certain science logics, the ego just didn’t want to know so the code attached to their science ideological principles clearly shows dogmatism and of course dogmatism refers to egotism.  You can’t be dogmatic without being egotistical as well, so what this is saying is codes, of any ideology, come from being egotistical. Like I have mentioned in recent past posts, egotism is a disease/virus that can influence us quite adversely giving us false impressions about our ideological principles.  

Now to a spiritually aware person all what I have written here is judgmental, I’m judging that ideologies themselves aren’t necessarily dogmatic  even though they seem to be, I’m judging that it’s the corrupted code or principle that can make an ideology seem dogmatic . I’m also judging that egotism is a disease/virus that corrupts our codes/principles. Also this judgment has to be bad in some way but how would anyone not into judgement judge that I am in judgment here unless they are in judgement themselves.

How would anyone know if anyone, including themselves, were in judgment unless they were in judgement themselves?  No one who is truly nonjudgmental can judge themselves or anyone else of being in judgement. If I was truly nonjudgmental myself I wouldn’t know if I was being judgmental or not because I wouldn’t judge so. 

Egotism, I have judged I’m not judgemental so I avoid judgment in myself as well as others when I can, how would any true nonjudgmental person judge when in or not in judgment?   This is egotism which leads to dogmatism which corrupts our ideological principals no matter what they are.