All nature passes away with time. But we are not mere nature. We are also spirit. And through this spirit we can transcend to another realm of life devoid of nature. But this is only attained if while living here in a dualistic world we choose to place our focus and our energy into the part of ourselves capable of enduring time; that is, only spirit. We become what we dwell upon and if we dwell upon the material, that is what we become; and nothing material can transcend. Therefore, we should fix our eyes on the intangibles like love, mercy, grace and beauty letting these aspects of life consume us so that we may transcend through them.
Jesus of Nazareth
Christ our Lord
Hallowed by thy name
“I am the Way,
And the Life.”
He who is the Gate
Through which to enter
“Flesh and blood will not inherit God’s Kingdom,”
Only through the flesh and blood of Christ
May one pass through the Door.
“One who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood does not have life within.”
So, eat this for it is the flesh and Word of life.
And, drink this for it is the blood and Spirit of life.
No one can meet the King while naked
But only through the flesh and blood of the Son of Man
Are we clothed
I am a node in a sea of God.
God flows around me
And I float in Him.
The flow of God pulses through me;
And I do with it what I please.
But I do not control the flow.
I am a subject of God
To help manifest awareness of our utter dependence on God.
God is the intangible connection which binds us all.
God is the source of life that springs from within.
It is our job to bring forth Life to this life.
It is our job to become aware of our inseparable connection to God.
I have never done anything that is entirely my own. This sounds absurd, right?
But, let me ask, that breath you just took…is that you?
Did you breathe in you?
That makes no sense.
Well, if I don’t breathe, I die. But, if what I breathe comes from something that is not me, then I am not living alone.
I never have been.
I did not ask to come into being. Something, whether it be God, chance, science or just simply my mother created me. I did not give life to myself.
Therefore, you can never claim absolute dependence. ‘Something’ caused you, because the idea of you causing you is preposterous.
‘In most cases, the meaning of a word is its use’ – Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Now, I know he said “In most cases,” but I would like to expand it the highest capacity and ask for inquiry…God.
How is this word used and how does that usage define the word?
“Once upon a time, I, Chuang Tzu, dreamed I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly, and was unconscious of my individuality as a man. Suddenly I awoke, and there I lay, myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man.”
If I say there exists an inside (i);
I am also saying there exists and outside (o).
I could then come up with a third category – a boarder one:
The set that contains o and i.
The definition of inside is: “the inner side of a thing.”
So, let us presume that the broader category including i and o is called t (things).
But, we have produced a useless statement – a trap!
Because, the definition of a thing is “an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.”
The problem is we just gave this overarching class a name: thing; which is nonspecific..
But, I wanted to be specific with my naming, I wanted the name to only include inside and outside.
I wanted the entire set to only be comprised of (i,o).
But, what I am neglecting, is the fact the () carries some significance to it.
I don’t have to define it as a ‘thing’ because the moment I put () around i,o…it becomes a singular entity.
What I am highlighting is a predicated relationship:
An outside is defined as “the external side of something,” while an inside is: “the inner side of a thing.”
The common factor being a ‘thing’.
My point being is this:
The definition of inside is predicated by an outside and and vice versa;
Furthermore, they also share the existence of a ‘thing’.
But, this ‘thing’ must be nonspecific, but my use runs contrary to its definition;
I want the set to only include inside and outside.
these become my questions:
what would be the above (overarching) class of a inside/outside?
Even if the overarching set could be categorized by a word, would it not be a tautology?
If anything ever takes upon the existence of all, can ‘all’ not only be defined by the parts that make up all?