The Paradox of Existence

We are always being torn in two. We live within the tension between opposing forces. Life involves both the processes of living and dying happening simultaneously: Some live to die, and others die to live.

We live a paradox and we are one. We both desperately want to be free but are paralyzed by the true totality of what freedom means. We want to find love but find it terrifying once we are actually truly in love with someone whose well-being directly dictates our own. We seek truth at all cost, except when the truth is far more unbearable than the majesty of our fantasies.

We live this way because existence comes with the knowledge of knowing that we may someday not exist (or, at least, exist in an entirely different form). In the forefront of our minds, we live; but, in the background, we know that we may cease to exist someday. To some this may scare, while others don’t care; but, nonetheless, the thought is ever presently there.

Missing The Point

If religious laws and piety produce nothing more than judgement and elitism, then they are not from the spirit but rather the ego. They are societal parameters to regulate appropriate decorum determined by individuals crudely attempting to construct their ideal reality.

Aspects of the true spirit will produce fruit that manifests in forms of love, freedom and peace, not judgement, rigidity and angst. No man made laws, institutions or religious righteousness will bring you to God, but they certainly can distance you.

When you find your religious perspective is one from a high vantage, you should reevaluate what it is that you believe and what it is that you want from others. We are all equal in the eyes of God. We are all imperfect in our own ways, and to judge others for their specific imperfections, only deepens our own. And, deepening our own imperfections, deepens the chasm that divides us from God’s absolute perfection.

We should shift our eyes from societal things and the eqoic mind which feeds off of comparison and judgement, and instead turn inwards to gaze upon ourselves. Not from the point of view of judgement, but simply from the perspective of an impassive observer.

We should focus more on who we are and what we are becoming in relation to the absolute source that is God, and less about the faults of others in an attempt to falsely build ourselves up.

Proof of Life

Have you ever had a moment where you questioned your own life – no, I don’t mean like existentially question your life, but rather experience something that makes you question whether you’re alive or not?

If you have, then think back to that moment (or a similar one), and, if you haven’t, try and imagine.

So, you have this thought of uncertainty about whether you’re alive or dead, nothing too strange with this experience. What is strange is that we determine that we are indeed alive. You might say, “Why is this strange?” Well, it is strange because what is it that caused you to quell the idea that you are dead? What signs did you look for? What evidence did you need to verify that you were in fact not dead, but alive?

I don’t know the answer to this. My answer is simply that I know, which sounds tautological (and is), but it’s the best explanation I have.

What are your thoughts?

Leap of Faith

We separate ourselves from Christ by emphasizing his divinity and undermining his humanity. Instead of seeking to imitate him, we are actually avoiding him by alienating ourselves from him.

We choose this because it is easier than wrestling with the paradox that is Jesus: man and God, meek carpenter and savior of the world, blameless but convicted. We struggle with gray areas, and we are hardwired for dualistic – black and white – thinking.

We logic our way into believing in God instead of surrendering our way to having faith in God. The former is a test of memory, facts, evidence and proofs, while the latter is one of pure intuition – fear and trembling in the face of the reality of what existence is truly about.


Standard Form

How does believing in multiple realities and multiple perspectives automatically justifies the idea that there can be no absolute as well? I feel these ideas are not in contradiction. A simple maxim for summarizing the postmodern viewpoint is that “the only absolute truth is there are no absolute truths.” However, this statement in and of itself demonstrates that an absolute truth can exist within the same system as that which believes all truths are relative. This very maxim uses the word ‘only’ which signifies that this can apply in every case, except this one. This maxim shows that at least a single absolute truth can exist within a reality ruled by no absolute truths. And a rule with one exception does not look the same as a rule with no exceptions.
If my assertion above is true, all I am really saying is that there are rules that can exist that appear paradoxical when looking through the lens of a two-value truth system (true/false). However, if when looked at through a three-value truth system (true, undetermined/unknown, false), then there exists no opposition between the fundamental assumptions put forth by modernism and postmodernism.

Binary Oppositions

“You are an expression of your culture.” – Stephen West

Binary oppositions help us navigate the world but breakdown when forced to interpret the signified or thing referenced. If you say is this shirt clean or dirty? We know but if we say is mars clean or dirty we don’t know what to do with it. The binary opposition of clean or dirty are still there but the signified object has changed from shirt to mars. The meaning then does not lie in the terms or the rule but in the relation between the terms and their governing rules.

How does the term operate under those perimeters? Can it be answered? Or does it need further inquire? Better yet, how many signified objects do we use daily that more than likely need further analysis? We need to first understand both the operator and operated upon before we can understand their byproduct of meaning.