Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Belonging to Life

Please tell me what 'belonging to life' means to you as it means nothing to me, so far.

“Love is not everything but we are less than nothing without Love.”
Exploringinside


I think for me the realization of what 'belonging to life' meant was during the birth of my first child. I had no idea what I was in for the moment labor began. I had prepared for natural child birth, knew what physically was expected, but nothing prepared me for the 'force' that took over my body and mind. It was the most POWERFUL force I have ever experienced! It is LIFE that births us and it is LIFE that ages us and eventually takes our breath away. IMHO, it is life that owns us.
Wendyness from beliefnet


Thank you

I understand what you mean and I agree in the sense that we are biological, living beings, first and foremost. I understand it as 'membership' rather than 'ownership' -

The Buddhist says to the Hot Dog Vendor, 'Make me one with everything.'

This is my personal vision –

May I be one with every other living entity, that is to say, let it be that I become a member of the unity of all living things; may my life also be a positive contribution to all other living things, both while I am alive and on into the future through the efforts spurred by my legacy.”
Exploringinside


From a PM response to Wendyness, with permission.

I have frequently noted that I am from from a long, long line of organisms that made enough difference in the life of at least one other organism and the environment that supported them to "say" lets make more of us. In most cases this was a purposeful choice, if only the prettiest hindquarters, but generally something more important than that, some evidence of something that would make the "more of us" a little better than either of us with a little nicer place to live in. That was the easy and fun part. Then came the fulfillment part to "more of us" the care, the feeding, the final "you are on your own now, carry on."

The fact that uncountable ancestors did just that is why I am here, and the drive to "carry on" is what makes me part of everything, or as Wendyness said owns me. The carrying on is much more interesting for humans, as they (and their dogs if Jon Franklin is correct.)have in a real sense taken control over their environment to the extent that the legacy scope is huge. We have domesticated our food sources, and to a lesser extent our social and intellectual resources. But it is in the social and intellectual areas where the drive to carry on has the most impact and most responsibility. It is no longer enough just to make "more of us." It is necessary to make the environment they are going to live in amenable to fulfilled living.

Religion may have been the earliest attempt to domesticate our social environment, and seems to have been dominant for most of the Holocene human history. It also seemed to be responsible for the human intellectual legacy and the suppression of same. The separation of the intellectual legacy from the religious was the next great change. The invasion of the intellectual institutions into the social area is perhaps the current challenge for those driven to preserve the human legacy. Whether we like it or not it seems that being one with life or with everything is now contingent on humans solving their social problems.

I frankly don't think religion is up to the challenge, and will be relegated to keeping the majority content with their lot in life. Those with the intellectual capability to remake the human social structure into the necessary cosmopolitan paradigm are now responsible for the human legacy.

2 comments:

Exploringinside said...

JC

A very interesting and lengthy commentary....and it is nice that "your wind" is not unpleasantly aromatic.

It is my mistake to not note the Wendyness dialogue came directly on the heels of a Fr. Teilhard rant concerning "God's ownership of humans. My response to T was this:

"I do not "belong" to anyone or anything; that must mean I do not belong to the group you claim is "Everyone."

If you must, go ahead and kill my body; you may not have my mind; I do not recognize your demand that my mind belongs to any "others" even if they are God.

There was nothing complicated about that decision:

Slave - Yes or No; the "No's have it!!

signed,

A Free Human Being"


After that response the Wendyness dialogue began. I was still incensed with the slavery thing when Wendyness said that I was owned by life and had not "thought myself into existence."

While all of that may have been amusing, I thought it more profound to consider our perceptions of our relative positions and postures within life, itself. I believe we are what we think about most of the time; how much we value ourselves may also be the catalyst for the amount we are valued by others. If we think of ourselves as being "owned" or ultimately unable to grow ourselves and our world, does this apathy eventually lead us to a state of hopelessness? [and force us to turn to religion in order to stop us from spiritually "slitting our wrists?"]

J'Carlin said...

I think the Jamel Oeser-Sweat story is relevant especially his quote from his Facebook profile that I stole for the blog.

"If you are not a King or a Queen...Act like one...that way..when you become a King or a Queen, you know how to act. Nothing magical will happen to show you the way..You must work to evolve yourself, one habit and trait at a time..
-Jamel Oeser-Sweat"

He certainly did not slit his spiritual wrists in spite of a huge incentive to do so. I can't tell you how squalid that hotel he lived in was. It was all I could do just to walk through the door to meet the kids there.