excerpt

I built a world for us.  It was mountains, valleys, glaciers, and rivers. Of course, there was an ocean.
I had not populated it yet, neither sea nor land. Only the air held life, my life in the clouds. I frolicked among the citadels and white peaks. They inspired me by their myriad forms.
   I painted waves of suspended droplets. The waves went out from the clouds, and in to the open earth. The water reproduced with the land, the patterns percolated in to the bedrock.
   You found me there, my wind and my wave.
   I found you there, in your secret stone and flickering fire.
   We embraced as a star, a single point of light.

Why is there no real dialogue about abortion?

   When I read over a comment thread for a polarizing issue, I notice very little discussion. What dialogue I do hear is one sided, everyone stays on their side and shouts across the room . This has been going on since the first village council of our ancestors, I'm sure. But it needn't always be so!

   The most polarized issue before me is abortion. No one ever switched sides on this issue except when personal experience forces them to see things how they really are. Even then people usually jump to the other side rather than walk into the middle.

   But what topic is the issue really framed by? It's certainly not science, economics, or sociology, though people use these in their arguments. It is very simply about ethics, or more specifically: human rights.

   Human rights are always what the argument boils down to, woman v.s baby. The polarity come from each side defending the rights of one with no compromise. Abortion is either a right or a homicide.

   Some pro-choicers I have talked with will acknowledge that babies are people, but they make excuses to make their human rights contingent on the will of the mother.

   Some pro-lifers will admit that women who have abortions are not monsters, and may have valid reasons for making their choice.

   The middle ground is to say that women have full rights to their bodies and so do unborn babies. When there is a conflict of interest, abortion means someone will die. There may be situations where that is allowable. When would it be ok for a woman to end that life? The conversation must shift to specific circumstances where we can weigh the factors for and against.

   I think we could have a dialogue on this basis, what do you think?

Kiss of the Ghost

The ghost is taking form, beginning to see clearly

I think that she's aware of my presence beside her

I know she's waiting for someone, I want to be that person

she cannot see me now but there is time enough

I will wait by the river

gathering up the sunlight

watching snow-melt waters flow

waiting to see a reflection

well, I tried to kiss her, but my lips brushed only air

she felt a cold shiver, so much heat I cannot transfer

I passed through a window, but I cannot follow farther

she's going home now,  but she'll be here tomorrow

the Eidolon has come alive

we begin to spin and rise

perichoresis ties

abiding our lover's eyes 

Risk - Benefit

"And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more." - Luke 12:47,48

   The above passage is Jesus speaking to his disciples, telling them to be prepared for his coming. The context a few verses back could be referring to Pentecost, but here is certainly referring to the day of judgement. In these verses he is saying that the one who sinned in this life, knowing full well what God expected, will be punished severely. The one who sinned in ignorance will get off lightly. How many of us have wrestled with the thought that God's mercy was insufficient to forgive the sins of the nations who never heard of Him? Or that it was God's cruel justice to slaughter countless people. But it is Love and mercy he wishes to give us if only we would receive it. The Lord forgave the people who crucified him, saying "forgive them they don't know what they're doing"
   If this is true, then why should anyone run the risk of God's displeasure by knowing his will? Wouldn't we be better off sinning in ignorance? Is there any benefit of knowing God's will, then? The Lord says of the one who is faithful, wise, and cares for others:

"Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities." - Luke 19:17

   Now, running a city doesn't sound like fun to most of us, and I don't think he meant that literally, but parabolically. The cities represent heavenly states of love and wisdom, that for eternity will be ours to enjoy. So the benefit of doing God's will in even very small things is exponentially great! It is our poor imaginations that cannot conceive of the butterfly effect; giving a child a cup of water to drink, rippling out in the spiritual world into mighty showers of reward and honor!
   On a deeper level, the reward of doing his will is to be with the Lord. The very source of Divine Love and Divine Wisdom. The one who knows us more intimately than any other, who wants to live with and within us; the beautiful bride embraced by our rejoicing bridegroom!
   The benefit exponentially outweighs the risk.

This is my commentary

 on the sermon by Jonathan Bayley

which can be viewed here

Relating some ideas

"Nature is to be regarded as a system of stages, one proceeding necessarily from the other and being the resulting truth of the stage from which it results; but not so that one naturally generates the other but that it is generated in the inner Idea constituting the ground of nature,"   - Hegel

Hegel's notion of the "Idea" is curious. He treats of the absolute Idea as a union of the subjective and objective element of a thing. The stages he describes are the union of opposites, their union generates a new stage. Hegel's Idea has many contentious interpretations, but it reminds me of Swedenborg's description of such a union.

"...Wherever there is reality, there is its manifestation: the one does not occur without the other. In fact, reality exists through its manifestation, and not apart from it...Since each occurs with the other and not apart from it, it follows that they are one entity, but "distinguishably one."... They are distinguishably one like love and wisdom. Further, love is reality and wisdom is its manifestation. Love occurs only in wisdom, and wisdom only from love. So love becomes manifest when it is in wisdom..." - E.S.excerpted from: http://newchristianbiblestudy.org/multi/e_27198_1388/e_11192

   This reminds me of an example of the union of Love and Wisdom in scripture that I discovered.

Genesis 1:26
"Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."
Genesis 5:3
"Adam ... became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image."

Image: tselem; a picture, or phantom (a form of Love)
Likeness: demuth; a resemblance, or pattern (a form of Wisdom)

  These two descriptors are almost synonyms in English but in Hebrew they are quite distinct. In genesis we have a glimpse of the difference between God's act of creation and humankind's act of procreation. God made us in His Love according to Wisdom. We procreate our children as forms of Wisdom according to Love.

   One way to take this is that God works the substance of Divine Love using the patterns of Divine Wisdom. Humans have children in the likeness of their father and the image of their mother. So one order is spiritual, the other natural.

Ideological Paradoxes

   A friend of mine recently helped me realize how difficult it is to discuss politically polarized issues. We have been given to believe that stances such as pro-life or pro-choice, conservative or liberal, etc. are mutually exclusive and have predetermined views. How can one see an issue for the nuanced real world set of problems and conflicting interests that it really is? We must as individuals and as a society learn to look at issues that have no easy answers.
   I am by definition "pro-life" but I would not agree to the label "anti-abortion" because while I believe unborn babies are people, I do not believe that pregnant women lose their rights to their bodies. What we have is a conflict of interest, where the babies cannot defend themselves, and the mother cannot become independent of the baby before birth without the death of the baby. This is not an easy matter, and while I don't have a clear position on all  of the extraneous circumstances (such as rape/incest/medical danger) I still believe we should treat these issues realistically, as difficult, and may end with a person's death.
   So I'm pro-life because I think any way of preventing the unnecessary and avoidable death of an innocent person is morally obligatory. Yes, that is a qualified statement, and it means that sometimes an abortion is necessary and unavoidable. But shall we not seek primarily to reform society to make abortion always unnecessary?
   Perhaps I should write posts on the paradox of suffering, justice and judgement, and faith versus certainty.
   Til next time, dear reader, Bon Voyage.

Dream Devourer

Our intentions reside upon higher planes
partial dimensions hide our true names
careful attention to our viewing direction
reveals a critical, subtle distinction
the deeper context of the painter's vision
unearthed in truthful illumination