What Path, The Light?

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved.

Following is a somewhat poetic, decidedly harsh indictment of the world’s loquacious guides to salvation. Titled World Over-heard, it was submitted to a forum known as "The Living Waters Message Board" in 2001.

No more words! Too long have flicks and drippings of tongues disserved as wispish proxies for solutions to heart-rending sorrows; promissory pacifiers assuring that miraculous play in fields of light is as near as the days of heaven. Too long have I accepted the currency of purposes, intents, promises, and ‘knowing’ as the medium of exchange, knowing well that weight, substance, and luster render action the basis for the gold standard in this world crying out for golden threads of life-essential light. It is time to pay up in precious nuggets. Enough of “Christ will come again, the meek shall inherit the earth, and then shall we know heaven; but in the meantime, please sit back and enjoy another episode of ‘As the world burns’’’. Enough of hope! Enough of belief! Enough of self-anesthetizing words! Please, Sir, just shut up; shut up and deliver the action – the action of intelligence... now.

– Joe

Below is an exchange in connection with the foregoing post.

Joe, I can't tell if you're trying to sound cleverly skeptical or are genuinely confused and troubled. Either way, I'm sorry to "hear" the hostility and misunderstanding on your part. I don't think you've had enough of hope or belief yet, it sounds like you could use a good dose of both. I do hope you are more open to truth than your message suggests, and that you are given an opportunity to come to terms with what is real and what matters.

–CFry


C, I can see how it might appear that my intent was to appear cleverly skeptical, but that was not my purpose. Yes, I am deeply troubled. Confused? – It would be best if you decided this. If you’ve retained interest, please see:
 

http://members.boardhost.com/Galaxey/index.html#mb

It appears that I’ve over-submitted my initial post by entering it at several boards, anticipating one or two responses at most. I apologize.

– Joe

Joe, I read your reply on the other message board, in which you describe a rapturous, ecstatic experience twenty some years ago. It seems unfortunate to have had an experience that you look back on after many years as a pinnacle event in your life when you almost had a grasp on something great and harmonious. I do not envy your perception of the significance of that moment in time, for as long as you cling to it you can only return empty and unsatisfied to the way things really are.

2 Cor 12:1-10
12:1I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know-God knows. 3And I know that this man-whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows- 4was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. 5I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say.
7To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. 10That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
NIV

–CFry
 

C, In this, there is no confusion. There is nothing in ‘what is’ to be grasped, as to grasp is to become attached, and thus, to become disengaged from the action that is life. An event is not important in its capacity to overshadow that which is to come. Its significance is its transformative action, nothing more. One must not mistake citation for fixation.

–Joe


No, Joe, "to grasp" isn't to become attached, it is to comprehend, to understand. You say that the experience you cited has significance in "its transformative action, nothing more." Yet, when you wrote about this on the other board you used phrases like:
"The most meaningful experience of my life occurred at the age of 25..."
"In those fleeting moments I lived and understood more than in the entirety of my life prior and since (I’m 47 years of age)."
"In the years since, it has become painfully clear..."
"We are wasting precious life."
"But this is mere knowledge, and knowing is not the same as understanding..."

Tell me again that there is no confusion, and that there is no fixation, as your words lead me to a different conclusion. The description of your "experience" and the aftermath does not conform to your assertions. You also confuse feelings with knowledge. Your transitory feelings will betray you and leave you in despair without answers, whereas genuine knowledge will inform and equip you for decisions and action.

grasp v. grasped, grasp·ing, grasps. 3. To take hold of intellectually; comprehend. (The American Heritage Dictionary)

1 Corinthians 14:11
If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. NIV
 

Eph 3:14-21
For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge-that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
NIV

– CFry

Yes, C, indeed grasp means to comprehend, to understand. And if that was your intent when you noted that

“It seems unfortunate to have had an experience that you look back on after many years as a pinnacle event in your life when you almost had a grasp on something great and harmonious”

I won’t quibble. But please, endure my wish to convey another meaning, viz., to hold, to control. It was in this light, and with respect to the foregoing sentence that I took, or mistook your application of the word. It has been my custom to say ‘grasp of’ when meaning understanding, ‘grasp on’ when implying to hold in the sense of containing, restraining, or controlling. Meanings are easily mistaken.

CFry: You say that the experience you cited has significance in “its transformative action, nothing more." Yet, when you wrote about this on the other board you used phrases like:

"The most meaningful experience of my life occurred at the age of 25..."
"In those fleeting moments I lived and understood more than in the entirety of my life prior and since (I’m 47 years of age)."
"In the years since, it has become painfully clear..."
"We are wasting precious life."
"But this is mere knowledge, and knowing is not the same as understanding..."

Tell me again that there is no confusion, and that there is no fixation, as your words lead me to a different conclusion.

Joe: Then I shall try to explain. An event has significance – meaning, when it is one of action in the stream of life; when the sense of separation from that which we feel as being ‘out there’ ceases. The psychological sense of space, time, observer and observed is now meaningless. One has become the action, the action of life itself. This is the ground of transformation. It is with this in mind that I note that the experience of that 25 year-old was his most meaningful. Yet, I should note that there have been other ‘frolics’ in the stream, just none so profoundly affecting. But, it is essential that I relate that these moments of clarity do not, nor can they ever, arise from fixation, purpose, method, desire, obsession, concentration, purpose, or any other ‘vehicle’ directed toward that end. Truth is pathless.

CFry: “The description of your "experience" and the aftermath does not conform to your assertions.”

Joe: Please, C, explain how this is so and I shall try to clear up any misunderstanding.

 

CFry: “You also confuse feelings with knowledge.”

 

Joe: I’m not clear on this. Perhaps you are alluding to my statement that ends:

We are wasting precious life. But this is mere knowledge, and knowing is not the same as understanding...

What was meant by this is simply that the assertion was coming from the known, from memory, and not from engagement; that is, not from the profound and immediate sense of the crisis that it truly is.

CFry: “Your transitory feelings will betray you and leave you in despair without answers, whereas genuine knowledge will inform and equip you for decisions and action.”

Joe: C, I am not your enemy, nor am I an adversary of truth. I sense that some of our differences arise from differing perspectives on the meanings of the words being used. But, if you feel that it runs much more deeply, and you think it worthwhile, then let us confront it head on. If you are right and I am lost in confusion, then your counsel will not have been for naught.

Thank you.

– Joe


Joe, I mean no disrespect but you seem to use a lot of words to avoid clear communication. Language is not a mystery, it is a means of sharing information, but with effort we can make it seem mysterious by investing personal coding and nonstandard meanings in standard words. The net effect is a hindrance to mutual understanding, the very function of language.
When you say that "truth is pathless" you seem to be saying, in the preceding words, that insights into meaning or existence come about through no personal investment or choice, no effort or pursuit on the part of the student. I completely disagree, and say again that such a perspective can only lead to disappointment, frustration and despair. Truth is apprehendable, it can be pursued, learned, and built upon. Insights into value and meaning come through seeking knowledge, particularly of God, who has revealed himself in meaningful language in the text of the Bible, not through capricious experiences in unexpected moments of unaccountable ecstasy.
 

Proverbs 23:23
Buy the truth and do not sell it; get wisdom, discipline and understanding.

Psalms 119:30 I have chosen the way of truth; I have set my heart on your laws.

Ps 119:33 Teach me, O LORD, to follow your decrees; then I will keep them to the end.

Ps 119:34 Give me understanding, and I will keep your law and obey it with all my heart.

2 Corinthians 4:2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. NIV

– CFry

C, avoiding clear communication has never been my purpose in this discussion. But, if I have failed to convey my meaning, perhaps there is an alternative explanation. Possibly, wittingly or unwittingly, you’ve become genuinely disinterested, even afraid to step away from that which you believe just long enough to learn the meanings behind the words, to examine matters from a different and unfamiliar perspective. Perhaps you are contented with your life, oblivious to the truth that you are the world, a world crying out for immediate solutions, a world ablaze. I sensed that I’d lost you from the outset when I said “Enough of ‘Christ will come again, the meek shall inherit the earth, and then shall we know heaven…’” Maybe I should have noted that in the teachings attributed to Christ I have found profound meaning and beauty; that it is the peripheral commentary – the interpretations that I have generally found to be misguided. But, I suspect this would not have helped matters.

CFry: “When you say that "truth is pathless" you seem to be saying, in the preceding words, that insights into meaning or existence come about through no personal investment or choice, no effort or pursuit on the part of the student. Truth is apprehendable, it can be pursued, learned, and built upon. Insights into value and meaning come through seeking knowledge, particularly of God, who has revealed himself in meaningful language in the text of the Bible, not through capricious experiences in unexpected moments of unaccountable ecstasy.”

Joe: What I am saying is that truth, reality, what is, or whatever label one applies, is realized simply – no investment, no preparation, no schooling, no gurus, no initiation, no ‘winding up for the pitch’ required. It is as near as breathing, as conspicuous as the words you are reading, as accessible as life itself.

C, it is clear from your responses that my writing has served only to annoy or perhaps even anger you. I can understand this. I have entered your ‘realm’ and spouted ‘heresy’. I take no pleasure in the misery of another. I won’t disturb you again. Besides, wasn’t it me who said ‘No more words!’? Goodbye, and best wishes in your pursuit of truth.

 

– Joe


Joe, there has been neither anger nor annoyance in my responses to you, only an attempt to speak directly and honestly to the premises you stated. I did not want to be offensive to you in any way, and I'm sorry that you've taken my replies that way, but I also know it would be of no benefit to you to have a dialogue that did not address the issues at all. Though you have said farewell, I hope that you will return to read this comment, and realize that I have spoken from concern, not misery or hostility, and I hope that you will continue to consider the words of Jesus and of all the Bible, for there is substance there that you've not yet found. Despite your denial of the need, I hope you'll search for it.

As Jesus said, "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it."
Matt 13:45-46 NIV

– CFry

 

A Shaded Path Alight

 

 

Delicate Balance: The Threshold Of American Revolution

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*

We Americans, as a whole, are a fairly adaptive lot. While there is much that makes us hot under the collar, we tend to take the wide-angled view and note that things are rarely so bad as to warrant anything more than the occasional rant. When confronted with news of the latest scandal or crisis and the implicit or explicit message that we’ve again been robbed of our wealth or our liberty, we commonly observe “We’ve been screwed again”, ingest antacids, and carry on with lives less fair, less full. What is it that allows us to suffer the manifold indignities and the diminishment of life and self at the exacting of agents of injustice? Is it that we are sufficiently comfortable, satisfied, and thus, disinclined to stir the pot lest we become scalded through our righteous agitation? Are we too contented to face systems of seemingly impenetrable, laminar complexity to right what are obvious and profound wrongs? My suspicion is that the searing, tensing affronts and injustices wrought by the immorality of our spiritually barren, feckless "leaders" and the "movers and shakers" who retain them–these perfidies that we have come to expect and to which we have become inured, that we assimilate and adapt to–are indeed counteracted by comforts, pleasures, and trappings that are balm in the lives of “ordinary Americans”. We will continue to endure the bursting of bubbles, the scandals, the crises, the inequities, iniquities, and mendacities symptomatic of our condition–the condition of an America on the gurney–as long as there is the soothing and the balance. Is there a breaking point at which we say (and mean) enough is enough? Most probably, but the noted agents of injustice have become remarkably skilled in their art, ever refining, ever testing and stretching the limits of our adaptability, and, it is hoped, ever regardful of our modulus of elasticity and that which constitutes the delicate balance.




Thomas Jefferson's Original Gravestone – Lessons Lost?

Courtesy of Jenni Feathers
 

Smoke and Mirrors

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*

Legend has it that in the 3^rd century B.C., Greek polymath Archimedes invented what has been called the “death ray” or, alternatively, the “heat ray”. The purpose of this Flash Gordonesque-sounding device was to burn and destroy enemy ships from afar using focused rays of sunlight. For Archimedes, “father of mathematical physics”, the reasoning would have been relatively simple: sunlight, reflected from the concavity of a parabolic mirror of relatively sizeable surface area, converges upon a comparatively small, suitably remote, area of quite combustible material, generating intense heat and, ultimately, fire. Whether this “weaponization” of the sun truly occurred is still, in the year 2225 A.A., the subject of debate and experimentation.

The sun set on Archimedes in the year 212 B.C. His legendary ray, however, has since evolved. In 1984, the year of "Big Brother", Archimedes’ “heat ray” was updated by your Anonymous CFO. Below is a depiction of “SOLAR”–Sunlight Optimization through L-Angled Reflection–in Archimedean setting.

Please note that SOLAR was conceived purely as an exercise in inventive thinking, without knowledge of the legend of the “burning-glasses” of Archimedes; moreover, there have been no ships set ablaze as a consequence.

Genius - Installment IV - The Slow Genius

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*


Albert Einstein, regarded by many as the quintessential genius, was known as a “slow thinker”. Most probably the appellation alluded to the “mechanics” of his thinking, not the underlying neurophysiological processes. This installment on Genius will attempt a glimpse of the problem-solving mechanics and the collective personality of Einstein and others who, in the author’s view, are reasonably (albeit oxymoronically) characterized as “slow geniuses”. 

Slow geniuses are of a type less inclined to seek the shortest distance between two points than to search for meaning in the space, points, and movement along the traverse. They fixate, not so much on solution as essence, seeking holistic resonance where most would contentedly settle for the interrogative’s bottom line; for them, the question is no less significant than the answer. They are often vague, intuitive gropers who are not averse to “winging it”. Frequently, and perhaps, at times, injudiciously, they will jettison their bags of scholarly tools lest they impede entry into those narrow, pitchy spaces–places within which may exist curled dimensions of meaning hitherto uncharted.

The thought processes of the slow genius may seem strange or disorderly, or obsessively redundant; but the appearance of one following one’s “gut” can be deceiving. Employing feedback looping, this genius examines and reexamines points in question with what, to the casual observer, would appear a Rain Man-like tolerance for monotony. Our genius is looking for chinks in a seemingly ironclad understanding, with or without benefit of the subtly different light of a recent insight. Occasionally, a hairline crack is revealed, though, more often than not, it is proven a mere craze. There are, however, occasions where, under seemingly serendipitous circumstances, such flaws are found to propagate deep beneath the surface. The slow genius understands that any such flaw might be part of a network, and that, as a consequence, the present clarity-impeding barrier could succumb to a well-placed, thoughtfully nuanced nudge, shattering under the weight of its own illogicality.  

The characteristic “slowness” of the slow genius may be innate, or it may be something into which he or she has grown through years of creative pursuit. This is one who is, at times, ambivalent: resentful of his or her relative inability to “think on one’s feet”–particularly under social circumstance–but one who is undyingly, deeply grateful for a most profound gift. Invariably it is the gift–the light of one illumined–that burns away the fog of mixed emotion.


Albert Einstein

Genius - Installment III - The Dialogue

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*

 

Inquisitor:
If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? More important, why are you doing work that gives you little or no satisfaction at the expense of passion-quenching creative pursuit? Why haven't you used your intelligence to make a fortune, to free yourself to live out the rest of your life in a state of unbridled discovery and creativity?

Genius:
I am inclined to answer “Contempt!”–contempt for a system that requires me to be both creator and entrepreneur that I may earn the wherewithal, and hence, the “privilege”, to create without constraint; but I know that my reasons run deeper. It isn’t a matter of principle–or obstinacy (though I am not necessarily a rational being in every circumstance)–that drives me to buck the system and settle for a life of “breadwinning”, half-hearted, half-baked wealth-generating schemes, and part-time creation. I do so because I dare not suspend my creative work, but more on this in a bit. Now one might argue that there are breadwinner/creator success stories. With this I would have no disagreement–it is this very notion, together with the creative work itself, that sustains me. I would posit, however, that not all luminous part-time creators are successful; that those successes would be considerably more prevalent were it not for the albatross that is the green-paper chase. Of course, I could reject the path of the part-time creator as well: refuse or quit the job, draw a monthly welfare check, forsake all of the trappings of the 40-60 hours-a-work-week trudge, and spend all of my time doing what I love. But I am not without ethical sense, and the fact is, some of those trappings may be conducive, if not essential, to my creating. Moreover, there is the oft-considered matter of the ruinous effect such rebellion might have on familial relationships, the heart-rending sorrow. Not all geniuses are ruthless, devoid of empathic sense. Returning to the matter of the entrepreneur, you might reasonably ask: Couldn’t you mount a one-man entrepreneurial “blitzkrieg” to quickly get over what, for you, would surely be a mere bump in the road? Even for the genius–particularly one who finds business mind-numbingly dull and distasteful–consummation of a wealth-generating endeavor rarely occurs quickly, certainly not quickly enough for one whose only interest is to meaningfully create. Putting one’s passion “on hold” is torturous, and it can be destructive. Consider the danger of losing that narrow “window of opportunity”, the period in one’s life where his or her peculiar form of creativity is most efficacious; or creative atrophy: the deterioration and seizing of the workings of the too-long-dormant “machine”. Then there is the hazard of focal shift: the losing of oneself to the rush of amassing ever greater wealth. To squander one’s creative gift in pursuit of monetary gain is, to the mind of the genius, self-anathematization.

The wisdom-in-a capsule adage “Do what you love and the money will follow” is simplistic hearsay; moreover, contrary to the aphoristically expressed convictions of Francis Galton concerning the indomitable spirit and unstoppable ascent of great intellect– untimely death aside–genius does not always “out”.

"Punch Clock" - Courtesy of Secret5468

Genius - Installment II - The Measure of Mind

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved.

Can intelligence be measured? Ask a psychometrician–one specializing in the field of “mental measurement”–and the answer would be a resounding “Yes!” Ask ten philosophers to define intelligence, however, and you’d almost certainly get ten different, and perhaps conflicting, definitions. Such "technicalities" aside, the psychometrician’s instrument of choice for gauging intelligence is, of course, the IQ test. Now, many would posit (or, at least, agree) that a genius is simply one who manifests exceptional intelligence, and thus is one of extremely high IQ. This, however, can be at odds with the convention of recognizing those of great and inspiring intellectual or artistic achievement as geniuses. Consider the case of William Shockley and Luis Alvarez. In the 1920s, each was administered an IQ test in connection with psychologist Lewis Terman's now famous study of gifted children, intended to, among other things, identify future Nobel laureates. Neither William nor Luis demonstrated even the minimum 135 IQ necessary to join the Terman group, sometimes referred to as Terman’s “Termites”; nevertheless, both went on to become physicists of renown and Nobel laureates. Moreover, not one of the Terman group, comprising more than 1,500 gifted children with IQs ranging from 135 to 180+, went on to garner a Nobel or Pulitzer Prize.

So, do IQ tests measure intelligence? I would put it a bit differently and suggest that they quantify certain manifestations of intelligence–rapid processing, for example–while missing or minimizing other manifestations, such as intuitive sensibility, which serves the true visionary like a "sixth sense". The preceding case, taken in isolation, is merely interesting–of little, if any, significance. I suspect, however, that were it taken in broader context, it would serve to underscore the incapacity of IQ tests to identify those most able to beget revolutionary productions of the mind. 

Genius - Installment I - The Blessed "Naïve"

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved.

Geniuses tend to know quite a bit, and, as most of us have learned, “knowledge is power”. So, as one might expect, these luminaries make up a pretty powerful, albeit, relatively sparsely populated, group of problem solvers. Interestingly, as it turns out, all of that horsepower can sometimes be an impediment to discovery. One particular problem exemplifies this rather nicely and is stated thus: Using ordinary permanent magnets, how do you stably levitate one such magnet above another? Anyone who’s had even a modicum of interest in the peculiar behavior of magnets has tried this repeatedly, perhaps even obsessively, only to become frustrated as the would-be floater, without fail, flipped over and slammed into the intended supporting magnet, polar north against polar south. It is a problem whose solution most in the scientific realm would now characterize as “relatively simple”; yet, remarkably, no one–not even the scientists–were up to the task. Perhaps the scientists can be forgiven. After all, they'd entered a state of suspended curiosity. They’d learned that a theorem of renowned nineteenth century mathematician Samuel Earnshaw prohibited the arrangement of permanent magnets in such a way that a magnet of that arrangement could be held in static levitation entirely through the effect of that arrangement. Ever since, physicists had been of the mind that any attempt to produce levitation with permanent magnets merely served as testament to one’s scientific illiteracy. Then, in 1983, inventor and ostensible member of the American Society for the Scientifically Illiterate, Roy M. Harrigan, patented what was to become known as the first spin-stabilized magnetic levitation device, employing permanent magnets and nothing else of consequence. His invention, an elegant display of eye-popping, fantasy-feeding flight, is now the popular levitating spinning top device known as the Levitron®. Now, before you release your inner cynic and note that the likelihood of such a discovery occurring in the dimly lit outskirts of academia is tantamount to finding a particular grain of sand in the Sahara, know that lightning struck twice with this very discovery. In 1984, a college drop-out named Joseph Chieffo, who was unaware of Harrigan’s patented (but little known) air-borne revelation, also discovered spin-stabilized magnetic levitation.

The Levitron® - Courtesy of img finder