raises ideas of religious identity or indeed anti religious identity. I felt to comment thus:
- - -
Definitions SEEM to bring a sense of identity in stability and thus an illusion of control along with an inherent bias of self-specialness that makes them rigidly defended against change rather than fluidly part of an unfolding conscious appreciation of that which identifies Life, Self and Meaning as an ever fresh recognition and extension of value.
Definitions are part of the current experience of the human consciousness but are generally not recognized as human conditioning except by those who would mask a private agenda behind the appearance that has become accepted in place of the tangible presence of value.
'Christian' thus comes to mean whatever anyone decides it means to them in absence of any demonstration of Christ love extended in recognition.
In other words, the mind redefines all things unto its own image and then seeks to prevail, that is, to make its version 'true' by invalidation or denying threat to its 'identity', that is held sacrosanct and not open to question or revision excepting it will 'evolve' in terms of adapting and surviving - including dropping significant aspects of the identity to change the form of the mask.
Personal identity is defence within a presumption of threat and hostility. It may join with others in mutual agreements that make a relative peace but always as a group that defends itself likewise.
Everything remains open for Humanity to accept and embrace its true and abundant inheritance BUT for the assertion of personal will upon a true or honest communication - for Life Is Communication - not merely information but the relational dance of meanings discovered, embraced and shared.
The Jesus story and its teaching are exactly illuminating this facet of the human conditioning, but instead of accepting the message, the messenger was made special, separate, and no longer an example in which to recognize our own Life. If anything it generally became subverted to the old religion of guilt and sacrifice of joy for this has been the way of the world.
A lie seeks whatever works to justify itself and thus adulterates the currency of exchange with division and coercive reaction. It may not believe itself a liar, but if asserting certainty as a way of denying self-doubt, the truth is not being communicated because it is feared.
More than that, what is being communicated is actively working to protect against such fear being brought to awareness and to prevent exposure of whatever tricks are being employed to obfuscate, or sow dissension or diversion from critical points.
The personal identity is in a sense a fig-leaf lie that finds mutually agreed currency and reinforcement by conflict and reaction as much as by agreement.
Who are we beneath our mask? We are that which can truly know and be known. We are the freedom to persist in mask or be open to communication. But within the mask we believe that what is behind the mask is fearful and unacceptable. Until we look within and uncover our true humanity - which we do not manufacture or distort except by taking image and worshipping it.
Kindness is of a kind. Self-specialness is inherent un-kindred. There is a core psychology that can be noticed regardless of the cultural packaging, and identifying this psychology within our own conscious responsibility is waking from the spell of reactive defence to a truly grounded presence - that will then express itself in every kind of cultural or innovative way - but as a willingness of extending an honest presence in which to recognize the other as ourself instead of wanting otherness to be the dumping ground of our unowned and unhealed hatred.
I've gone into a particular direction in this comment, but the illusion of a mask is already magic. Seeing the illusion is breaking the spell. Not to attack the mask or the choice to use it - but to open up a channel of communication where before there was none.
- - -
The following comment to the main article:
I wish I could agree with the conclusion. We've got quite a way to go to become a nation of tolerance. Sadly.My reply:
The idea of tolerance is brought into being by intolerance. Likewise patience is called on amidst impatience.
But a genuine willingness to relate, to listen and communicate does not start of from predjudice or fear of loss, and then seek to keep face, and so it does not think or define itself 'tolerant' but simply engaged in living relational being.
The attempt to build a world of love within hatred can never ever succeed.
One has to acknowledge the hatred and the fears and wounds beneath to release it.
So I might regard myself as intolerant of tolerance and intolerance - but actually I just don't see through that framework.
It is the fear of hatred and the fear of fear that gives power to them - and those who seek worldly power know this well and use it to get your vote of fear and hatred instead of a discerning presence within they cannot hide the hate and fear that drives their agenda. Now who does not seek worldly power, being free of all hate and fear, throw the first stone...