A Mixed Bag

In the past I have mostly imagined Christianity - in its unified, disembodied form of being - as a castle of sorts where the different denominations and proper churches are different form of rooms and regions in this wide castle- space. There is a common center and the walls are made of the doctrines all christians share together, but some rooms are locked from the others and all sections isn't available for everyone. This image is all well and good, but recently something else came to me that focuses in a better way that Christianity is an actual living being inside the fractal cosmos of the Lord.  The three main churches of Christianity; Catholicism, Orthodoxy and (yuck) Protestantism corresponds to three-parted division of the body; Head, Heart and Belly. Catholicism is quite clearly the Head. Not even the Orthodox disputes that the seat of Peter should have a leading role of the Christian church and in any case the Catholic dominance world wide is resulting that when someone fr...

Oh no.  I will try to write about the term religion  again. This pesky word, that is so heavily abused in all kinds of ways that it many times during my life's journeys has been impossible to use, even though I in some certain ways always have been religious. Yet terms like "spiritual" or "idealist" or what have you often has been better to use just to get people to understand what line of life I'm actually pursuing and for them not to hear their prejudices or simply their own version of the term which may be the opposite of what I actually mean myself by the term.  Now I am at the point however where I'm not afraid of these misconceptions, at least not in the same way I was before. Religion and to be religious is in my mind the solution to so many issues in our current age. We have tried to let this modality of human life to be an artefact of the past and in a pursuit in accordance with the spirit of enlightenment instead forming human life in a differ...

As I bounce around with my "gaming approach" to existence in my mind I initially thought the phrases The game of reality and The game of God would be interchangeable synonyms meaning the same but used in different contexts. Turns out that is likely not the case, so I will take some time to fully explain how I see GoG,  the grounding fundament for all my own further projects and existential mini games.    The game of reality needs no explanation. It is simply what is and will stay this way regardless of what humans think or do about it. In the "Game of Reality" there can't be any objectives, there are no certainties there are any players at all participating in the game. The only certainty is that the game actually exists because, well, here we are performing reality for some damned reason. This is in my opinion not good enough of a basis to do anything meaningful within it. If "GoR", so to speak, is the only thing that is real in the end I would choos...

  Hey You (Me) * Nah. I won't try to keep up with a real letter format in this text. However, I really do wish to try to put forth some kind of defense for a philosophical system that everyone interested in philosophy claims to despise, even though it is the only one that doesn't need any clever arguments or wonky workarounds to make sense. Solipsism is simply how the world and the universe presents itself, no less, no more. Maybe that's why the clever ones feel icky around it, it doesn't need our word plays and sophistry to stay a float. Solipsism has the same immediate appeal and elegance regardless how many academic papers or books about it ever gets written, which very much isn't true for any other system.  I'm not sure if I need to run through what Solipsism entails, but for the sake of definition and clarity: Solipsism is the belief that the only thing worth to consider as real is the subjective mind and since there seems to be only one subjective in the e...

When it comes to death the uncertainties around it can easily drive anyone close to madness. The lines of reasoning I will put forth below are probably not "proofs" in any meaningful sense, other than that I wholeheartedly buy them myself. I don't believe in death - as it is understood by the brahmins  of the west - at all. In fact, even if I aspire to be "intellectually forgiving" I notice a tendency within myself to belittle anyone that does - to me, this is just so obvious! But then, of course, I ignore all the hard work that had to be done to reach this particular understanding. (A work I don't credit to me , but I digress)   Anyhow.  Death in our day seems to mean non existence , oblivion, no experience for the dead subject in question to be had. This is blatantly absurd and I can't recall any initiated explanation of what this non existence would, uh, consists of and how it could be said to be possible at all to experience non- existence. A priori,...

I believe it was C.S Lewis (1898-1963, 16 years old at the start of WW I) who first caught my attention to what I'm going to speak about here. Late in his life he got tired of lecturing at Oxford. "Why would you listen to me? I am a dinosaur. The world I used to live in, isn't here anymore and the new one in its place has nearly nothing to do with the one which has gone to pass" he lamented to the students (as I'm paraphrasing it). He thought about a time from the 19th century and before where everyone revered the classics and the great thinkers of Western civilisation. Where latin and greek still were relevant subjects to study and when the technology.. couldn't kill the whole world instantly with the push of a button. C.S Lewis was part of the last generation who witnessed both these worlds, he was born and grew up in the old one and he died in the new. He and his compatriots is what I would call the most interesting generation that ever will exist, especial...

Once in Duckburg I one time overheard a conversation where someone boldly stated that Norway (or any other country really) didn't exist. He claimed that what actually existed was a piece of landmass on a distinct planet in a particular galaxy, but everything else - like borders, a distinct culture or anything else was just a piece of imagination floating around in peoples heads. Norway was "play pretend", only the earth mass itself of the "Norway game" could be considered actually real. Naturally people got quite upset, especially the Norwegian ducks around and I don't remember much of the continuation of the conversation - but the claim has stuck with me since. I don't think I agree with it, at least not entirely. I can see what the "Norway-skeptic" meant by his claim. There is a distinction between our words and names for things and what actually takes place in existence proper and can be said to be real. This is a philosophical debate as old...

Disclaimer: This text is a somewhat messy first try to sketch out an image, a metaphor that has begun to be the basis for how I see life as the Anarchist I still am. There are a lot more aspects of it to explore than the strict economical one, so the topic shall return, but as of now this is as clear I can make it outside my own head. Hopefully further texts and references to this particular idea will help to make the concept fully understandable.  When I fully became an anarchist an image came to me. Life, existence and our human societies are filled with different types of boxes. A box in this sense can be defined as a code of conduct, a rules set or more or less well defined ideals to live up to. These boxes exist for the purpose to define what something is and to be able to exist within one or several of them you are obliged to follow the rules set to the tee. If you don't you are, more or less nicely, asked to remove yourself from the box prompto.  Follow the rules o...

During virtually all my life my greatest spiritual enemy has been the Materialist ("Physicalist" might be the better term all things considered, but in my own language there is no such alternative available so I will stick with "materialist" in this particular text). The Materialist has been standing on the side line looking at what I've been doing regarding religion or spirituality and as soon as there were any opportunity they smugly have noted something along the lines of "You know that what you are doing is absolutely bogus, right?". It didn't help that the spirituality of my childhood and young adulthood had the aspiration to reach out and "spread the word" about our religious business - this approach forced me to come in contact with the Materialist on their playing field over and over again and the interactions ended a bit too often with that all my arguments or talking points had ruthlessly been taken down or at least ridiculed in...