I've been using the wrong words. For a communicator such as myself, that's bad news. No wonder no one knows what the hell I'm going on about half the time when I start pontificating - and I do. Pontificate. I like the sound of that word. I need a pope-hat, goddammit.
Words. They mean things. I've been toying with the concept of change here lately. Mostly, because I've seemingly gone through a great deal of it myself. Yet there are those who use the word as an epithet, spat from their lips as they would something vile.
But I haven't. Changed. Not really. Because who I am is centered around my unyielding acceptance of new ideas. So I'm pretty much the same as I've always been. The same person who can engage new information and utilize that knowledge in new applications of practicality. My strengths are my weaknesses; my weaknesses my strengths - there is not much there to change without breaking me. My interests may change - that which I desire - like the old BBC show Connections which (lifted directly from Wikipedia) "took an interdisciplinary approach to the history of science and invention and demonstrated how various discoveries, scientific achievements, and historical world events were built from one another successively in an interconnected way to bring about particular aspects of modern technology." So it is with me. Successively interconnected.
Its my understanding of the world around me which has changed.
And by very definition, the world itself.
While I have remained affably malleable.
It sounds prohibitive to personal growth to state allegiances, because if the thing we vow to remains unchanged through time, it will probably destroy itself through entropy for the world will change around it regardless. If it doesn't, wouldn't that limit my own wisdom by disallowing me the freedom to contemplate, contrast and compare contrary ideologies? It seems to me that only by embracing everything and testing it can you truly believe in something wholeheartedly - not the other way around!
Wisdom through understanding should be far, far more permanent than that based upon fear; more defensible.
What I didn't understand earlier was how each new experience directly begets a requirement for additional experiences. My information will always be incomplete, but all knowledge is in someway connected. I never know what I need to know next until I finish where I am. Its like following a whirlwind of search-engine hyperlinks but in real/life - how can you challenge yourself with beliefs you have not been faced with? This is why I am well suited for empiricism; thriving upon that which opens figurative floodgates of data on which to process.
I'm not waiting for something better to come along, I'm not even seeking it - I'm searching endlessly for that which will ever evolve: myself. Life is not a constant and neither are we. We are impermanent beings in an impermanent world seeking some semblance of permanence? How fucked up is that? No wonder so many people define happiness differently. Which is another word I need to stop using, for I have learned its not happiness that I'm seeking in myself, nor trying to identify in others - its positivity.
I was recently introduced to the precepts of Secular Humanism which I attempted to quantify through over-simplifying (a process which can assist in understanding at the risk of granularity) and I decided upon positivity. I've heard it said that "True joy can only come from God," but never from a non-believer. I am absolutely entitled to appreciating the majesty of nature without the stigma off a creator attached to the experience, were I to choose to. That being said, I found Secular Humanity's inclusion of altruism as curiously counterintuitive. No doubt a by-product of my over-simplification. Thus a new idea has manifested itself in such a manner than an entire belief system could be fabricated from its inception. And I find that fascinating.
Speaking of me! I'm oft reminded of one of my favorite Serenity exchanges where members of the crew are all arguing and someone states, "Nobody's saying that." Someone else clarifies, "Nobody but Jayne is saying that." Because Jayne *did* say it, a fact dismissed by a member of the crew who wanted only her statement to be true. When I announce my feelings (don't faint, I do have them) out in the open, invariably someone will follow up with, "No one feels that way," contradicting themselves the moment it leaves their lips, because I do. I feel that way! Therefore someone does. Just because that person is me does not make it not true.
Spirituality itself is a malleable word, having both traditional and modern underpinnings. When I use it I'm not necessarily referring to the supernatural, and when I do refer to the supernatural I'm using it as a place holder until my logic can catch up to my ignorance. Many use spiritual to discuss non-denominational beliefs while others use it in a more secular manner to describe the importance of their life-journey. And while I've been aware of the depth of the commitment being felt by those who use it, I myself have shied away from it as descriptive of me or my activities. This has, on occasion, made me appear shallow and unfocused.
I submit to you today that during the authoring of this entry I came the closet I've been in a long time to any sort of emotional fortitude gained through a singular goal, and for me that's a reaffirmation of my own beliefs, which I have outlined here. I am affected by everything I intake consciously with my senses, I am affected by everything I intake unconsciously through nocturnal post-processing, and I am damn fast at extrapolative linking. Change fascinates me, and I embrace it over the only alternative - ignoring its inevitability. Lessons of impermanence have never faulted those who trust in them.