Where to begin?

yahnis — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:23:00 GMT

It occurs to me that I can start anywhere I wish. Since the topic and purpose of the blog is to explore the personal and inner self and compare it to what is expressed publically, I have decided to start with religion. Certainly, no other topic is less controversial or easier to broach.

Public self says to close friends:    "Religion is poison"
Public self says to relatives:          "Religion is troublesome"
Public self says to society:             "Religion is a personal matter, one that I have no opinion on

WHAT THE HECK?
Now there's THREE WORLDS to consider? Maybe.

Private self says:

Religion is the single most destructive force/concept/practice that ever existed. If there was a hell, it would be a world in which religion exists. Oh wait, we actually live in a world with religion, don't we? I guess you know what that means.

I don't equate the concept of god with religion. It seems as though god is paramount to almost all religions. Apparently, god IS religion. But, I can't begin a discussion of god right now while expressing thoughts on religion. We'll save god for later.

Religion is to life as the ocean is to a leaking submarine. You can see the cracks in the walls, and you know that when one bursts, you're going to be crushed to smithereens in less than a second. Admittedly, those with religion will probably not agree with my analogy. I'm sure they'd think up some nice touchy-feely other-worldly fairy tale in which the ocean is the source of the submarine, or the force that nourishes the submarine, keeps it afloat, and otherwise watches over it in a benevolent, yet freakishly insane with rules and need for worship kind of way.

Whoops, did my private self SAY that outloud?
My bad.

Now, there's also the financial aspect of religion. Religion is to capitalism as, well, as to any two things that are so close together as to not be told apart. Yes.

Religion is to the submarine as the submarine is to the ocean.
Huh?

Religion has an effect on the submarine. It can't exist without the submarine, but the submarine only needs itself to be within the ocean to get by. Religion tricks the submarine by emulating currents and therfore convinces the submarine of its importance. However, a submarine left to its own power can actually travel anywhere it wishes.

Religion speaks to the masses in tongues and the masses listen with their pocketbooks and wallets. Religion divides itself into many different flavors to satisfy all tastes. It doesn't, however, come in ocean flavor.

If you took religion and stretched it out in a line, it would run around the world two or three times, just like a boa constrictor wrapped around a rat or other small mammal.

Religion strangles the individual and attempts to totally silence the inner dialogue and replace it with the party line. And who's listening in? According to adherents.com, at least 84% of all people claim to belong to some flavor of religion. And beyond that, nearly half of the 16% left over that claim to have no taste for religion still think of themselves a "theistic" in some manner. I think that leaves about 8% of the population to have the good sense not to get into the submarine in the first place.

Interestingly enough, atheists don't even believe in submarines.

OK, private self is done talking.
Public self says: "Don't hate me because I float."

Introduction:

yahnis — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:53:00 GMT

The purpose of this blog is to take internal conversations and express them publically.

What are we hiding from, anyway?

It's as if we live in two worlds:

1) the world of inner expression, exploration, self-soothing, self-preservation, and complete freedom

and

2) the world of consensus, tacit societal norms, game playing, and "safe" expression

I am interested in the differences between what we espouse publically and what we believe in our minds to be actually true or real.

Consider these questions:

In what ways do peer pressure and societal expectation affect us?
Does everyone acknowledge the existance of a polarization between the internal dialoge and outward expression? (Or perhaps some people live in only one of these two worlds.)
If we live with others and only voice the "safe" material, can we expect to have closeness and honest understanding between individuals?
Or are we simply approaching the edge of intimacy and trust and not experiencing true communication and total association, never really let anyone in to see the "real" person in front of them?

I have introduced the topic. Now, what will I do with it? Will I start publishing my inner thoughts freely or will I censor myself and take the "safe" road? I don't know.

Let's find out.

What's In is Out

Where to begin?

Introduction: