Gender Jumper

Perhaps as a corollary or preface to other readings I hope to do during the current wave of pandemic, I've been poking around some Wikipedia articles about Eastern beliefs, the "nuts and bolts" of Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

It just struck me that one could frame the divide between "Western" and "Eastern" belief systems as polarized stances of "Interventionist" and "Non-interventionist". Not only is the Western model centered around singular, conscious divinities who intervene in human affairs, but the goal of spiritual practice is often to intervene in the affairs of others through proseletyzing, education, and conquer. Conversely, the highest form for these Eastern traditions is a "witness" who attain personal or spiritual bliss through detachment. (I think Jesus said some things about letting the world do what it does and focusing on being a good person, but thanks to my apatheistic upbringing I've read more theology on Wikipedia than I ever have the Bible itself.)

Indeed, my quibble with the Tao Te Ching may come down to its nigh-mindfulness practice that, while purporting to espouse good governance, is actually quite detached and anti-intervention. So as I start verbalizing my break with the only sacred text I've ever known, I want to jot down some things that I believe or do not believe (suspect? perhaps "perceive" is the least loaded term here...) at this point in time:

• Human beings are algorithmic. I can find no favor for the belief that a perpetual self exists except as it is forged by its own happenstance and reactions thereto. That is not a soul, that is machine learning.
• (Metaphorical) lenses help the mind focus on parts of the whole when the whole is too great. For example, time has not yet been proven to exist beyond human perception; it is simply easier to shortcut sequence than to fathom the distinctness of every time-space fiber.
• There are social, historical, and political reasons behind every concept we replicate, including about ourselves. Every datapoint is input as metaphor and coded by propaganda.
• Distinction is an inevitable consequence of multitude. Even when we grieve deaths in numbers too abstract to personalize, we are grieving the loss of distinction and breadth within our species.
• Distinction is an individual phenomenon, diversity is its greater presence. Diversity enriches humanity and improves its survival against calamity. If anything about humanity is inherently worth celebrating, it may be this.
• The greater the diversity of a community, the harder it will have to work at mutual support.
• Diversity is not a seed for violence, but violence will seek it out.
• Human perception simplifies. Binaries are almost always polarities and polarities are almost always planes and planes are almost always galaxies and galaxies fluctuate throughout time. (I'm not sure about the "almost", but positivism is reductive.)
• Everything changes all the time in every context. Singularities are convenient lenses to focus our attention, but that does not give them ongoing meaning.
• Outcomes are ephemeral; peace is an accident but its end comes from will.
• Every leader will ultimately fail because they frame their goals as being ultimate in the first place.
• Beware those who confuse victory with meaning or favor.
• Tradition is nostalgia weaponized against progress.
• Building prosperity is never the same as reducing poverty.
• At the heart of power is a craving for permanence; to the extent it is at all attainable, it is generally to because the powerful have extracted it from the powerless. Permanence opposes distinction.
• There seem to exist forces, conscious or otherwise, active on the periphery of and beyond our perception, however it is the height of hubris to assume that we are exalted, pestered over, or infinitely familiar. Indeed, their proximity to us can only be high if their numbers are many; the more concentrated supernatural power(s), the less relevant we become. Harm comes not from a specific belief or disbelief toward omnipotence or universality, but in declaring it to be intimate and oneself as its proxy. (He's just not that into you.)
• Any spiritual practice which codifies binaries (or even numerical certainties) are insufficiently agnostic, rooted in convenient binaries that inevitably reroute our defaults back to "man and woman" and, perhaps even more, "good and evil".
• Any belief construct that centers the self against society, or society against the self, is committing violence against either or both.
• Even when accurate, the perceived quality of an individual or collective's spiritual insight (or other celebrated endeavor) is irrelevant to any other quality of their practice of being human. No effort is entirely selfless, but you can intervene against a known flaw.
• It is impossible to single-handedly control how oneself is perceived for any duration of time by any number of people; so, too, is it impossible to know another completely. All we have is propaganda, enemy to truth (which itself is unattainable). You can, however, artfully "lie" your way to shared understanding.
• Authenticity is a weird concept if you think about it too long. If it is special for our thoughts and actions to align, are we not normalizing deception, self-obfuscation, and image control? Sometimes, we just want to be misled.
• You can't know everything you need to know, nor forget everything you need to forget.
• Convenience is enemy to freedom. Judgement is enemy to healing.
• Each of these precepts will be a source of joy and inspiration if you let it.
• Most (possibly all) who seek and teach deeper truth (which is not necessary to make a nourishing contribution) will fail to adequately universalize it. You are only as strong as the challenges to your assumptions.