Had a great day at golf last Thursday – best round I have ever played – gross 80, 39 on the front, 41 on the back 9. On a 21 handicap that gave me a net 59, and won me a chocolate bar (which I gave to Jewelia).
Such a great feeling, getting into “Zen” space, staying present, accepting all the terrible shots I had, and not making them mean anything at all about the next shot to be played, staying with playing the percentage shots. I probably played about 60% of my shots OK – well, with about 40% falling in the poor to attrocious range, and I was still able to make par most of the time, with one birdie following an exceptional third shot on a par 5 (after having poor first and second shots, and puting a 5 iron within a foot of the pin, for a tap in birdie).
It was very interesting to see that I did not play anything like it Friday, in my 9 holes with Barry.
Had Bev Barr ring up to congratulate me Friday morning on yesterday’s golf round – the first time that has happenned.
On to posts:
While I agree and align with almost all you say, I have difficulty with the “weight” that seems to be given to some of the senses of the idea of “we’re one”.
Yes we are most certainly related, on very many levels, from the sub atomic, right on up through all the levels of matter, to all the levels of life, to all the levels of culture, to all the levels of mind. We are related in far more ways than most people have even the vaguest inklings, and I suspect in more ways than even the most mystic or most learned suspect; and at the same time – we are all individuals.
We are individuals, who share a great deal in common – vastly more in common than in difference.
Both of these aspects, our commonality, and our distinctiveness are important.
I may be being a pedantic SOB, and the saying “we’re one” often has a flavour to it that seems to express commonality at the expense of individuality.
For me, that is a great danger.
For me, both aspects need to be held together, and respected together, as the equals they are, as the necessary relatives they are.
In my understanding, the idea of a noosphere is something of a misunderstanding. It is an idea that is sort of useful at a high level, but if regarded as anything more than a useful approximation, it can be quite dangerous in its implications. The reality that gives rise to the “noosphere” approximation is one of many individuals, operating at many different levels of consciousness, with very many levels of relationship and information transfer (communication).
So for me, it is a yes to all the relationships you have expressed, and quite a few more that I am aware of; and it is also necessary to honour “one” in the sense of being an individual; unique and special – as is every individual.
What are your thoughts about “love at first sight”?
In one sense, I believe it occurs, and that I have experienced it. From when I first saw my wife Ailsa, I felt a great attraction, that is one of the simpler definitions of “love”.
There are many other definitions of love, and they do not equate to the sort of infatuation that comes and goes in a moment, but rather to a much deeper love, that includes respect, admiration, friendship, commitment and sharing that comes from many years of shared experience. This form of love does not come at first sight, nor does it leave in a hurry.
So yes, love at first sight happens, and it can be built into a much more meaningful love, and it is unlikely to do so without a lot of growth and work.
P is for Perspective
Aligned with you all the way on this one Laurie.
I find context and perspective to be tightly entwined. So many different ways of changing either.
The last time I had a serious change of perspective was in writing an email to Jen on Thursday – I got to accept myself and my situation at a new level, and in that sense of peace and acceptance, played the best round of golf of my life – 80 (13 under my 21 handicap – to win the day).
Would you rather walk the path well known…or be off in the woods? Why?
I’ve done a lot of travel on the well known paths, and seem to be spending more and more time on the paths less traveled, and even places where it seems no one may ever have been before me.
So I like both, and I seem to be spending more time “off in the woods”.
When you were a child, did you have an idea of the kind of work you would be doing when you were an adult? Did it change?
For most of my childhood I thought I was going to be a scientist.
It was a bit of a surprise to find myself fishing for 17 years, and then playing with computers for the last 25 years.
I had barely heard of computer as a child in the late 50s and early 60s.
Now – everything looks so different.
Loved your post today. I’m with Jim Peebles, it is interesting speculation, and I am sure there is a great deal we do not know yet, and whatever is going on way “out there” is “doing its thing”, whatever that “thing” is.
As to what holds my world together, that is an interesting question. It seems to be part habit and patterns from the past, part speculation and intuition derived from a combination of those habits and the observations of a lifetime, and part standing in the eternal inquiry, of putting all beliefs, observations and understanding to one side, and simply standing in awe and wonder in “I don’t know” with the question – “what is life?”
In my half century of exploring different modes of looking at life, and different interpretations; none of them seems to give a fully satisfying set of answers. I suspect the most satisfying approach will be simply to stay in the question, however long the journey.
It seems to me that all individuals must start the journey from a place that essentially accepts the cultural “truths” that they are born into on some form of faith. There appears to be no other way. All cultures are born of a very simple distinction of something equivalent to good/bad or right/wrong or good/evil. Which distinction, and what evolves from there, is essentially irrelevant.
What is important is that the individuals themselves grow to a point that they can see for themselves that the simple distinction at the base is just a simplification of an infinity, and is not a truth in itself. It is neither right nor wrong, it is simply how it is, and how it must be.
For me, the story that I am a potentially infinitely creative being, as are all other human beings, and that I have evolved from multiple layers of pattern evolving and emerging over billions of years, makes sense to me; and it doesn’t “hold my world in place”.
There is a very real sense in which nothing “holds my world in place”. In my world I am a child of the infinite, finite, yet infinitely capable.
My world is not “held in place”.
I am a child, seeking and discovering and exploring a world that is so vast, should I live the rest of eternity, I would see but a small fraction of it.
There are so many more than 5 elements, so many more than 5 patterns, 5 forces; and we had to start somewhere. 5 is bigger than 2 and it is still a whole lot smaller than infinity.
So if anything can be said to hold my world together in any real sense, it is acceptance of what seems to be so, and being open to possibility – standing in the question, standing in the not knowing; and enjoying the journey – wherever it leads.