I use the avatar of a bust of ancient philosopher Parmenides to symbolize my purpose for joining the ULC Monastery minister’s forum; he is known by fragments mostly of a proem (that’s not mis-spelled) surviving from circa 550 BCE; he is largely known through references back to him by such philosophers as Plato; Parmenides essentially argued that this world and life are illusions created by a transcendental power not at all like us, and approached metaphysics from this perspective.
Insofar as modern definitions go, many simply electively wish to speak of metaphysics in non-ontological terms…meaning everything is just bound in this universe making all spirituality empty words and a necessarily regulation-prone quest for self-actuation or realization [psychology], together with making everything measurable by exact physical sciences in re forming customs, cultures, laws, and so forth in support of advancing the biologically “most worthy” specimens at minimum trauma to the “less evolutionarily favored” [yet not necessarily with their knowledge or consent]. A similar yet creation transcendence-respecting view is any one which says…henotheistic or not…ONLY pure energy of some kind exists and empowers one in their epigenetic constant contests with every other person on earth, all one can vanquish any old way being “the spoils of attunement to power”; however, such would seem more atheist protected free speech than religious expression where only amorphous energy, not a purposeful Creator or Divine intercessor, is said to be the alpha and omega re discarding with ethics.
In that secular science has established our universe indeed had to be created by what scientists term a “transcendental causal agent”, that sure sounds like what old Parmenides [and perhaps his contemporaries and forebears] reasoned over two millennia ago. There was no earthly Jesus yet in his day, and neither were there the seemingly infinite strands of Christian expression since the time of Jesus…nor was there Islam, Scientology, Reikki, Gurdjief-Ouspensky, and so on. Parmenides himself thought he was descended from angels, which would collide with Jewish theology about their reason for a Great Flood, and thought assorted gods and goddesses penetrated to our realm depending on their vocation of dedication to helping evil or dedication to helping good. Parmenides appears to have pursued reaction to Divine creation through reasoning the heavens control the earth, with ethical conduct being most favored by whatever the highest Absolute may be…the only “epigenetic” feature being all subject to the same Heavens are humans, period.
Like Parmenides, my metaphysics are ontological, acknowledge a transcendental Creator of the universe and all in it, and believe conducting oneself with the best possible ethics for their station or mass circumstances…with eye to opportunity of eternal progress for all…gives the best prospectus for one’s own acceptance into the next level of progress the Divine has in store. This sort of Deist view requires no particular denomination, spirit quest/cosmology or culture, celebrates all persons on earth who cherish ethical conduct and the freedoms from cultural pressures against it, yet also encourages psychologists and secular authority where some take a refusal of ethics to a personal or social extreme or diminution.
Yes, I do believe Jesus Christ as the Savior of mankind…on authority only He and His Father could demonstrate, all Jesus represented was that turning to ethics and staying there (not gold, human sacrifices, power, etc.) forgives sins and increases chances of entering Paradise, with all who do this internally with or without “news” being His kin without need to give up dignity, culture or lifestyle; many Rabbis to this day call on Jews and all people to hear the call to ethics in the Old Testament and Hebrew ephemera; many non-violent Imams and Jurists to this day call on Muslims and all people to hear the ethical call of God; Hindus believe in a terrible next life depending on how unethically one lives in this one; in fact, the most common historical reaction to Absolutes in ANY culture or systematic theology is: “do the ethical thing”…based on mental senses that the “transcendental causal agent” brought forth into this illusionary existence from a place not all like us or our stars, dramas, woes, and tendency to self-absorption.
Thus all I do in this blog is support the cause for belief in a purposeful transcendental Absolute in general, and support ULC Monastery’s veracity as a bona fide religion dedicated to progress for all people based on responsible ethical conduct. In ULCM polls, I consider to MY best acumen and references on the questions and any relevance to further issues, usually offering my own opinion in support of other ULCM ministers and sometimes just pointing out overlooked “elephants in the room”.
Though there is nothing wrong with it per se, I am not one who rushes through the ULCM minister directory attempting to get as many people to sign up as friends of mine, for some “strength by seeming numbers” impression is not my interest as if needed to give credibility to my blog; I never advertise in the ULCM classifieds or related site(s); I am aware the most regular blog readers and poll participants are ULCM ministers, a number having their own substantial faith or secular perspectives.
As someone who reasonably believes at all times only other insightful ministers might be interested in what I have to say, I make a poor target for “flaming” or cyberstalking, if for no other reason as usually my ULCM blog words neither have nor seek life outside their monastic sharing purpose…that’s a tiny number of “admirers” if one tries a badger game to “ruin” someone. In semi-public life as a ULCM minister, I sometimes give ontological ethics perspectives or rite advice to people who talk like I do; in personal life, I give wings to my metaphysics by doing my best at doing the ethical thing without public reference to any “ism”, credentials, status, or sounds of my own horn.
But this may not be the level of comfort for ULCM or some other current or future ministers; it hurts a whole organization to have any part(s) abused, and many are turned off by ranters and cyberstalkers…reducing public interest, reducing ministerial interest, reducing organizational efficacy.
For example, recently I was confronted by someone of self-occluded identity apparently not wanting anyone to speak up for anything Jewish; this party as “Anonymous” created or Google cut-pasted numerous vile or contradictory things allegedly written by me, all pasted into every one of my ULCM blog posts beginning two hours after a pro-Rabbinical post; this party cannot identify a purpose(s) for this behavior, nor can they tell me which of a global array of people with my name they think I am; this party cannot match anything asked for…just to hurt me, ULCM, Jews, combinations thereof?
Whatever, and “Boo!” right back to you, Anonymous. Like the stars, one day Anonymous and their ilk will likely burn out, and I can and will just ignore such antagonist(s) until then…and yes, where apropos, I will continue to participate in ULCM polls and blogging. But this all leads to advice promised in my captioned title: ministers and interested parties, when dealing with the general public via internet, phone, or otherwise, do NOT just assume anyone contacting you wants you chop-chop out of respect for your new religious interest or calling…know who you’re dealing with before trusting ANY voice or internet header, but don’t let criticism grind you down if you’re one who truly believes “We Are One”.
[The origin of Western metaphysics goes back to “On Nature” composer Parmenides (then Governor of Elea), who gave the topic the distinctive feature of attempting to understand the universe by means of a logical investigation of concepts rather than an empirical inquiry based on sensory evidence; probably why “metaphysics” comes from the Greek “meta ta phusica” (“after the things of nature”). Aware that actually African and Eastern philosophers have always conceived of metaphysics as a de facto cosmos concerned with human moral quality, I note that Parmenidean influence led Plato to extend the ontological binary opposition of reality/illusion to epistemology, morality, and politics in a way converging as reasoned support for African/Eastern moral concepts, having religious significance in Plato’s doctrine of recollection (immortality of the soul).
I operate by such Platonism or monism, just like a ULC saying “We Are One”, and others may instead elect to follow African/Eastern traditional metaphysics, as do some Muslims, Jews, others, and even Christians; but on what ground should such Parmenidean ontology be dismissed, regulated, banned, or labeled psychology? Shall an admittedly minority opinion, regardless of accuracy and its gaining momentum, just be crushed to aid continuation of those insisting all spirituality and definitions of metaphysics “must” be epigenetically construed regardless of even one’s own sacred texts or history?]
