maanantai 17. syyskuuta 2012

ABOUT UTOPIAS

We could state right away that it is not wrong to create and develop new ideas and fantasies but that a perfect utopia is a difficult task to accomplish. People and their expectations are far too different for that. If there were a total consensus in a community, it would be difficult to find well developed individuals to take care of all necessary, common affairs. Maybe we must admit that utopias do not belong to this worldly life, and that is why all attempts seem to fail. Life in general serves primarily as a school for human consciousness, so that the standards of a school must be strong enough to ensure a continuous development. All problems with their solutions are just power for the growth of a human mind. An attempt to make the circumstances of life as easy as possible will fail in time. People still need more ruthless and coarse im-pulses to support their natural process of learning. It is beneficial, and even essential to aim at a balanced state in a society. In that purpose, it would be nec-essary to take into account a few basic things concerning a human being: A human being is a combination of mind, soul and spirit – a psychophysical part being a revelation of the soul, which in turn dwells within and has its origin in one’s spiritual essence or source. This view could be proposed even to schoolchildren in order to create an understanding that life is not just for passing by but that it bears in itself a spiritual meaning for the lives all creatures. There are always young and enthusiastic people as well as old and protective ones in a society. That is why it is essential that there is a common understanding or consensus about the most significant aims of life in general. The over anxious people often have too little experience on which to base their views and actions. The older people in turn have too much negative experience so that they often end up resisting all sudden changes. There are no other means but common values among these groups that can keep them together in fruitful cooperation. There must also be a clear view of the role of the community in realizing the common aims. It should be evident that every healthy adult takes responsibility at least of himself, but a certain standard of security or welfare state may serve quite well in taking care of actions and functions that people themselves cannot do or do not want to do. This should not lead to the belief that life is just for fun and amusements. A so called welfare state must be based on the profitable work of people, not on printing more money or taking more and more loans for living and consumption. For politicians, it is often extremely difficult to see and acknowledge the economic limits as they are trying to fulfil the endless wishes of their voters and supporters. In order to maintain and encourage all kinds of work the sharing of wealth through taxation should be kept in a reasonable level. Democratic systems an acting trough political party is often considered the best way of government. It has come to common usage from ancient Creek – the country that today shows a very sad example to the world. Plato was not devoted to a democratic system for even in bright things there always arouses resis-tance. Maybe we should someday start to think whether the political parties are necessary for proper managing of common things. Parties are a sure way of arousing arguments and quarrels, sometimes even civil wars. It should not be impossible to create a system without preconditioned blocks – so that it acts directly on the basis of sound reason and common interest. Many people would say that a system without parties cannot work in a large scale, but is this true. Certainly we cannot arrange referendum in all possible affairs, so we must elect our best representatives to do the job. Could this be done on a pure basis of individual qualities – that is the question worth thinking? A totalitarian regime in all forms has but extremely few outstanding examples. Attempt to press people into a strict modes or patterns end up to a highly unnatural society with insincere, suspicious and often corrupted ways of behaviour. Progress needs a fair portion of freedom and liberty even if its blossom does not always look out beautiful. It is comforting to remember that the human expressions here in this world are seldom perfect but that they in time can cultivate the mind in bringing forth excellent results. It is always better encourage beneficial behaviour than to try to stop defiant one by ever growing legisla-tion. The more laws the more criminals, quarrels and lawyers. To avoid overprotective systems, a growing awareness of responsibility should be an essential issue in upbringing children.

A few notices about confessions

What is the aim of a confession in general? To strengthen cohesion and fellowship among people, and to give people something concrete to identify themselves. A confession is, in fact, an oath, a promise to think in a certain way especially about religious issues. There are confessions in many other affairs, too. Almost all bureaucrats and officers have their own laws and rules which to follow. It is easy to accept that policemen and all other officers have strict regulations to be able to act somewhat similarly for all citizens. Here, too, rules are sometimes lifted in a too dominant position, so that the voice of reason is forgotten. Rules and regulations should be the aid for right actions, not a substitute for responsibility and sound thinking. Political parties have confessions of their own which contain in written form the main aims of their activities. Sometimes these declarations lose their touch to the ever changing reality, but it is often difficult to make fundamental alterations to the statements with a long history. If we look at the history of religions, it is quite easy to find out that confessions have often caused severe struggles – even wars. We could also notice that the differences between confessions concern the ideas that are difficult to be testified with concrete facts. Religious arguments are often based on old scriptures and tradition, but how can we be sure that this text contain the original ideas in their right forms? The confessions attained on any convent are usually compromises, thoughts of the majority, which does not guarantee their degree of truth. Why do people often think that men in the past were much wiser in religious thinking than we are today? Is it because they were closer to the original impulse? Consider that they had all gone wrong! It is no wonder that some mystic intervention of the Holy Ghost has been used to sanctify situations where fundamental decisions have been made. In Christian Church, most quarrels have been raised up from diverging interpretation of Holy Scriptures and old confessions. It should be understood that there has never been verbal expressions of which different people could get just the same mental image. Individual mental images are based on personal experience, and every living creature has a history of his own. There are similarities in thoughts, but total alikeness is a rare quality. In most democracies, a freedom of speech, writing and a meeting is self-evidence, in spite of that, in affairs of religion; people tend to restrict their thinking into the frames of some old confession. In Christian countries, this was understandable a few centuries ago when diverging ideas often led into serious consequences. Today we should have no reason to accommodate ourselves to any idea without thorough consideration. Some people would probably tell us that it is dangerous for a soul to take liberties like this. All ideas in religious matters are perfected long ago by holy men, for us there is nothing new to be thought. It is hard to run over any of the religious boundaries, which are proposed as common and eternal truths. Most people keep silent if they have ideas of their own in these delicate affairs. They do not voluntarily want to face the pressure of masses. It is enough that they can get along with their own conscience, which often brings up the accusations that are born in the environment since one’s childhood. Many people would say that it is easier to drive together on well-signed roads and highways than to walk alone in unknown forest and deserts. Maybe that suits most individuals but are those well-signed ways leading people into an advanced mental or even spiritual goal? Are they but practical means for leaders in keeping their own flog under control and together as payers? Very few people dare to have confidence in their own thinking. It is more common to let religious matters be untouched and focus totally on ordinary and safe things. There are people who are not satisfied in common fixed ideas but who want to break all questionable barriers to see, what is behind them. They will soon find out that one can search one’s ways without confessions and other crutches. A confession may be taken as hypothesis on which it is appealing to find an experiential ground. In doing so one often gets a label of pride and arrogance, but that is not a high price for freedom of thinking – or is it? A social pressure might work as a maturity test for those who want to remove the curtains of mysteries. Most people are quite satisfied with mysteries in their literal forms, and there is nothing wrong in that. A few individuals cannot confess anything unless they experience it by and in themselves. They think that all mysticism must reveal its extreme nature as a person manages to rise above all his mental limitations. This means the same as the old expression of “losing oneself”. A limited way of perception finds all things and phenomenon as ever changing, separate objects. The mystic aims at the state where the extreme essence of any object can be experienced, in fact, even the extreme essence without any object, life itself, becomes known. Maybe we could say that it is the highest time to leave behind the belief, “there is no salvation outside the church or parish”. The statement comes from Cyprian of Antioch, who derived it from a poorly grounded and justified belief that only bishops had right to forgive sins – and there were no bishops outside the church. It is not difficult to see in what purpose this devious idea has been awoken – it gives the clergy the means and power to keep their folks regimented. In conclusion, it is possible to live in or outside any church while maintaining one’s inner liberty and freedom of thought. Even for many theologians, uniting into traditional confessions causes some trouble. They must search allegorical interpretations in order to let themselves take part in literal confessions. It is the highest time to lower the value of words coming from the misleading rendering of a Creech word ‘logos’ into Latin ‘verbum’. We should understand that it is much more crucial what one is in his heart than what words one is thinking to believe in.