When chatting with a friend recently we discovered that we had (independently) come to a similar place in our lives -- a wonderfully light, free and peaceful place.

We found that we each had arrived at this place by doing something exceedingly simple -- we had finally "let go" blaming others, or blaming "out there" or "suffering" blame from others, or suffering or feeling lonely, or ...

In response to the question "Does God exist?" on a forum in LinkedIn, I drafted the following, which seems to be sufficiently well-formed to be posted here, prior to posting there as well:

----------------------

There is no "God" in a purely objective, independent sense for that would require weird, nonsensical disconnects (within any holodynamic systems, or indeed any reasonable rational context).

The idea of an independent creator was an idea developed during the childhood of humanity:

Bishop John Shelby Spong:

"Religion ... was for most of human history, always childlike and by definition authoritarian. It was, to be specific, a primary activity of the childhood of our humanity as a species."1

I was dialoguing with members of a "systems thinking" group who it seems are all left-brained, mechanical-universe thinkers who believe that there's no metaphysical dimension to life. It's all just physical stuff.

So I wondered, how do you offer a bit of a 'chink' in their thinking, beyond the Proofs of the Impossibility of Physical Movement1 as I've previously explained to them?

So I wrote the following. Maybe it'll help some, maybe not.

When writing Be and Become during the latter half of the 90's, the various revisions of the manuscript1 included chapter (Nine) titled as "Men are particles, women are waves".

However, prior to publication I had the thought (contrary to my better instincts) that the chapter would best be titled differently, to what is now "Material men, wonderful women". It was, I thought, less likely to be dismissed as 'stereotyping' people, even though I felt at ease with the "Men are particles ..." title.  "Men are particles, women are waves" quite adroitly and succinctly expresses the inherent dynamics of life towards individualism, and collectivism -- men and male animals do (as a general rule!) bias themselves towards the hard, physical, individualistic side to life (characteristic of particles). Women do bias themselves towards the soft, interconnective, cooperative, relationship side to life (characteristic of waves and fields).

Stereotyping?

Hardly -- walk down any street asking everyone encountered their occupation.  Then note the gender percentages of those in the 'hard-sciences', engineering and Information Technologies, compared with those in care services, humanities and communications.

The bias is not because men or women are 'pushed' into the various professions, or due to restrictions such as 'glass ceilings'. There's been plenty of attempts to get more women into IT, but they simply just aren't as interested ... as a GENERAL rule!. Yes, there's always exceptions, but we're talking 'bias' in numbers, of percentages, not of exceptions.

Anyway, this all goes to remind me of the need to follow my intuition, not what the naysayers might say, or what I think might be best in terms of my work.

It doesn't pay to second-guess that which is beyond modeling or explanation -- the intuitive.

To be a superlative Belief Doctor one must remain 'outside' and independent of the belief-systems being analysed, in order to be unhindered and free to look with fresh eyes at the assumptions and beliefs that are routinely accepted as 'fact'.

As a result when I'm asked if I'm actually a doctor (presumably most ask in terms of my being a medical doctor) I answer a resounding NO, definitely not!

Moreover to have a doctorate (or indeed any qualification) would send the wrong message to those who need a new, empowering world-view. And that message is:

'You don't need anyone's permission, certificate or grade-mark to enjoy health, wellbeing and fulfillment. Your 'internal guidance system' - your inner knowing - is your highest authority. By all means get advice from others, and gain whatever qualifications are needed to operate the machinery of life (be it scalpel, jumbo jet or whatever) but for the important stuff, learn to trust yourself and go your own way. Forge your own path, be intuitive, perceptive and creative. We are each our own authority.'

If I deserve any authority it is because of the power and congruency of my ideas, and their efficacy, not on some external credential. But even then I'd be cautious and reserved about accepting any such authority, even for the 'right' reasons.

Historically we've been in a child-like state, culturally speaking - looking up to "higher" authority. We're not grown-ups, spiritually speaking, at least not yet.  We're culturally habituated to follow, and to not creatively and powerfully lead our own lives, without much care for what the neighbours might think.

When I suggest to people to "lead God" many are shocked by the sheer audacity of such an idea. They're deeply shocked by the sacrilege. But the idea of "leading God" is simple common sense ... in that God must be the All of all of us,1 and cannot be anything less, so when like children we are genuinely, spontaneously creative we lead our parents, our friends, family, and the community ... and God. That's what we call genuine creativity, when the whole of creation in effect looks on in wonderment (for where else is such wonderment to be sourced, if not within each of us).

The ultimate authority, one that could be described as a meta-authority is the creativity to forge new paths, to break new ground, to illuminate the way with our light, and to add to creation, not merely be passive, lame, "God fearing" recipients of it.

While visiting a friend in Barkandji Country (Aboriginal country around Wilcannia, and along the Darling River), I was given a book "Voices of the first day", by Robert Lawlor. It contains concepts and ideas which are highly congruent with my basic model of The Theory of One and All. In fact the language and ideas are strikingly similar.

In Be and Become I recounted how I'd learned via meditation courses to 'sense' the inside-ness of materials such as copper and iron, and that of plants and other materials. This has quite a practical benefit, in that by being able to 'sense' inside the material things of life, we can, for example, be more aware of the dynamics of a motor vehicle -- sensing when it needs maintenance, or when it is approaching some mechanical problems (highly pertinent when in the middle of no-where without mobile phone coverage, and other circumstances, as explained in more detail here :). The awareness is only limited to the direction in which we focus it.

Do you genuinely seek answers to the deeper questions and problems of life?

Then you'll find some different and arguably deeper, and more congruent perspectives at this site. Hopefully they'll be of value to you. The ideas provided are based on timeless truths, and are (at least in my experience) able to be applied in all areas of life. Enjoy. Steaphen Pirie The Belief Doctor