I often hear of, or run across people who espouse all sorts of ... well, quite frankly, incoherent, silly ideas and beliefs.

For example, in response to one forum, I received the comment that "there is no right answer or absolute."

Well, let's consider that ... no absolute? Absolutely no commonality, at all?

That begs the question .. if there's no underlying commonality, no absolute common ground to existence, what then enables it and us to all interact? What's the 'connective tissue' that enables that interactivity? What's the ground upon which, and by which, separate things move and connect?

So, here's a response I crafted that kiboshes a few misunderstandings.

Enjoy.

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

Consider some "stuff" of which the entirety of existence is composed. Not physical, not even necessarily spiritual. Let's just call it "stuff".

Now, this 'stuff' is, by definition, literally everywhere, in everything, everyone one, every thought, God, Evil ... it's literally everywhere. In fact there is no place it is not. Given its ubiquity, we can say it is 'one-stuff'.

If we want to believe that some spiritual beings or others are not composed of this one-stuff, we need ask of what they are made. Whatever that is, it will ultimately need to be made of said 'one-stuff' in that said one-stuff is the ground stuff of all existence. no exceptions.

Now it gets interesting.

I've just had a vigorous discussion with some friends, and what was most interesting to observe is the extent to which people (including myself) engage either-or thinking.

My friend (let's call him 'George') quoted Anthony De Mello, along the lines of "what you have to realise is that you're asleep, and that you need to wake up". Which in effect meant that I? wasn't in the least "awake" -- aware, considerate, conscious, enlightened or good. No sir, not at all, not even a skerrick of enlightened awareness. None. Ziltch.

That's either-or thinking. None or all, right or wrong. One or the other, but certainly not ever BOTH at once.

I shared my view that people are variously "awake" and "asleep", aware and ignorant, considerate and selfish at the same time. I explained the inherent reality of the paradoxical nature of life and that all qualities and potentials are co-existent. It's just that some get accentuated more than others at various times and at various junctions in our evolution.

My friend countered, "but most people can't understand the complexity of paradoxes ..."

There has been an at-times vigorous debate on various Internet forums1 over an age-old problem that has persisted for over 2,400 years.

It's a problem that was, in a metaphorical sense, wonderfully illustrated by the "Somebody Else's Problem" scenario in the Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers to the Galaxy series.

In recent years there's been much talk of the Law of Attraction, popularised in the film "The Secret".

As with many systems of belief, there is a great deal that is helpful and uplifting about the "Law of Attraction".  We can and do attract favourable (or unfavourable) 'things' into our lives, based on our beliefs.

But the attractive principle is a deeply feminine energy - it's reliant on the receptive (on receiving); of being open and inviting.

What's missing is quite simple to see and appreciate: the masculine energy of deliberate, forceful 'action.'

Last night while enjoying a wonderful dinner I had the pleasure of engaging conversation with a number of intelligent men on matters philosophical.

It became evident that some held beliefs that were rooted in the ideal of perfection: the age-old belief that when we get 'over there' or perhaps 'up there' everything will be 'perfect' (at which time, we'll have 'transcended' the troubling, fault-ridden ego).