Can God be better understood by looking at who is happiest?

People who hold to a belief that the other is evil are shown to be statistically less happy than people who see good in the other.

People who hold to legalism of prohibition are less happy.

People who invest in friends / family and live in 'the grove' are happier.

Christ came to teach:
  Grace
  Love Others
  Compassion 
  Community


In experiencing the license of grace, NOT legalism of prohibition,  real transformation and happiness is possible.

two observations about emergent christianity

Observation:  Emergent Christian leaders seem a lot more interested in fighting about why they don't we have more minority leaders in the emergent church than they do talking about why so many people are hungry in the world.

Observation:  Solomon's Porch is a place w/o a preacher.  It is up to me to read the bible (in community).  I miss the preacher.  I have started to attend Revolution to hear Jay Bakker preach.  If I think the preacher believes what he is saying I don't have to.

Love is a state, it is no longer a 1 for the 0 to scapegoat.

Computational scientists generally accept the minimum time for an algorithm to be considered 'efficient' is that its running time is polynomial:  O(n^c) where n is the size of the input….. 95% of computational scientists work in this space…  They call the stuff that doesn't compute as "easily" NP-Hard… really that just means they haven't figured out a good way to solve the issue in polynomial time.  5% of computational scientists work in this space.  They tend to share an office with an applied mathematician.  This is where 'big money' and 'big data' meets 'big science'.

I've never bought into the theory that stuff is either Polynomial or P!=NP … My gut says it is because Turing machines are fundamentally fond of polynomials. To make P=NP it may be best to use a non Turing architecture. The good news is that I don't publish or study computational sciences so my total lack of understanding of the space lets me not give a fuck if I'm right or wrong.  My belief is that the basic binary approach of modern computer systems is what is making us scared of traveling sales men … WTF do I mean by that you ask?  It means that modern computer systems think in ones and zeros and only know how to do some base operators on those ones and zeros (even CISC and vector processors are still reduced down to 1 and 0 of a transistor ...)… At the root of all computer operations is the need to calculate and store a one or a zero result in a register…. Hence why most computational sciences has a run-time if polynomial.  Because at its core so is a microprocessor (pun intended).  Let's put a pin in that idea.

What if we had a computational system that was not based on a Turing architecture but instead could use algorithms that didn't need intermediate resolution… what if we had an architecture to store a equation state and compare it to another equation state without ever calculating or resolving either state or even the final resolution… I hear of three options to solve P!=NP problems and #2 is 'innovative':

1) The current computer architecture scales out to the point the calculation capability overcomes the need for efficiency… an example of this would be the the latest heterogeneous HPC architecture.  In these systems a relatively limitless number (think millions) of cell processors (Playstation3 volume has made them super cheap) lightly coupled via FPGA directly to an infiniband backbone.  In short, the system has a relatively limitless amount of vector processing capabilities.  The system can take a sloppy algorithmic approach of "dropping it's unit on the table" and just calculate the vector space around any vectorized input (NLP, etc).  Rainbow table based cracking isn't cracking... it is just a form of bruit force. This is just slightly more intelligent than that... but not much.

2)  What if we go way outside the box and build a new architecture that is not based on 1 or 0.  Two examples would be:  1) Quantum computer,  2) Bio-Computer.  In these systems rather than having a 0 or a 1 the computational system is based on two input equation states and storing a result without necessarily being able to calculate or resolve either input function.  Clearly not polynomial.  If one is calculating the NP-Hard problem of "cliches" one could imagine all sorts of ways to do this within biological systems.

3)  Fuck… I forgot what the third option was.. it was based on extreme parallel Processor In Memory in a model that was similar to a neurological system.  However the more I think about that it sounds like #1 above…

Early in my career… back when I did real work … I helped build 'big' systems (#1 above) … I started my afternoon trying to read a paper on emerging architectures in the 2nd space… but it's been a few hours and I'm on page 2…

The last few years I've been focused on how a modern understanding of reality (understand something before you believe it) has evolved into post-modern understanding that Truth is relative to the point Truth is not an answer but can have an expression based on a question…


Summary:  Modern computer architecture is like modern philosophy and emerging alternative architectures (Quantum/bio) are analogous to post-modern philosophy and function of 'love' in emergent christianity…

Love is a state, it is no longer a 1 for the 0 to scapegoat.

My favorite IoG13 quotes

Pete Quotes

“You are in your house weeping – collecting urine in bottles”

“The kid gets the puppy.  Forgets to feed it.  Dad makes him watch as he drowns it in the tub”

“If you have limitless resources you will take holidays in the Bahamas.  After you have done three or four of those you get bored and rob a bank.”

 “If you want a religious experience take drugs and go to a football match”

Barry Quotes

“I’ve seen behind the curtain and the wizard is a very short man”

 “Why is Justin Timberlake selling a million albums, and David Bowie is selling a few thousand?  Something is wrong with the universe & brilliance of packaging”

Jay Quotes

“You dropped something” – in response to Barry’s sharing he worked for AC/DC

Day 5 of IoG13: winding down

Most of the morning was a discussion about the death of the theistic God and how to help people in that transition.  We also discussed the purpose of prayer (it helps the person praying).  Frankly I think we have spent as much time in psychoanalysis this week as we have exploring radical theology.  Some examples of how to create space where people can practice this sort of radical theology:

·      Broken Liturgy . Trying to draw people in.  Not entertain.  Not give them an answer.  Instead draw them in to help them look deep inside themselves.  Not give them a God.  If anything it is to help them question the God they have made.  Face the suffering.

·      RevolutionNYC . Speaker.  Open about doubt.  Allows questions and doesn’t force a truth. 

·      IKON .Transformance art

I had a wonderful lunch with Katherine Moody.  She has a great mind.  We talked a little about her research and she answered one of my questions.  It wasn’t the answer I hoped for.  But she was honest.  So it is my job to go back home and change her answer.

Notes from IoG Day 4: Thoughts on theology and my resulting thoughts on polygraphs and strippers

-->

Observation 12: It is OK to explore changes in theology … just be careful

Barry Taylor shared Pitirim Sorokin’s philosophy and Berry’s opinion that we are in a sensate period. Sorokin classified societies according to their 'cultural mentality', which can be "ideational" (reality is spiritual), "sensate" (reality is material), or "idealistic" (a synthesis of the two). He also shared that Marshall Mcluhan views on technology change the world.  

Barry shared that we live in a different environment than past ages.  God is still just as unknown and unfathomable as He always has been, but we have changed.   Barry asserts if you want to redefine Christianity, you have to go back to Paul.  Barry is looking at reviewing the Christian theology.  According to Barry the thing we think is least in need of change - the story of our faith - is the thing that needs to change the most.  Christianity is willing to change its forms a million times over, just so we can avoid having to change the story we're telling. The focus of Barry's talks was not on reviewing the practice of Christianity, but the theology.  I think we need to review both practice and theology.  But this talk was about changing the theology.  Clearly most Christian’s are afraid of discussing changes to the theology. The emerging change to theology is not a change to God, but a change to how we understand God.

Paul’s initial interaction with Christianity is that he was struck blind.  Barry’s reinterpretation of Paul is focused on Paul’s three days of blindness, not about seeing.  Paul had to begin again in darkness.  The darkness disempowers Paul.  There is always an outsider… that is where God is.  We are all broken.  As we come to an understanding of brokenness in ourselves we can accept the other person.

“If I ever become a Saint — I surely be one of ‘darkness’. I will continually be absent from Heaven — to light the light of those in darkness on earth.” – Mother Teresa

Barry/Pete had a discussion about sin not being a moral failure, but rather a “failure to look at your own brokenness.  It is the pursuit of anything good/bad that prevents you from looking at your own darkness.”  I see sin as the moral failure that is not choosing to do good for the benefit of the other even at the expense of yourself by overcoming (accepting) your darkness.  For me it is the failure to love the other, not the pursuit to overcome darkness of self.  Maybe it is the same thing, but I don’t think so.  I can be OK with my own darkness (I think I just admitted to being a narcissistic sociopath).  Some of the greatest change happens when you realize you can’t change and that is OK (grace).  My darkness is not the area of focus for me… the area of focus for me is focus on helping the other.  I suck at that.  When done correctly (Kingdom of God) I can help others overcome their darkness, and they help me overcome my darkness.  But first I dismissed my darkness and love the other. For me sin, is failing to selflessly help the other.

I have inner darkness. I’m being really honest here and it will probably get me in trouble…. I’ve had a strange relationship with my internal darkness.  Given that for most of my adult life I have had take a “lifestyle polygraph” two times a year where nothing is off limits (perverse sexual preferences, etc) and admit my inner darkness to some stranger from the US Department of Defense who cataloged it in a computer… I have had to learn that my inner darkness is just part of me.  For the last 5 years I had to adjudicate other peoples confessions.  After 20 years of openly talking about my inner darkness I found nothing to be emotionally ashamed of, just intellectually aware of (I am very dark… so this isn’t a dismissal because I have ‘good character’… it is a statement of being OK with my darkness).  If you are not aware of your darkness, I suggest sitting for a lifestyle polygraph.  It can be liberating to have to face how dark you really are.   I find it ironic that to get access to a nations greatest secrets one must be willing to have no secrets of their own.  But I don’t think sin is being unable to except ones darkness, I think it is failing to act in kindness to the other at the expense of self.

Here is an example:  I can totally accept my desire to go see naked women dance (strippers).  While I have no issue with that desire, others may call it darkness.  Frankly I don’t have issues with strippers, if that is what they want to do with their time.  However, I’m married and know it upsets my wife if I even go to the strip club.  To me the sin is not desiring to see a stripper, seeing a stripper, or stripping.  The sin is failing to love my wife enough to give up something I want because it is hurts her. 

Yes, I sin.  I can be a real prick (especially at work).  When I do it bothers me.  God has grace.  This bothers me more because it doesn’t feel justified.  But I have to acknowledge it and use that acknowledgment to share it with others.

Question 2:  Is sin the failure to look at ones own brokenness, or is sin the failure to love others over self?

Pete also talked about if the crucifixion was not (just?) an atonement but an event to demonstrate the removal of all cultural identities (when people were crucified their cultural, social and religious titles and identities were stripped from them).   

We spent the afternoon in workshops.  I attended on on magic.  It was awesome.  After dinner we are going to hear Katherine Moody talk.  Sadly I won't have my laptop to take notes as we are going to a concert (Duke Special and John Hardt) directly following Katherine's talk.  I'm excited to hear Katherine talk because I hope she will be able to shed some light on Question #1.

IoG Day 3: Rehab, Denial causing desire, Magic & Others

This morning we were asked to share why we are attending the conference, here are some answers:

1)   To learn the words to express non-theistic theism.

2)   To see and participate in a space of transformance art (IKON) where different opinions are encouraged and respected

3)   Understand the intersection between Psychoanalysis and Religion

4)   It is hard to find people in the middle ground between giving up in faith and repressing ones doubt

5)   I feel like I’m the only kid who doesn’t believe in Santa Clause any more and don’t want to ruin it for the other kids.

Observation #9  Is Radical / Emergent Theology ‘rehab for Christians’ or is it a new view on Christ’s message?

Personally, I have radical doubts about God, but a faith in God that transcends the theistic idea of God.  I don’t understand how somebody without a theistic God to cast doubt upon moves into the same space I find myself in.  If this is closer to a Truth (capital T) than mainstream Christianity … does it attract outsiders? 

Question 1:  What fraction of people attracted to Radical Theology are hung-over Christians vs. people new to faith?

Pete’s explanation on how to read Pete’s stuff…

Observation #10:  Denial causes desire

Adam and Eve are walking around.  They were given one prohibition (don’t eat of the tree of the knowledge-of-good-and-evil).  What makes the tree magical?  The prohibition is what makes it powerful (the pleasure is created by denial).  The prohibition of saying “you can’t have this” creates something beautiful.

 

When you have a drive of desire it will cause you to work against yourselves.  At times we are like zombies in our pursuits (Zombies have a self-detrimental desire for human flesh).  Superego injunction to enjoy. "Like it or not, enjoy yourself!" (Zizek).

What one sees play out in the book of Genesis is the excessive drive for the prohibited.  It is not the prohibited that is evil, it is the desire created by the prohibition that is evil.  

Six months after we are born we have our subjective birth of self (mirror test). This birth is when we lose our connectedness and grow our isolation.  We have an awareness of self and therefore an awareness of non-self.  We spend our lives trying to re-fill that connectedness.

To bridge the gap we create a theistic God.  An Idol.   

Observation #11:  Magic and Pete are hard to understand

In a community where you say “you don’t have to change, you are accepted” creates an environment where you can move past the idol and into a space where you can truly desire to care for somebody else and God.  Not out of a legalistic requirement, but because of a true desire to care.

Legalistic Barrier à Do whatever you want à Desire to share grace with others

Everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial.

Pete tried to explain Genesis as kind of like a magic trick.  It has the three main parts of a magic trick; Pledge, Turn & Prestige.  I didn’t really track him on this.

The idol exists until you get it.  Love doesn’t exist until you love.  Its characteristics are in many ways opposite of the idol.

I think Pete is saying Christianity that uses the idol of God is missing the point and   Jesus came to show that.  The big reveal was at his crucifixion when the curtain in the temple ripped open and nothing was there.  Jesus didn’t show us an Idol inside the temple He said and demonstrated love. 

I think he is saying a Christianity with a idealistic/theistic God is like a magic trick gone wrong.

I think Pete’s view on Christology is an invitation into a different mode of life.  It is not a mode of belief in an idolistic God.  It is an invitation into the destruction of the idol.  It is an invitation into a life of loving others.  God/Jesus came to show that. 

  

The crucifixion is not the good news that our debt has been paid or satisfied. The crucifixion reveals that the system of debt is forgotten.

If you start to question the structure you get asked to leave.

Gap 1 (Don’t accept) “I am not telling you depressing things, I’m telling you that you are already depressed”

Gap 2 (Acceptance) Nothing is going to sort it out.  This is the belief in God that transcends the idea of God.

Gap 3 (accept) This is the peace of finding the depth in our life by love.  Love is complex & helps embrace the infinite depth of experience.

Rather than distancing the other (gay, race, how/what to believe) Christianity is the calling to embrace the other.   At the core of Christianity is “Love your neighbor as yourself” 

·      To love yourself means to be able to come to terms with your own internal otherness (antagonisms and doubt) … then that will mean you will be able to bare the other.

·      To love yourself means accept your gap, which allows you to embrace the gap in the other.

·      If to 'love yourself' means to embrace the other in yourself (the disavowed) you become more able to love the other in other people.

In order to open yourself up to the other you have to be able to see yourself through their eyes.

Interfaith dialogs can only go so far.  We either try to convert, reject or ignore.  In all these “I am right.”  In an experience where you place yourself subservient to the other, you can see yourself through their eyes.  When this happens you can start to love the other, rather than try to overcome the other.  It is not about scapegoating the other, fighting the other or overcoming the other.  It is about seeing yourself through the eyes of the other, so you can love the other.

You can take down the peacewalls (see Observation #5) however if the people on the sides of the walls are not ready to embrace the others, it will do no good.

In current Christianity:  God is put up as the object that makes us happy.  God is the object that justifies our tribal identities.

What if Christianity’s purpose should be; we give up the Idol and the limits to our tribal identities … embrace the nothingness and the other.  The other becomes the instrument of our further conversion.  This seems to be the core of Christ’s message.


Sadly I became a walking dead after lunch.  Seriously despite people around me talking I have no idea what they were saying.  I was that tired.  I took a nap instead of dinner and then watched the movie http://kumaremovie.com/ with the rest of the crew.


Update:  In Observation #1 I came up with two categories of participants (folks who have not come out yet, and folks who don’t want to be branded as “Christian”).  Last night I met another one of the participants who is in a third category.  She is a pastor who values liturgy of a more mainstream Christianity (“mainstream” at least being a place that support female pastors).