Genesis of a Snowflake

In my 20+ years as a writer, the experience of bringing The Curious Snowflake to life was the most unique.  No other idea ever came to me in this way, no other idea stayed with me so long before finally coming to fruition, and no other idea devoured me so completely once I started it. 

Most of my ideas are visual or auditory, not conceptual.  When I get the itch to write something, it usually starts with an image or a conversation in my head.  Some of these bounce around once in my noggin and then disappear, but the good ones stay, rattling around like marbles in a bucket until I get them out and put them on paper.  TCS was different.  It started out as an idea rather than image or dialogue, or more accurately, it began as two ideas that collided, one from my childhood an another from my spiritual readings.

My mother is a very unique woman, as anyone who has met her can attest.  She always believed in challenging me intellectually and never dumbed anything down for me.  The place where this was most evident was in her choices in my childhood literature.  Yes, I got the typical staples, Seuss and such, but from a very young age my mother also read to me from the Bible and from books of poetry and classic literature.  I enjoyed these immensely (loved the plagues of Egypt story as a kid) but one of my absolute favorites was a collection of stories by Rudyard Kipling (best known for writing The Jungle Book) called The Just So Stories.  These were stories written by Kipling that he read aloud to his own daughter, whom he refers to throughout the collection as his Best Beloved.  The stories are universally charming, but the one I liked the best was one called The Elephant's Child.  It is the story of a young elephant who "was full of 'satiable curiosity, which means he asked ever so many questions" who then goes on a journey to discover what crocodiles have for breakfast.  Needless to say, this almost ends disastrously for the Elephant's Child. 

The second idea is one familiar to anyone who reads New Age literature, the image of souls as snowflakes.  My basic life philosophy is pantheistic; I believe that All Is One, appearing separate and linear for the purpose of creating experience.  Souls as snowflakes is a perfect parallel to this concept.  All snowflakes are made from the same thing, and yet every snowflake is unique because the possible variations is equal to the number of individual water molecules in the flake factorialized.  For you non-math people out there, that would be S times (S -1) times (S - 2)  and so on all the way down to 1.  So mathematically speaking, even considering the millions of snowflakes that fall in each snowstorm on Earth, the amount of time it would take for an exact replica of a snowflake to appear is longer than the age of the universe, and that's assuming that all snowflakes have exactly the same number of water molecules in them, which they obviously don't. 

Anyway, math nerding-out aside, the ideas of souls as snowflakes and the dangers and wonders of curiosity coexisted in my mind for many years until one day about 8 years ago.  I'd been on one of my spiritual reading kicks at the time, and I was cleaning out the bedroom my wife and I share in anticipation for the birth of our daughter.  Lo and behold, I come across the old copy of the Just So Stories my mother had given me when our oldest was born.  I sat down on the bed and started thumbing through it (I am one of the world's greatest procrastinators) and I come across The Elephant's Child.  Suddenly these two ideas collide in my head and the idea of The Curious Snowflake, a spiritual children's parable was born.  I rummaged around in the bedroom until I found a spiral notebook and pen (not difficult, I keep some in every room, which drives my DW nuts) and start writing.

I get about a page in and the idea died.  Utterly.  But it still itched at me, so I filed it away in the back of my head and forgot about it.  It stayed there, simmering away, for about 4 years.

More later.

Welcome Home, Beloved

Hello my friends,

It's been almost 3 years since I've used this blog, but since I have rededicated myself to TCS, I figured it was time for me to dust this old thing off and start using it again.  I will try to post something about once a week.

I do not know how it is for other creatives, but for me the whole process is about momentum.  As long as I keep creating, keep working, keep coming to the page and putting something on it, I'm okay.  The moment I lapse, everything calcifies.  I was going great guns on my WIP, Children of Dusk, for about 2 months, then a combination of work, stress, and a little videogame called Destiny pulled me away from it, and I've barely written 10 pages in the last 3 months.  Every time I went to the page, it felt like I was constipated.  The ideas were there, but they wouldn't come together.  Just yesterday, I finally got things moving again, but I don't know how long I can maintain the focus with it being December and all. 

Does anyone else have problems like this?

JCS

One Observation, One Conclusion, One Choice

All the philosophies, religions, and worldviews that exist come down to one observation, one conclusion, and one choice. We look at the world and our experiences and we observe that we are limited. We then must conclude one of two things; either we created these limitations or someone else did. From this comes our choice: accept or reject the limitations. To assume external limits and accept them is the path of organized religion (and atheism, for that matter). This is by far the easiest path: figure out the rules, follow them, and all will be right with the world. To assume external limits and reject them is the path conspiracy theorists and the archetypical New Age nuts choose. From this comes a life of conflict and strife, since to truly overcome the limitations is to negate one's purpose for living. So ever more elaborate constructs and ever deeper conspiracies must be uncovered in order to validate this worldview.

Yet both of these worldviews sidestep one important point (and atheism simply ignores it). If all of this springs from some Unlimited Source, where do all the limits originally come from? Can that which is Unlimited actually become limited? And if it could, where would the limits come from but the Unlimited itself? Either the limits must be illusions, or they are created and chosen, which are functionally the same thing. Either way, they only exist in the mind.

So this brings us to the second conclusion. To own the limits but resist them is the path of the spiritual seeker, constantly fighting against the millenia-ingrained tendency we have to limit ourselves. There is great sense of accomplishment is such a life, great sense of purpose, but it is not the highest path we can tread. The highest choice of all is to own that we create our limits and then to accept them. This all comes from a simple truth; to resist a thing makes it more real. Despite the realization, one who knows they create their limitations only makes them more solid by fighting them. Only by acceptance and joy in the creation and experience of one's limitations can we really be set free from them. In truth, conscious creation and acceptance of limits is the greatest form of freedom.

My favorite Bible story: Mark 11

I am not a Christian, but I still find great wisdom and insight in the Bible, especially in the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (John has it's moments, but I can take it or leave it). Of all the wonderful parts of the Gospels, the Beatitudes, Gethsemane, the parables, my favorite part is chapter 11 of the Gospel of Mark. It not only shows Yeshua ben Yosef, the man we now call Jesus, at the height of his ministry with his entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, but it shows his flaws and his humanness as well. Best of all, it shows Yeshua speaking of the true potential of humanity in the clearest of terms.

It begins, as I said, with Palm Sunday, and then continues to this (KJV)...

Quote:

Mark 11 12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: 13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

After this, Yeshua and the disciples enter Jerusalem, and we find the famous moneychangers in the Temple scene. Then this follows...

Quote:

Mark 11 19 And when even was come, he went out of the city. 20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. 21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away. 22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. 23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. 24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. 25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. 26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

There are three very important lessons in these verses. First, even more than the moneychangers scene, this story displays the essential humanness of Yeshua. This incredible man, this wonderful and wise teacher, loses his temper at a tree and kills it with a word (in Matthew the tree withers instantly, rather than overnight as here). This shows us that Yeshua is not perfect, he is flawed, just like all of us. How many of us have wounded another with unkindness in a moment of frustration? How many of us have gotten snappy with others, even others we love, when we are hungry, as he was? How incredibly normal and natural! This moment of imperfection on the part of Yeshua I find incredibly inspiring, because more than his temptation in the wilderness or his fear in Gethsemane or his doubt at Golgotha, this shows me a Yeshua I can relate to as another man, searching for peace within and without, and occasionally failing.

Notice then, in the second part, how he turns a negative into a positive. Instead of dwelling on his mistake, he uses the awe his followers feel at the sight of the dead tree into an object lesson in the power that all have within them. And notice also, there are no caveats or limits to the power of prayer (some were added to this same story in Matthew), only that one needs to believe, completely, in the power of the Divine and that the prayer will be answered. It doesn't matter what is prayed for, it doesn't matter the purity of the asker, all that matters is faith that goes beyond faith to perfect knowing and confidence.

But notice now the addendum to this teaching, the importance of forgiveness of others. This seems abrupt, almost a changing of subject, if one assumes the perfection of Yeshua, but in light of his flaws it makes perfect sense. Yeshua knows that he has done wrong by losing his temper and killing the tree, and in his heart he has asked the Divine for forgiveness for his trespass. Since this is on his mind, he then passes on the insight that God will forgive us precisely as much as we forgive others. With the knowledge of how close Yeshua is to his greatest forgivenesses of others at this time (the Tuesday before Good Friday), this teaching becomes especially poignant.

Mark 11, more than any other part of the Bible, reveals to me the true nature of the man we now call Jesus; God made man, yes, but not unique in this and, in his own way, just as flawed and human as any of us.

Why I cannot believe in the Monotheist God

Someone on SpiritualForums.com recently posted a link to download a PDF titled "Is Jesus God?", and, curious as always, I downloaded it and gave it a read. Other than two things, it contained no argument or line of reasoning I had not heard before. One of those two was interesting (a discussion of the logic of Yeshua's resurrection), but the other contained such inane leaps of logic I felt compelled to discuss it here.

At the end of the PDF was a 20 part logical Proof of the Divine. It began quite well (though not in any way that hasn't been used before before) with the idea that a universe with a definite beginning must have a Cause. From there it goes logically through the nature of such a Cause, but around Step 15 it starts to break down and make unfounded assumptions. I'll repost the final few steps here.

12. All the causes cannot be finite (non-ultimate) causes.

Therefore,

13. The personal moral existing Creator-Cause is infinite (i.e.,

ultimate).

14. The infinite cause must be eternal because eternality is infinity

applied to time (and no meaningful statement can be made about

space without reference to time).

15. An infinite eternal Cause could not change (since anything He

would change into, He would already be).

Therefore,

16. The Creator-Cause must be all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-

perfect (otherwise He could change).

Therefore,

17. A personal, moral, infinite, eternal, immutable (unchanging), all-

knowing, all-powerful, all-perfect Creator-Cause exists.

18. Such a Being is worthy of worship.

19. A Being worthy of worship can be called God.

Therefore,

20. GOD EXISTS.

Point 15 is really the core of why I cannot accept the ideas of Monotheism. The idea of an unchanging Divine, and the ideas of perfection that follow in 16 and 17, is the root of the idea of human imperfectness and sinfulness; God is infinite and we are finite, so if God is also perfect and perfection is infinite, we as finite beings must be imperfect. This is the genesis (pun intended) of Original Sin.

But what such a mindset misses is the unconscious limitations this perspective places upon the Divine. If the Divine is infinite and eternal (as stated in point 14), then the Divine must contain It's creation, since to not contain it creates a finitism; it says that this is something "God" is not. Yet if God contains Creation, God must also change, since change is the defining characteristic of Creation, and especially of Life. Therefore immutability cannot be an aspect of God, and mutability cannot be imperfect. Therefore we must be already perfect, since we are not separate from God.

The real leap of logic, however, is in #18. The idea that we should or need to worship the Divine is completely dependent upon the idea of God's separateness and our imperfection, yet as I stated above, the whole idea of our imperfection and separateness creates a limitation upon God, and therefore must not be true if God is infinite and eternal.

But this does not even touch upon the whole idea that worship of the Divine is a requirement. A requirement implies that worship is something that God needs or desires. If it is a need, it implies that somehow God would be lessened or damaged or hurt by not getting it, and how could that which is unlimited, eternal, and omnipotent be lessened, hurt, or damaged? The very idea that such could happen is a limitation in and of itself.

So therefore, worship must be required out of God's preference, yet why would such a preference exist? It must only exist if God created it. So what purpose does such a creation serve? It would imply that there is something God would prefer that would not manifest, and why would God create the desire for something and the situation where the desire could manifest, yet did not? This implies powerlessness on God's part, another impossibility.

The usual monotheist rebuttal of this is that God gave us free will so that we could come to God out of choice rather than out of compulsion, yet such a construction requires separation of God from Creation, which creates a limitation upon the Unlimited. For us to choose what God does not want us to choose would require God to have no part in our choices, which would require that we are separate from God. If we are separate from God, then there is something God is not, which is a limitation and therefore impossible.

What it comes down to is that the constructions of Western Monotheism require a limited and anthropomorphized Divine. While such idea do have an internal logic, they hinge upon assumptions that I find completely unfounded. Thus I have personally discarded the WM God and forged my own paths and ideas.

JCS

Music and the Chakras

It's a common belief that the chakras are aligned with the Western major musical scale, but it would be more accurate to say that that they almost are. Western music since the mid-18th century has been based on what is called an equal-tempered scale, meaning that the 12 chromatic semitones are vibrationally equidistant from each other. The upside to this is that it allows for instruments which can be played in many different keys. The downside is that the scales are slightly out of tune within themselves. We just don't notice this anymore because we've been listening to equal-tempered music for the last 250 years.

Also, the major/minor modality that we are so used to only developed in the West starting around 1650 or so. During the Renaissance and earlier, the major and minor scales were only two of six different scales (or Modes) that were commonly used (there is a seventh, but hardly anyone used it). An example of these modal scales is the song "Scarborough Fair" by Simon and Garfunkle. It's in what is called Dorian Mode; a minor scale with a sharped sixth. On a piano, play a scale on all of the white keys, going from D to D, that's Dorian.

So the idea that the chakras line up with the Western major scale is a misconception born from typical Western hubris; that the way we have things now is both the best way and the way it has always been. But this does not mean that music and the chakras do not have a connection, they very much do. But the connection is a more natural one, based upon harmonic vibrations and not a man-made scale. The chakras actually resonate with certain musical intervals, based upon what is called the "harmonic series". In a nutshell, the harmonic series is how mathematical ratios line up with music. All music is vibrations. If you take a certain vibration, a certain tone, and double the speed, you end up with a tone that is an octave higher than the original. If you triple it, you end up with a perfect fifth. If you multiply it by 5, you get a major third, by 7 and you get a minor 7th, and so on. I feel that the chakras resonate with the same musical intervals, based upon a fundamental tone: the second chakra with the octave, the third with a fifth, the fourth with a major third, the fifth with a minor 7th, the sixth with a ninth or major 2nd, the seventh with a tritone, and the eighth with the octave again.

If you are truly interested in experimenting with music and the chakras, try this out. Find a piano and play an octave with your left hand, down towards the bottom fourth of the keyboard. With your right hand, play a perfect 5th higher than the top note in your left, then a minor 6th higher than that. So if you start with C, you play two Cs with your left hand and a G and an E with your right. If you have the notes correct, you will notice this gives off a very open and powerful sounding major triad. The reason it sounds so good is because these three notes are in order based upon the harmonic series, vibrating at double, triple, and quintuple the speed of the bottom note, so they all resonate perfectly with each other. Now, start shifting chromatically up and down the scale, keeping the same intervals. Eventually you will find a chord that resonates more powerfully with you than any other, one that you feel almost as a physical force. For me, it is E Major, but it is different for everyone. This is your fundamental, the tones that resonate with your lowest four chakras. You will probably find, if you listen, that some of your favorite songs or musical pieces are in that same key, and that you will not like pieces that are in keys that clash with it.

This is all just my own personal conjecturing, so I'd love to hear other input as to whether or not they have similar experiences to mine.

JCS

The Ottawa store opens in five days. Wish me luck, and I'll check back when I can.

JCS