PL & SD — Quickstart

[Love Case Study]

Pure Love & Something Deeperism: Quickstart Guide

Super Quick Start (An Edit of the Below Long-Play Version)

Pure Love is love minus all pulls-towards and pushes-away. Pure Love is an infinite explosion of compassionately-embracing, joyfully-uplifting wisdom. Pure Love is the love that completely accepts everyone, that never lets anyone down. … Pure Love is Reality, is Truth, is Goodness, is Knowledge, is Wisdom, is God.

Something Deeperism as a general worldview maintains there is an Absolute Truth, and this Truth is Good, and that we sentient beings can relate meaningfully to the Truth, but not in a literal/definitive/1:1 way.

Something Deeperism assumes a fundamental psychological profile shared by all sentient beings. It assumes that we all face the same dilemma and have recourse to the same solution. 

What, then, would successful Something Deeperism look like in an individual life? One would every day over and over again stand up straight within one’s own conscious moment and push out from within. There would be something like Pure Love at the center of each conscious moment, and one’s feeling/thinking/acting would relate more and more meaningfully to It, and thus one’s thought-as-a-whole would understand better and better what is going on, what matters, and how to live aware, clear, honest, accurate, competent, kind, and joyfully-giving. One would not have a literal idea of the Truth, but one could point to the Truth meaningfully with poetic language — allowing one to adequately communicate insights into the Truth within one’s own conscious moment, and also to others who were feeling/thinking/acting with enough awareness, … joyful-generosity to be receptive to good spiritual poetry.

How does Pure Love relate to Something Deeperism?

The term “Pure Love” is one way to point towards our inner sense of Absolute Truth and Goodness, of a divine Light that Knows and Is the Way.

Something Deeperism argues that we all know that we can only be meaningful to ourselves to the degree that we move beyond both the meaningless-to-us notion of living by relative truths, and the meaningless-to-us notion of literal knowledge of Absolute Truth.

And the path that Something Deeperism as we (Bartleby Willard and Amble Whistletown) know it requires a nonliteral but meaningful whole-being relationship to something like Pure Love. No such relationship, and we slip and slide in speculations, vaunts, panics, give-ups, and other idea/feeling pairs that we don’t really understand, care about, or believe in; but try to make such a relationship fit into literal ideas and/or certain feelings and we again slip and slide around in notions we don’t really understand, care about, or believe in. That’s why Something Deeperism suggests the best course is a nonliteral but consistent and earnest spiritual path.

Something Deeperism can be combined with religions and various other worldviews. All Something Deeperism does is seek to keep us all from abandoning the forest for the trees: At the very least, let’s keep within what is required for any of our worldviews to make sense to any of us: aware, clear, honest, accurate, competent, kind, gentle, loving, joyfully-sharing; all sustained and explicated by real insight into Loving Kindness — into what we must have insight into if we are to be meaningful to ourselves.

People know deep inside that people cannot be fully themselves except to the degree that (1) Love is Real and (2) we people can relate meaningfully to Love, to our own selves, and to others. The idea behind Something Deeperism is to accept that fundamental situation and to relate to Love, ourselves, and others in the only way such relationships can be made: not directly and literally; but organizationally and poetically.

Long-Play Version

Pure Love is love minus all pulls-towards and pushes-away. Pure Love is an infinite explosion of compassionately-embracing, joyfully-uplifting wisdom. Pure Love is the love that completely accepts everyone, that never lets anyone down. Pure Love is nothing but Love, but that Love contains knowledge, insight, kindness, and gentle-resolve. Pure Love is all there is: It creates, sustains, love-lifts, and shines through all created things. It does not push or pull, but merely loves, and in this unconditional love every conscious moment turns towards the Pure Love like a compass needle yearns towards the pole. Pure Love is an infinitely rollicking outpouring of kind-delight. Pure Love knows that this world is an illusion, but that we are here to experience and learn real Truth. Pure Love is Reality, is Truth, is Goodness, is Knowledge, is Wisdom, is God.

Something Deeperism as a general worldview maintains there is an Absolute Truth, and this Truth is Good, and that we sentient beings can relate meaningfully to the Truth, but not in a literal/definitive/1:1 way.

Something Deeperism assumes a fundamental psychological profile shared by all sentient beings. It assumes that we all face the same dilemma and have recourse to the same solution. Something Deeperism as a philosophy may stop short of saying whether or not there is an Absolute Truth that we can meaningfully relate to. It may just say, “given x pyschological situation, y psychological/spiritual effort is advisable.”

Let’s start with Something Deeperism as a philosophy.

Feeling/thought/action contains rules within itself. A person’s feeling/thinking/acting can only believe in, care about, follow, or understand its own feeling/thinking/acting to the degree it feels/thinks/acts in accordance with its own inborn rules: towards awareness, clarity, honesty, accuracy, competency, kindness, and shared-joy.

And, even more fundamental than those rules, a person’s feeling/thinking/acting requires insight into what is really going on, what really matters, and what is really preferable in order to believe in, care about, follow, or understand itself. We may pretend we are OK with mere speculation about what is really going on, but that’s a self-deception: deep inside we cannot help but need real insight about what actually matters in order to trust our own feeling/thinking/acting. If we either pretend we don’t care about such insight or we pretend we have it where we don’t, we confuse our ability to meaningfully choose one thought over another.

And yet a person’s feeling/thinking/acting also knows that insight into the Absolute Truth about what is really going on is impossible. Well, literal/definitive/1:1/certain insight into what is really going on is impossible for our feeling/thinking/acting — since what is really going on would be an Absolute Reality, and our thoughts are limited.

However, what if the mystics are correct, and there is something that is both Knowledge and Reality and thus, being Absolute and lacking a gap between observer and insight, would have no room for uncertainty? What if there is something akin to Godlight/Truth/PureLove shining through all things? Then It would shine through each conscious moment, making It accessible to one’s feeling/thinking/acting. And what if one could then organize the rest of one’s conscious moment better and better around that Godlight? One could not literally translate Godlight into finite feelings/thoughts/actions, but one could perhaps maintain a poetic (not completely precise, clear, certain; but nonetheless meaningful) relationship to Godlight. The sketch here is not meant to be definitive. The point is: what if it were possible to relate meaningfully to something with real insight into what is really going on?

If it might be possible to have a meaningful relationship to something deeper inside that Knows what is really going on and what really matters, we have to pursue that possibility — because to the degree we succeed in relating meaningfully to that Truth, we can believe in, care about, follow, and understand our own feeling/thinking/acting; and to the degree we are not even reaching for such a relationship with It, our own feeling/thinking/acting knows it isn’t even trying to make sense to itself, and to the degree our feeling/thinking/acting knows that, it cannot meaningfully choose one feeling/thinking/acting path over another; and that’s how we get overrun with chaos and our tendency to deceive/confuse ourselves so as to more easily slide things to our advantage; and that’s how we lose traction within ourselves and become less and less meaningful to ourselves.

And so Something Deeperism the philosophy suggests that we individuals are best off pursuing something along the lines of Truth/Wisdom. However, human wisdom would have to be more like an organization of feeling/thinking/acting around divine Wisdom than any set of certain feelings and/or literal ideas — because even a True idea would be meaningless without insight; and we’ll have no literal insight about what is infinitely wider and deeper than human ideas and feelings. Therefore, this Something Deeperism the philosophy also suggests that we seek not True dogmas (you can’t understand them anyway!), but dogmas that help us better orientate our conscious moments towards Truth and better translate that Truth into word and deed.

Also: How could we meaningfully relate to a Truth that is outside of us, and/or has nothing to do with us: Hence the hint that the search for Truth should be inward, and should be meaningful to our own inborn rules of feeling/thinking/acting. And here we see how Something Deeperism the philosophy provides a safety net around the process of wisdom seeking: For the Truth to be meaningful to humans, it has to be compatible with aware, clear, honest, accurate, competent, kind, joyfully-giving feeling/thinking/acting: so our only hope is not only that we can relate meaningfully to the Truth, but that insight into the Truth will help us to understand that and in what sense it is True to say, “We are all in this together and should treat ourselves and everyone else with loving kindness and respect.” Therefore, if we believe the Truth is leading us to be anything but clear, honest, kind, gentle, and careful with everyone, then we know we’ve lost our way: we’ve drifted from any meaningful-to-us wisdom path.

What, then, would successful Something Deeperism look like in an individual life? One would every day over and over again stand up straight within one’s own conscious moment and push out from within. There would be something like Pure Love at the center of each conscious moment, and one’s feeling/thinking/acting would relate more and more meaningfully to It, and thus one’s thought-as-a-whole would understand better and better what is going on, what matters, and how to live aware, clear, honest, accurate, competent, kind, and joyfully-giving. One would not have a literal idea of the Truth, but one could point to the Truth meaningfully with poetic language — allowing one to adequately communicate insights into the Truth within one’s own conscious moment, and also to others who were feeling/thinking/acting with enough awareness, … joyful-generosity to be receptive to good spiritual poetry.

Something Deeperism the philosophy is kind of like Pascal’s Wager, but it thinks that Pascal’s Wager misunderstands how humans feel/think/act.

To meaningfully choose one feeling/thinking/acting path over another, we need to be able to inhabit our own feeling/thinking/acting, and this we can only do to the degree we abide by our own inborn rules: aware … joyfully-sharing, and also seeking and growing in whole-being insight into what is really going on — nonrelative insight into that and in what we it is True to say we are all in this together. Forcing ourselves to believe that Jesus is such and such and God so and so just amounts to forcing feelings of certainty onto ideas we don’t understand. Having an experience of connecting with Jesus on a personal level would be meaningful, but what is really going on at the spiritual level there? Humans don’t know. And many people of other faiths also seem to have true spiritual experiences because they also bear the fruits of that experience: they become clearer, more honest, kinder, wiser, gentler.

And so Something Deeperism says, “Let’s all wager on that without which none of our philosophies or religions can mean anything to any of us: let’s wager as individuals and a group on love, on clarity, on honesty, awareness, kind resolve, and gentle delight in one another. That’s the core of any meaningful-to-humans wisdom path, so let’s decide to at least stay there; some of us may be Christians, others other religions, still others a perhaps not very interested in religion, but we all know that our only chance to be meaningful to ourselves is to grow in a wisdom that knows that and in what way it is True to say, ‘We are all in this together.’ And yes, this is a nonrelative quest: We are not hoping to discover whole-being insight into a claim along the lines of, ‘Given, xyz set of hypotheses, it is reasonable to assume we are all in this together.’ That’s just fluffy existential stands. Let’s not tie either fundamentalist religious beliefs or existential stands — both of which we neither really understand or care about deep inside — to feelings of absolute certainty so as to trick ourselves into feeling like we Know the Truth: let’s work to relate as meaningfully as we can to the Truth, though we’ll never wholly catch It in words and/or feelings.”

And Something Deeperism the worldview? How is it different from the philosophy? The philosophy is inclined to avoid directly considering whether or not there is a Truth; but the worldview says, “Look: We all know our inner sense that ‘We are all in this together’ more fundamentally than we know the various ideas and feelings that would doubt or explain that inner sense of things; so let’s pursue that inner insight and try to grow in the wisdom we know that it contains. It assumes that you and everyone else cannot help but kind of automatically make progress in the mythical path, and we should embrace that inner inevitable pull towards the sense that Love is Real.”

How does Pure Love relate to Something Deeperism?

The term “Pure Love” is one way to point towards our inner sense of Absolute Truth and Goodness, of a divine Light that Knows and Is the Way.

Something Deeperism argues that we all know that we can only be meaningful to ourselves to the degree that we move beyond both the meaningless-to-us notion of living by relative truths, and the meaningless-to-us notion of literal knowledge of Absolute Truth.

And the path that Something Deeperism as we (Bartleby Willard and Amble Whistletown) know it requires a nonliteral but meaningful whole-being relationship to something like Pure Love. No such relationship, and we slip and slide in speculations, vaunts, panics, give-ups, and other idea/feeling pairs that we don’t really understand, care about, or believe in; but try to make such a relationship fit into literal ideas and/or certain feelings and we again slip and slide around in notions we don’t really understand, care about, or believe in. That’s why Something Deeperism suggests the best course is a nonliteral but consistent and earnest spiritual path.

Something Deeperism can be combined with religions and various other worldviews. All Something Deeperism does is seek to keep us all from abandoning the forest for the trees: At the very least, let’s keep within what is required for any of our worldviews to make sense to any of us: aware, clear, honest, accurate, competent, kind, gentle, loving, joyfully-sharing; all sustained and explicated by real insight into Loving Kindness — into what we must have insight into if we are to be meaningful to ourselves.

People know deep inside that people cannot be fully themselves except to the degree that (1) Love is Real and (2) we people can relate meaningfully to Love, to our own selves, and to others. The idea behind Something Deeperism is to accept that fundamental situation and to relate to Love, ourselves, and others in the only way such relationships can be made: not directly and literally; but organizationally and poetically.

[Love Case Study]

Author: Bartleby Willard
Editor: Amble Whistletown
Copyright: Andrew Mackenzie Watson

For later maybe:

make about what is real, what is logical, what makes sense. This is true even for things like science, which we understand to be only “true given xyz unproven assumptions” — but in that case it doesn’t matter: we only need plausible and actionable explanations about the physical world: we don’t need to truly know if E=mc2. But questions about what’s really going on and what really matters are different. Answers to core philosophical/religious/existential questions are meaningless when attached to the caveat “true, given xyz unproven assumptions.” We need to know what is really worth doing, not just what one might deduce would be worth doing, given some set of notions about the nature of things.