It’s when people remember to say hello to me that I feel the most inadequate. It’s always a reminder that:
1. Hey, s/he does care!
2. Why didn’t I think to contact them first?
3. Shit, nothing new has happened on my end.
4. I have little that really motivates me; I’m boring and I’m lame.
But enough of my self-castigation. Or rather, on to its catalyst.
I received an unexpected e-mail from Leibs on Tuesday. Unexpected and yet extremely appreciated. As are all things that come from Leibner.
In it he gives me an update on his current adventures in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, a few details on the screenplays he’s been pitched, the screenplays he has finished, and the volunteer work he’s involved in. Maybe once I finally respond to him I’ll ask for permission to post some of the e-mail contents here, or link y’all to his awesome Blurty.
Of course, I am immensely jealous of everything he is doing. I consider his exploits extremely admirable. If I had the balls and the money…
Well, it’s more like I don’t have the money. Ah, dollar woes. How they seem to plague me. It never lets up, but at least I’m in San Francisco and not pouting in front of my computer in Cerritos.
Along with the usual demands for “life updates” that are characteristic of Leibs, he included a link to a New York Times article called “Neural Buddhists.”
He thought the “old philosopher” in me would enjoy it.
Undoubtedly, he was correct. I have to mention to him how timely that article is to my current mind machinations. If you’ve paid attention to any of my previous blog entries, they’re chiefly about mysticism. The linked article discusses a new vein of thinking arising from new connections between neuroscience and mysticism.
David Brooks, the columnist, writes the following:
The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it’s going to end up challenging faith in the Bible.
Science is beginning to validate the notions of self-transcendence. Transcendent experiences can already be identified and monitored in the brain. Acceptance of the supernatural state that stems from the attempt to commune with God or the unknown is becoming more widespread among those in the scientific community.
Can we yell an ecstatic “huzzah” for mysticism?
Ah, I don’t know. Scientific confirmation of my personal beliefs is just extremely satisfying. It may no longer be a question of whether God exists, or what His nature truly is; this combination of science and belief only serves to reinforce the presence of the supernatural. It will be wonderful if the question becomes more focused, forcing people to examine the doctrines of their theologies to explain why they make sense.
Again, as Brooks writes:
Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day.
Get ready for a cultural revolution with a more humanistic slant!
Jaena Rae 