Pondering the South African Memesphere – Looking for the Good in Everything header image 2

Woefully Inadequate

October 26th, 2007 · Posted by Who Knows? · 8 Comments

I am trying my best, I feel I have something to share. It does seem I’m failing miserably, nevertheless I continue trying… While I do have significant, serious doubts about my chosen method, I’m refusing to be paralysed by indecision. I’m taking this strategy, and running with it.

It is not my fault that atheistic language is woefully inadequate. (Any human language for that matter? lol.) Despite this, I’m still convinced I should be able to explain it relatively well, but it can only work if you are prepared to listen, because it will take some time. It does seem radical.

While the epiphany shook my world, seemed to shake my very foundations, the world is still rock steady. Nothing has changed. As a matter of fact, I actually have nothing truly new to share. For a moment I did think I saw a new revelation, but then I looked around, and realised it has really been there all along. Many people have already glimpsed it, in various ways. Each has his or her own experience of it. I am drawing on age old knowledge, so I really cannot take credit for saying anything new, though maybe I’ll say it in a new way?

Yea, I know it does sound like new-age bullshit. I am very aware of that. Very. Please don’t underestimate me here. I am scientifically minded. I am a skeptic. I am a freethinker. (Yes, one fucking word guys, please…)

I’m pulling on emotional language here, I know, and I do so intentionally. I am intentionally, consciously, attempting to illicit an emotional response. Does that make me “manipulative”? Oi.

There is much more to share, and I will try my best to do so in plain, cold, scientific, even atheistic lingo. However, emotion is an important component of what I’m trying to say. I’m just trying to lay some groundwork here. (Maybe I’m failing miserably.)

What are you so scared of? I am not trying to convert anyone to any religion. I seek merely to explain, I seek merely to promote a better understanding of all sides, from all sides. And it is damn difficult, purely because people are not interested in hearing.

Can you see the forest for the trees?

I am still waiting for some response to my previous post. Please do not look at my statements and try to find fault with them: that will miss the point. Please look inside yourselves, and _answer the damn question_. Tell me what it is that bothers _you, personally_, in both these posts… Please tell me, possibly in a simple and concise sentence, why you don’t want me in your society. It is very likely that I will listen. I can only slam my head against the wall so many times before I fall unconscious.

I’m just looking for an honest, straight-forward conversation here…

(Let’s hope I don’t get way more than I bargained for. Hehe.)

ps. Yes, I am completely aware of what the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins argue. I do like what they are doing, they are contributing… Clearly, however, I do not completely agree. Am I allowed to differ from them, or are they infallible? I suspect they may be interested to hear, more so than their followers: I doubt they idolise themselves as much as their followers do. They may find my suggestions (yet to come) rather interesting and thought provoking…

Shit, I really have gone mad, haven’t I? πŸ˜‰ I’m still scared. (I didn’t see this post coming until this morning.) At some point I may look back at this and think, “what was I thinking?!” Clearly I am aware of this as well. *sigh*

Categories: Religion and Science

8 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Hugo // Oct 26, 2007 at 8:07 am

    And I cannot believe I just published that. Let me think no more of it, and get on with my work. I’m so screwed…

  • 2 PlatterFuss // Oct 26, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    Hehe! Glad you DID publish it!!!

    Screwed? Nah, Normal I would say!


  • 3 Hugo // Oct 26, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    I’m also glad now, thanks! (Why now? Because it inspired tomorrow morning’s post, to explain a number of things, and I love tomorrow mornings post much more than I hate this one. πŸ˜‰ )

  • 4 Charl Botha // Oct 26, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    Hi there Hugo! Is this one of those posts you can only understand if you were somewhere where I very definitely wasn’t? Should I wait for the post of tomorrow?

    I’ve done my best with your last two posts (including this one), but I’m none the wiser. πŸ™‚

  • 5 Hugo // Oct 26, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    Hi cp… Thanks for stopping by…

    Yes, wait for tomorrow’s post. This one is addressed to a certain group of people, and includes references to things in those conversations.

    I do suspect these two posts were rather too ranty/rambling. (At least, Steve thought so.) I think tomorrow’s post is more standalone and independent of previous conversations and context. I’m hoping it clears up a lot of things. (It cleared up things for myself. -> I confuse myself as well… btw. πŸ˜‰ )

    Given some more time and context, I’m hoping you will have some idea of what I’m on about. Or trying to be on about. At that point, please fire away with any criticism you might have. I want to hear it. (Just keep in mind I am self-aware, and usually consciously and intentionally write the things that come across as crazy. I think, anyway.)

  • 6 Hugo // Oct 26, 2007 at 6:04 pm

    Actually, no… I would love it if you reply to the previous post, “Dear Freethinking Maties”, immediately. Any and all questions are welcome.

    Commenters that assume I’m stupid, might be doing themselves a disfavour… I’d suggest they keep open the possibility that I might actually mean what I say and have a perfectly rational and sensible reason for saying it. Even if it seems a little mad.

    What is the difference between slightly mad (as in “mad scientist” mad), and deluded? I suspect the difference is subtle but significant…

    (For example: my impression, is that bluegrey is underestimating me. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean he is underestimating me.)

  • 7 Negate // Oct 29, 2007 at 10:57 pm

    – “What are you so scared of? I am not trying to convert anyone to any religion. I seek merely to explain, I seek merely to promote a better understanding of all sides, from all sides. And it is damn difficult, purely because people are not interested in hearing.”

    Atheism and religion are not simply two sides of the same coin that you can connect with a bridge.

    You can achieve a state where atheist have more tolerance for religious people and vise verse

    You will never evoke understanding of these two subjects from both sides. It is impossible, for the simple a reason. Either side has to submit to discarding fundamental ideas of life before they can truly see another point of view (submition of core ideas don’t go easy) Humans just don’t change very quickly about core issue

    A Forest has different shapes, sizes and type of trees. Put together they do make a forest of trees, but then you missed the point πŸ™‚

    You are taking on a instrumental task Hugo, that will break or make you. Maybe you should look at simultaneous multiple approaches to your problem(to many damn trees in the forest you know)

  • 8 Hugo // Oct 29, 2007 at 11:21 pm

    For an hour or two just now, I lost my focus. Reading own blog helped get me back on track. I did realise what a monumental task this will be, though. I must re-focus on the important stuff, namely, relationships.

    The most I can do is plant some seeds and water the ground. Whether anything grows, depends on the soil. I really should not have huge expectations, but the domino effect is bigger than one thinks.

Leave a Comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>