August 1, 2026: The Lighthouse and the Fog of Life: Part I

Brought to you by Sometimes a Picture is Worth a Thousand Words and Sometimes it Takes a Thousand Words to See the Picture, a division of Book in a Drawer Publications, © 2026, all rights reserved.

Perhaps life, love, and learning are about a call to learn more than a call to yearn. Hoonōs

In youth we run into difficulties. In old age difficulties run into us. Beverly Sills

There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. Cathy Packer

If you sleep with me, I’ll protect your virginity. David Suzuki

While I’ve used the following terms in my previous posts and as I’m beginning a small “lighthouse and fog series,” it’s important to have some operational definitions. So, let’s begin with sooo many words in the hope it reduces the need for words later.

Some definitions: objective reality: exists outside of human thoughts and perceptions/interpretations (e.g., a tree); subjective reality: exists within human thoughts and perceptions/interpretations (e.g., belief); the self: the first-person perspective that includes how the individual sees themselves, others and the world itself; events: occurring in objective reality; experiences: occurring in subjective reality; seeing (italics matter otherwise it’s ordinary vision): ability to apprehend objective events without interpretation; validity: the ability to accurately measure what one thinks they’re measuring (e.g., adult foot size can be accurately measured over time, but foot size is not a measure of intelligence); constructs: subjective engineering that may or may not translate to viable creations in reality (whether objective or subjective); learning: ability to form associations and constructs within or between objective and subjective reality; unlearning/relearning: the ability to question the validity of learning from time to time and to update and find new associations and constructs; Finally, and humbly offered, is my definition of love: love offers everything and asks for nothing.

What follows stems from an event that happened about sixty-five years ago. I did, however, interpret it after the fact. As I’m no seer, a grain of salt is recommended.

The event: I became consciously aware what I was seeing in the night sky was in the present moment for me, but not so for any heavenly body I was seeing. Light has a travel time (4.5 light years for our nearest galaxy; approximately 9 minutes before sunlight becomes visible). My subjective world stopped completely (the near constant internal dialogue ceased).

The interpretation: When my subjective world returned (when it ceased, so did my sense of time), I realized my world was almost entirely subjective, but that a some-thing that was no-thing was objectively “out there.” It was life and consciousness to one degree or the other. “It” offered an easel and I and we were the brush and existence our paint. Judgment was ours alone. Grace was always knocking and that was clear if I and we got out of our own judgment.

My anger at “God” for my view that “he” was just sitting about except when granting godly attaboys or godly condemnations vanished. Something that seemed like nothing was everywhere, vibrant, alive, not harmful, and welcoming if we were willing or not. That event became my definition of love. It seemed to come to me preassembled, not as something I constructed.

That event and interpretation from sometime around 1961-62 sparked a reevaluation of my behavior and learning for many things, though it began with religion. I did not become an enlightened saint as I still struggle with the “forsaken syndrome” (speaking of interpretations!). The difference is I cannot carry that cross for any length of time before I laugh at my foibles. (Chapter 1, Chasing Our Tails in Renewal, my self-published book included on this website, is a 1971 example of my continual visitation with my foibles.)

While I was raised Christian, only some of it got through. But I still saw value in religion and belief in general. On some level, I knew early on that which every adult who had some Christian background understands; we do not behave like we were being told was the Christian way.

It doesn’t take a scholar to know how brutally we have treated ourselves and others. We created a non-human category along with seeking “God’s” blessing to justify the denigration, removal, poverty, and even death for other humans and other lifeforms. There is no point in justifying any of it as that behavior should not have been done at all.

If there is a need to stop any human from committing crimes against humanity, it does not mean it’s time to celebrate—it’s time to reflect.

Apparently many four-legged beings are sentient/conscious and have “pictures” in their head about what they observe in objective reality, while humans are sentient/conscious and use language, logic, and feelings in their head—subjective reality—to interpret what they see.

My working hypothesis is that sentience/consciousness is better served if both objective and subjective realities are examined and reexamined. In science, this process is called the null hypothesis or trying to prove oneself wrong. If one did not prove their hypothesis wrong, they accept it for the time being knowing that more research/examination is still needed.

Sentience/consciousness is a stewardship and requires more than just maintenance, it requires updates.

1) “God” isn’t likely a noun or a pronoun or even a “thing.” If we endeavor to “name” that which really cannot be named, I’m guessing it’s a sound we’re going for and that might be done via a progressive verb (adding an “ing,” not a political tag). Think “Being” for example (Isness isn’t a verb and it may lack a needed dynamic notion). However, “Being” may lack the sound of an exhaled breath—a release that many, many names of “God” have, though a releasing breath of a noun can make it too easy to make other misattributions, like applying human characteristics.

2)  It’s my take that “God” is life, love, and consciousness (all of a depth and breadth I cannot fathom), but that does not mean only humans were created in “God’s” image. Being embodied means the ABCs (antecedents, behaviors, and consequences) of embodiment—a learning component for the embodied, but not one decreed by nor applied to “God” (if we stick to all the “omnis” attributed to “God”). In any case, to depict this “God” as male, much less as a judging male, seems so far from the point as to not even be on point.

3) My understanding about the importance of the crucifixion is to stop crucifying ourselves and others. The word suffer seems almost an entirely psychological affliction—a “second arrow” as some Buddhists have offered (though some Buddhist sects might also use the word “suffer”). Being embodied is a struggle because it is not easy for an embodied being to learn, but that is not the same as “God’s” will for us.

4) While there are many pendants depicting the crucifixion, there are too few (if any) pendants depicting the resurrection. What’s the point if there is no resurrection—which doesn’t have to mean an actual rising of a self from the dead, but that life is and embodiment-death does not mean life itself can be extinguished. Nor does it mean that “God’s” life can be extinguished either. A “sense of self” might be diluted and dissipated, but that could be the result of an improperly engineered navigation. Besides, open systems are not as subject to entropy as are closed systems. My interpretation is “God” is an open system if any particular thing at all.

5) All of us experience “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” moments. Experiencing loss of grace is not the same as actually losing grace. “God’s” grace is and that’s it.

6) We all give ourselves and others a “crown of thorns.” That’s not “God’s” doing or requirement, that’s our doing. “God” who graces some and not others might be a god (or think they are). Instead of saying “may God bless us,” perhaps the proper prayer is “may we recognize ‘God’s’ blessings”?

7) Does “God” also need to learn?  In that realm are all forms the saviors of “God”? Perhaps all forms, including human form, can and do contribute to the range and depth of love available to all. Does that reduce “God” to being better pleased? I suspect it is form that needs to learn.

8) “God” has no opposite. Human efforts to learn via compare, contrast, and categorize is about control—a word with both bait and hook. “Manage” is likely better and less poisoned, though efforts at becoming a “Management King or Queen would still be poisoned.

9) Any “devil” is embodied and therefore is not and cannot be “God.” And that likely means we are our own devil, whether individual or as a community. “God” does not need contracts; the devil does. Besides, “our soul” is “loaned” to us.

10) This engineering mess of humans seems to demand Just because a prophecy is written, doesn’t mean the interpretation is correct. Conquest, War, Famine, and Death will likely be the outcome by continuing our current path. But those four riders could also be under the heading of shame realized: Community, Family, Peace, Life/Love are also riders of another kind of apocalypse: realization, acknowledgement, and growth.

It will be a terrible cry for sure to rip off the crown of thorns we’ve given to so many, including ourselves. But such a cry will be the acknowledgement of error (sin is to miss the mark) that releases us from our bondage that we need to avoid being caught. To acknowledge our egregious treatment of ourselves and other sentient beings, human or not, does not mean the end of foolishness, but it might mark the beginning of learning that a fool can own it and keep one’s integrity and dignity. And that’s the birth of humility.

It was unintended to have 10 points until I realized that 10 points was where I ran out of points. There are some good jokes there, so have at it!

Next month, a look in a different area, sans a list of 10 items and a lot of other words.