Some Thoughts

Going Home

Trinity — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:36:14 GMT

After an entire winter season of cabin fever and frustration at our seemingly impossible to decrease carbon footprint, my family has decided to go back home to the forest! (At least for the summer anyway.) We'll need to come back when school begins, at least until there's a more permanent solution to winters off-grid, with the kids, that we can afford to maintain. But I am SO excited, only a little intimidated, and blissfully happy that we're doing this! The initial set-up for a family our size is pretty considerable, and while we have camping gear, we don't have nearly what we need for a permanent living complex, but we've budgeted everything and it all seems to add-up so far. (Boy, does it add up!) If everything plays out as anticipated, we should be on the land around June 12th. Some part of me feels like a fish out of water when I'm not in the forest, and this is a dream-come true for me. I feel like I've waited for this since the moment I left the forest 3 years ago. Living off grid was, by far, the most meaningful experience I've ever had. Every act in the forest is holy, life is slower there, and there's nothing more enjoyable than washing your hair in the sunshine, cooking over an open fire, listening to the drumming as the sun goes down, working hard in the hot sun. But I've never done this with children in tow, so this part intimidates me a little. I hope to communicate with other parents who have taken this leap with more than 2 children, but I don't currently know any. On the other hand, I feel very blessed that my children will have this experience and certainly be the better for it. Wish us luck and please keep us in your thoughts this summer!

Unconditional Love?

Trinity — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:32:15 GMT

Today I'm contemplating unconditional love, and as it turns out, baffling myself in the process. I am stuck attempting to differentiate between truly loving (and extending compassion) without condition, and respecting myself enough not to allow another to take advantage of my forgiveness, compassion and support. Part of me says that to be a self-respecting person, I must draw the line at my "generosity of spirit" being taken advantage of. We must not allow ourselves to be abused, the beauty we extend in an attempt at unconditional love and support tainted and used. Yet does that not, in itself, put conditions on the "unconditional" nature of ones love? Another part of me says that because I know that all my thoughts, perceptions, experiences must pass through my own filters, could I not find a way to transform negativity from others and see it rather as great need. If a person lives in a space of negativity, that contributes to their hurting others, and if I wish to love them unconditionally, wouldn't I chose never to give up on them, never to walk away despite their hurting me, but instead, to continue to extend love, in as pure a form as I can, compensating as necessary to prevent damage to myself...to shine that light in the darkest of places? And simply "not allow" my own filters to be tainted by their lack of reciprocation? That makes me quite the martyr, huh? Perhaps this is too idealistic? I'm not even certain I'm capable of that. But I am conscious of it, so I can learn to apply it right? If there are not those of us who will extend ourselves, despite conditions, how can we ever hope to find that in others, when perhaps we need it most? Should we not "Be the change we wish to see in the world"? How can I say that I want to be loved unconditionally, and yet put conditions on my own extension of love? And is it not true that we need love most when we are most unlovable? Though if this is true, what would I tell a person being abused? "Don't SEE it as abuse. See it as need, and give more." ?? No, I wouldn't say that. I would say, "Respect yourself and walk away." Does this mean unconditional love does not exist? Or does this simply mean that the abused person should love from a distance? But in walking away, do we not send the message that we are withdrawing our support, our "unconditional" love? Is the line determined by physical abuse, psychological abuse, how much one can accept? I welcome feedback on this one. I'm stumped.

My take on the Blasphemy Challenge

Trinity — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:08:39 GMT

So I've just become aware of "The Blasphemy Challenge" and the videos connected to it on You Tube. As I understand it, young people are being encouraged to renounce "God" and stand up for their "Atheist" take on religion. I am not Christian, for anyone who didn't already know, and I don't really embrace any one religion, but I am a spiritual person, in that I value connection to spirit in whatever form that may take (God, Goddess, Universe, Divine, Nature..whatever). One of the interviews with a Co-founder of The Blasphemy Project was explaining that his goal for the whole project is an attempt to liberate young people from the "psychological torture" they're being exposed to with most organized religion. I can see where he's coming from, honestly. I am aware of the people who would, on faith, tell their children that they must believe in God, The Holy Spirit, Jesus, etc. and worship him as almighty, and if they don't, they will burn in Hell. (I also understand that not ALL religious people take this approach). But, yeah, that might just be psychological torture. I mean, what if we put a spin on it and attach the same behavior to another concept? What if we were to tell our children that they MUST believe in the Easter Bunny, or he will turn into a blood-sucking demon-rabbit and eat their souls? What if we reminded them of this daily? (Or weekly as the case might be.) No matter how much we believe this to be true, should we still SCARE our children with "the truth"? I don't dig scare tactics. Now, I'm biased here I realize because this isn't my truth, but I'm able to recognize that my truths don't need to be my children's (or anyone else's for that matter). What I believe is in no way invalidated if others disagree with me. I want my children to think for themselves, educate themselves and ultimately, decide for themselves. I am happy to share why I feel or think what I do, but ultimately I am only myself and what's good for me, may not be for someone else. I think it's far healthier to teach our children to live without judgment, and with tolerance than it is to teach them to live and make choices out of fear. (And I won't even go into personal responsibility!) Nature speaks to me, but respect (trusting one to make the best choices for themselves) reminds me that if a church speaks to another, who am I to tell them that they'd better start worshiping my tree or it will come alive and make mulch of them?! It really is absurd... But what distresses me most is that there are those religious people who are governed entirely by their faith and refuse to look at historical fact, respect for others, or listen with an open mind to anything from a "non-believer", and that they have that right, and they feel as strongly that they are honoring their God with their choices, as I do when I preach about compassion, respect and tolerance. I guess what I'm getting at, is that I think we'll only find peace with this when we accept that there is no right or wrong. There's only love...whether that love comes from Jesus, from Nature, from Llamas! doesn't really matter, does it? I

I don't get it

Trinity — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:10:38 GMT

Okay, I'm doing a little ranting here... I am all about freedom of expression, sacred sexuality, honoring our bodies, and artistic nudity is beautiful and certainly has it's place, but what is up with all the CRUDE naked avatars on Tribe? As I see it, our bodies are sacred, to be treated with reverence, and it makes me sad (and a little disgusted) to see people expose themselves so distastefully. It's not the nudity by any means, it's the lack of tact, class and self-respect inherent in bearing, IN DETAIL, one's genitals to perfect strangers. I don't get it. I'm willing to consider that there's something I'm not identifying with here, and I know that I shouldn't make assumptions when I haven't seen the perspective wholly, but I can't help but wonder what these people are attempting to say. To me, the message is loud and clear: I have no self-respect, I do not honor my body (therefore won't honor yours), and I take no responsibility for contributing anything positive to society's, already broken, perspectives on sex. In my opinion, it discourages the opportunity for genuine relationship-building, sending a message that we are socially unaware of the repercussions (on our children, for one example) of splattering our misplaced sense of worth anywhere we can. Women complain that we are not treated with respect, and it's no wonder! When we define ourselves by our body parts, then it matters less and less whether we actually have intellect, spirit, strength or grace. Let's think about what we're doing, People.

It appears to be a law that you cannot have a deep sympathy with both man and nature. ~Henry David Thoreau

Trinity — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:53:38 GMT

My husband and I should have been in one of those advertisements for flooring. Or maybe it was appliances. You know, the ones where Techno Geeks and Forest Freaks meet, and you get to see their respective kitchens? We have the same ideas that society needs to reach some sort of healthy plateau, but our means for how to get there are completely opposite. He claims that technology is the way to go. Moving forward with science will eventually lead us out of our current stagnation, into a broadened awareness and more enlightened society. I claim that this needs to happen as well, but with simplification. I think we should stop investing in the external and focus on the internal. All the answers we’re looking to science for are already in front of us if we’d spend a little time in nature and put forth the effort to learn the lessons and language already inherent there. In my opinion, we waste precious resources looking to technology for answers we already have, and then need to find more complex means of fixing those things that we’ve screwed up in the process, which requires more and “better” technology, and it all looks like a vicious and downward cycle to me. He has a point when he says that we simply cannot “go back” to a simple life. We know too much. Not to mention many of us would die if we were to simply chuck all technology out the window in one toss. But I’m not talking about going back, simply going forward in a different direction. Perhaps it’s completely idealistic, but WHAT IF… What if we all made a concerted effort to live off-grid, self-sustained? What if we learned how to hunt and forage and grow our own vegetables in the dirt? What if the only jobs we needed were to maintain a homestead because we all worked on trade or barter? We could home-school our children, care for our own aging parents, blah, blah, blah…you get the idea. What do we really have to lose except convenience? (Which in my opinion doesn’t create an atmosphere conducive to the greater good or depletion of ignorance anyway.) No one ever said, “I became wise and happy by sitting on my ass in a cubicle, staring at white walls in the square box that is my office.” The life we’ve created is based on sloth, selfishness, greed and convenience and then we ask ourselves questions like, “Why am I unhappy? Why do my children misbehave? Why can I not shake the feeling that there is something “more” to life? Could it be because THERE IS?! We have put ourselves in a position where spending the majority of our waking hours in that cubicle is necessary to our survival. But I don’t think it’s too late to change that. It would simply take a great deal of effort and a decent amount of transitional time on our parts. But sadly, that is the problem to begin with. No one wants to exert effort or give more of their time to something that may not offer them immediate gratification. Hence the quote, “It appears to be a law that you cannot have a deep sympathy with both man and nature.” ~Henry David Thoreau I feel pity for man, for what we’ve done to ourselves, and more so that we continue to do it, but I don’t have a deep sympathy for man, because my deepest sympathy lies with nature. Whom we have raped and pillaged, always taking, rarely giving back to, and who continues to love us just the same by providing us with all the things we need to sustain our lives. (Even when our lives compromise that of nature). THAT is the example we should be following, of unconditional love, of sacrifice, of giving, not with the expectation of what we’ll get in return, but out of a willingness to promote ALL of life, without judgment or condemnation. What if we did? Trin

Embrace It

Trinity — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 13:56:57 GMT

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our Darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant? Who are you NOT to be? You are a child of the Gods. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. It is not in just one of us; it is in everyone. As we let our own light shine, we give others permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence liberates others. - Marianne Williamson