August 26, 2018 in , Adam Thoughts by Adam Dunlap
All thoughts are original. Not many original ideas this week. I did lots of reading this week and that resulted in lots of integration.
Woa. Mind blown. Had to reread that last transcript. He says the ability for physical reality to be in existence is the product of conditional love because conditions are what define the differentiation. Without conditions there is no distinction because there is no preference or judgement. It gives cool context to the biblical concept of “the two become one” which Bashar mentions as well.
As far as I can perceive it, the fundamental difference in my beliefs and the prominent contemporary Christian belief system is the conceptualization of the God concept. What is God? The definitions of love and many other things will ultimately track back to (and hinge on) that definition/concept. What Bashar says (and what I agree with) is this fundamental difference: we see God as creation. God is, definitionally, All That Is. God is the energy of the universe, the life force of creation. God is creation. And this seems to me to satisfy the explanations and claims for things such as God being omnipotent, omnipresent, and all knowledgeable. Besides siting the inarticulate and argumentally ridiculous argument “faith”, the only congruent way I can see for God to be all omnipresent, omnipowerful, and all knowledgeable is for God to literally be everything. In any case, I say this because I don’t expect many to agree with the definition/ideas of love that I shared previously. And it makes absolute sense why. If we have a different understanding/conceptualization of God, then of course those definitions/explanations for love will not make sense.
The problem Christianity has with God being everything is it undermines the gospel message. That definition doesn’t make space for separation from God which is required for the ideas to exist of sin, hell, and the necessity of the redeeming power in a faith in Jesus Christ. And, of course, when God is literally everything then definitionally we all become one aspect of God – we are all God in that way even though under that explanation we are only one aspect of God. Christian theology, and Christians in general, from my experience, abhor the concept that we are God. Christians reject the idea as quickly as someone with pull their hand from a hot plate. Which is how we come back to unconditional love which I was asking about.
Christian theology fundamentally doesn’t like the idea that we do not have to do anything to receive God’s love. Christian theology says in one part that we don’t have to do anything… but then they turn around just a quick and say we do have to do something: we have to believe in Jesus Christ. It’s another one of those simple and obvious incongurent claims in the Christian theology. The logic is simple: you either have to do something to get God’s love or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways. For Christians you do clearly have to do something: you have to accept it. That is an action. And this is what undermines their parallel claim that God is unconditionally loving. Clearly, according to the Christian theology, God is not unconditionally loving since there is a condition to receiving his love.
I, however, believe that God is truly unconditionally loving which means we do not even have to do anything to receive it, including accept it. Which again, shows that the Christian God, fundamentally, is not an unconditionally loving. There is one condition: repent and believe in Jesus. So perhaps that gives more context to my initial question. If Christians admit that God is conditionally loving then their theology holds. But I don’t see how it saying God is unconditionally loving and he has 1 condition is in any way congruent. I believe in an unconditionally loving God. But to each their own.
[written in a group conversation with family]
I have a large family and a lot of friends. Of them all, I was the one charged with the task of becoming famous. It was my mission to experience that so I could report to everyone. Like a reconnaissance mission of information for the soul clan.
I am a legend in my own mind, indeed. At least someone believes.
The Acuity Theory by Adam Dunlap
My theory is based on people having different levels of acuity in different fields. Or said another way, different abilities to vie and differentiate quality.
My theory is rooted in the concept that there is objective quality in everything, however, superior quality only stands out when the perceiver is able to distinguish the difference between low quality and high quality products. Although, now stated, this may seem obvious, this concept is far from it, as it serves as the foundational and clearly misunderstood principle of success. It also explains why positive thinking and humility can be leveraged for long term success.
Perhaps a simple example is basketball. To someone who does not know basketball, any player who makes a shot can be deemed good at, or least competent. But to high level coaches, players, and talent scouts, the difference between a good player and a great player is clear. With this in mind, we realize that the only way one could ever, every be recognized or identified as a great player is to be in the presence of those with the high acuity levels. To someone with low acuity levels, greatness is easily pushed aside and unrecognized.
The concept explains why it is often a time intensive to pass from lower levels of success and recognition to higher ones, and it also makes a stab at explaining the concepts of star power and overnight success.
Clearly the concept makes the most sense in objective fields such as design and art where mathematical numbers are not prevalently used to evaluate and compare. The concept also explains why appealing to the professionals in your industry with the highest acuity will cause a trickle-down effect that leads to your success.
The theory applied to the acting world presents a fascinating way of explaining the perpetuation of bad acting in the industry, and it provides an explanation for terms such as “star power” “overnight success” and the “recovering actor” concept that exist when acting teachers with low acuity praise, teach, and enforce bad acting in their students. Obviously in such a field, the issues becomes systemic in nature as praised students with lower acuity then become teachers themselves and in doing so perpetuate lower acuity to their students.
The concept even applies to romantic interest across genders. Application is virtually limitless. Clearly not all basketball scouts are cut from the same cloth.
I like the green house. It’s fun and different! In this I think there is a great lesson on love. Every day when you look at that house and you decide you don’t like the color, you are judging the house. And you’re not even judging the house on anything of merit or anything that really matters – you’re judging the house on something extremely superficial. Instead of judging the color of the house, find the uniqueness in it, and appreciate the perspective it took to paint the house such a unique color. Wow, what a cool perspective!
This is what love is – accepting and appreciating others for what they are. Being angry or frustrated at a green house is not love.
Was not I born in a pink house, and is that not one of the most special houses in the world to me? Clearly a green house must be equally special for someone else. So I would ask, if one is not capable of loving a house because of its color, then how would one expect to be able to love people with all their complexities and issues? Surely the latter is much more difficult.
In this we also see the power in the idea shared by Jesus to become like children in their mindset. Can you imagine a 6 year old being upset by their neighbor painting their house green? Of course not. Only an adult would feel this way. Perhaps even more telling: what if the neighbor painted their house in stripes like a rainbow. What would be the difference in perception of that house between a child and an adult?
In summary, I am quite sure it is within your capabilities to choose to love the color of that house : )
Curiosity. He also explains why I like acting. It’s the freedom to explore life outside the confines of the societal and cultural restrictions we are surrounded by, not to mention the natural result that arise when our real life choices have consequences.
[Daniel Day Lewis ‘The Entire Film That You See Is The Result Of An Experiment]
No main song this week. So here are some I heard at the gym and liked. None of them are new. The last one didn’t play at the gym. I just thought of it the other day.
Tiësto – Set Yourself Free ft. Krewella | Don Omar – Danza Kuduro ft. Lucenzo |Nico & Vinz – Am I Wrong | XX Intro | Marshmello ft. Khalid – Silence | Calvin Harris – Thinking About You ft. Ayah Marar | INOJ – Love You Down