Thursday, April 2, 2009

Choosing Friends and Mythologies

One of the darker sides of religion features in its adherents' habit to accept and reject friends on the basis of the mythos they have chosen to explain their universe. Pooling resources with people subscribing to similar metaphysical beliefs is unfortunately not the optimal means of connecting with the existing base of sentient beings, as it severely narrow down your possibilities, not unlike in the case of a monoglot stuck with an obscure language.

The narrower you draw the scope of your connections, the smaller the possibilities of your being holistically nourished by social interaction shrink. On the other hand, should you choose to expand the range of your connections above and beyond identifications and defenses rising from particular belief systems, the specifics of which are not all that essential in the grand scheme of things, you would effectively maximize your interactive potential in life.

Unfortunately beliefs and mythologies don't function as a straight procedural equation. People can get highly emotional and irrational over their beliefs, and particularly so when they feel their particular existential framework is under expressed, implied or assumed threat from contradicting views. Crossing through a number of religious communities over the years has shown me just how temporary, frail and superficial many relationships based on religion have been.

Should anyone wonder with my often pointed critique of common beliefs, I'm as a matter of fact against endorsing any given view as the final and ultimate word in metaphysics, including my own. All beliefs are subjective, inasmuch as experience itself is a subjective phenomenon. One pet future utopia of mine is a world where the humanity at large has evolved to a point where metaphysical relativism is so widely taken as a self-evident value that the mere concept of religious friction is a barely intelligible oxymoron.