Day 37:
Other than discovering that "Travel Log" is actually supposed to be "Travelogue," and then rediscovering that a Log is still acceptable after a search for "Captains Log," from Star Trek, and then finding myself utterly confused about what the difference is supposed to be and why, or even if there is a distinction, and finally settling on the personal choice to give no cares to it whatsoever, today has held few notable events.
There has been, however, and switching gears slightly, one other thing that has stood out in my mind, the white sand beaches of Panama City. I took my shoes off and strolled down the beach for awhile finding my self a seashell. I took another short walk to the end of the nearby pier and I leaned over the railing. Gazing into the Gulf I was reminded of the vastness of the water.
I've known this, but, being in a different state nearly every day arouses the mind to a realization, for me, a remembrance. There are beautiful things all around us, but a stagnant mind ceases to see them. Seeing some new wonder inspires the mind and refreshes the soul. But that isn't to say that there is no intrinsic beauty around the things that you have become used to. You might see a forest or a mountain or an ocean, while another, say a visitor to your place, might be overcome with magnificence by those sky defining sierras, the number of those ever sure and silent trees, or the vastness of the sparkling water.
You can take this principle and apply it to things of a more spiritual nature. Firstly, to deny the inner world of the spirit, to me, is nearly the same as denying the human experience altogether. What is a sensation if it isn't in some regard a way of illustrating beauty and love, or perhaps anger and sorrow to a conscious soul. Stirring these feelings by continuing to learn, by continuing to seek out new vistas, I'd say, opens the avenues of understanding and upon which, I'd also say arouses the potential for visions and dreams to light upon ones mind.
But that is another story altogether, one of which I won't tread too far into here.
Whenever someone speaks of something that is perhaps a taboo or a controversial topic, such as is religion and spirituality, that person opens himself up to an onslaught of critique, and oftentimes criticism by those willing to systematically deconstruct the entirety of what has been said. I don't deny that there very well could be some fallacy in anything that I have ever written. This is only a product of an imperfect person trying to share his imperfect thoughts.
That is, by no means though, an attempt to justify a less than honest paradigm. I simply am trying to understand, but am, simultaneously vividly aware of my deficiencies in doing so.
As much as I respect science and laud its method, its biggest flaw is that, if there is a God, it would unavoidably, in its aspiring, yet utterly infant capacity to probe the divine deny the spiritual means of gaining knowledge, and in some cases be seen as denying the existence of God completely. This would be solely, for a lack of a better way to put it, because of its inability to make a telescope large enough to begin to see with an empirical eye the hand of God.
I'm too tired to continue writing responsibly. Goodnight.