Most people have experiences the sensation that they are in some way different from others. A person with aspergers experiences this same phenomenon, the same 'AH HA!' but, this is where the similarities cease. For the duration and depth of the asperger's experience extends far beyond this understanding of personal development.
Most people experience persona differences, which are subtle when placed in a social framework. A person with aspergers also has their own distinct combination of traits. However there is a very large difference in how they experience them as a result of the condition.
The eyes of an aspeger's mind operate as though a thick pane of glass separates them from society. As though they are missing some crucial 'sense' a tool to receive and interpret social data. Limiting their capacity to function within the society that they can see.
This strange perception and lack of social understanding can lead to certain personal preference and personal traits. However, it is not the possession of these personality differences that form the aspergers experiences. Since such difference are normal. It is because they cannot possibly exist within the social framework which allows an individual to feel part of a community regardless of comparatively small personality difference. In this way a sufferer is alone in their experience of uniqueness. Though they experience the same sensations hearing/seeing/touching/smelling, they can not function socially and therefore they are effectively isolated, on a separate plane.
It is all too easy to misinterpretation a sufferers struggles as normal teenage personal development. to assume that it is a 'normal' developmental occurrence spreads seeds of doubt in that individuals mind. From behind their eyes how are they meant to know, beyond doubt, that they are not simply within that phenomenon. To know that their reaction to something so standard is so disproportional, that they are foolish. that they are not capable of coping with something that everybody else can. it is a constant source of anxiety and depression for sufferers when their plight against this serious condition is not even recognised. When the result of a suffering they cannot control is placed squarely on their shoulder.
think about that:)
Friday, March 26, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Pantheism Explained
I am a Naturalistic/Monist Panthiest, literally translates to 'all is god', in a nutshell it is the belief that 'God' is universe(nature) and everything within tha(synonym) and that 'God' is not an entity, creator god and doesn't take any human form.
pantheism is more of a train of thought that appeases a fairly human spirituality desire.
The way I use the term 'God' here is not to suggest a single ultimate 'substance' at all. When I am saying 'God' in the pantheistic context I am not suggesting one single ultimate 'substance' or really at all delving into or making claims about the technicalities of what does and doesn't exist in what context.
I am essentially giving the title of 'God' to 'everything'(in whatever quantity or context it exists in). In doing so I am acknowledging that there are things we do not yet understand, but I am also not attributing them to a supernatural phenomenon.
Some pantheist choose not use the word 'God' at all due to the confusion and ease of misinterpretation. But for me the word 'God' has always been a fitting all encompassing term. This is a really important distinction to make. If you were to apply traditional views about what constitutes a 'God' then it will distort the interpretation of pantheistic thought.
Understandably Pantheism is often referred to as 'jazzed-up atheism.' Although our beliefs about the existence of a supernatural god are certainly in-line. Those who associate with pantheism tends to maintain a strong sense of nature-linked spirituality. It is important to recognise both the similarities and difference between these two thoughts.
I am a pantheist in my thinking. But it is not my pantheism which defines what I must believe about how the world operates in a scientific sense, about existence/boundaries/how life began. the word 'God' applied in this context is fluid and adaptive. As opposed to limiting the scope of what 'is and isn't' before we even begin to explore.
pantheism is more of a train of thought that appeases a fairly human spirituality desire.
The way I use the term 'God' here is not to suggest a single ultimate 'substance' at all. When I am saying 'God' in the pantheistic context I am not suggesting one single ultimate 'substance' or really at all delving into or making claims about the technicalities of what does and doesn't exist in what context.
I am essentially giving the title of 'God' to 'everything'(in whatever quantity or context it exists in). In doing so I am acknowledging that there are things we do not yet understand, but I am also not attributing them to a supernatural phenomenon.
Some pantheist choose not use the word 'God' at all due to the confusion and ease of misinterpretation. But for me the word 'God' has always been a fitting all encompassing term. This is a really important distinction to make. If you were to apply traditional views about what constitutes a 'God' then it will distort the interpretation of pantheistic thought.
Understandably Pantheism is often referred to as 'jazzed-up atheism.' Although our beliefs about the existence of a supernatural god are certainly in-line. Those who associate with pantheism tends to maintain a strong sense of nature-linked spirituality. It is important to recognise both the similarities and difference between these two thoughts.
I am a pantheist in my thinking. But it is not my pantheism which defines what I must believe about how the world operates in a scientific sense, about existence/boundaries/how life began. the word 'God' applied in this context is fluid and adaptive. As opposed to limiting the scope of what 'is and isn't' before we even begin to explore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
