Yesterday I sorted out more books to go and have now culled through three bookcases, with two more to go. Once those are done, I’ll ask Dave to come over to get the books this week yet. There are still many books left, but I don’t need to get rid of them all, at this time. I know from experience that when you are clearing out, you can be too radical and later regret having let go of too much.

I did not do any web work, but tried to reformat the old Vista disk, which did not work. The reformat software thinks that the disk is still in use. So, that means John will have to come to the rescue! Later today I join Rene to go shopping for goat meat and cook it up! That will be a new one for me.

And … twenty years ago today was the day - Easter weekend then -, that Ina my wife up until then, decided that she wanted to stay away. And that is the way our final official separation began. It completed with the issue of divorce papers dated October 14 1995. That was the official end of a bond started on July 31, 1965 in the sleepy town of London Ontario, now much in the news regarding home grown terrorism suspects.

The legal relations are settled and separated, but it is like with leaving your parental home, emotional bonds, feelings and memories remain. Albeit changing with time, as new insights emerge and we develop further as persons growing in understanding from experience lived.

Yesterday’s end was abrupt and here follows a small addition to supplement it. The idea of ratio also means proportion like in rations. The root for the word ‘reason’ is Gothic and it means ‘giving account’. This notion I want to relate to revelation, insight, discovery and the like. These processes of emergence give ‘holus bolus’ content for the conscious recipient to deal with. I contend that we need to apply this proportioning process of the ratio in such cases to make the revealed content palatable and adapted to the civilised world.

The revelation may come from a held god image, but that does not mean un-adapted implementation. The traditions of humankind are our guide in this adaptation process and should inform our opinions and actions.
So far the supplementing addition to yesterday’s writings in order to complete that ‘train of thought’.

Since yesterday and also this morning, I have been entertaining the need for formulating the personal aspect of a reason for being within the totality of the human realm. To put it more directly, it is all good and well to know the meaning of human existence as a whole, but what gives meaning to the life of the individual within that whole? What is ‘Elfie’s life all about, to paraphrase the well known song ‘What is it all about Elfie?’ dating from the nineteen sixties.

I have not come to a resolution of this issue, but here is a start. The handed down human traditions have rules of purity [Hinduism], ortho praxis (rules of conduct) [Semitic and Buddhist], ortho doxus (right thought) [Christian] and rules for charity [Paul and Jesus]. What would that be for us to day, with all our science, technology, material wealth and comfortable life styles?

A thought bubbles up - emerges! - that in my own line of thinking we humans are responsible, now that we know our own history and origins as human beings. That responsibility then would also stretch to include the formulating of such an individual purpose consciously, using and knowing what we know.

I am saying here that the revealed truth here is that we are the acting and responsible agent ourselves and can no longer rely on an outside source to direct us, since we have become conscious of our own processes. So, it is up to you, to me, to every other individual to learn to frame and formulate a purpose for that individual life in conscious awareness informed by the traditions and experiences of humankind.
<10:16am
After a coffee break 10:45am>

While on my break, the above insight seems to hold in that it has applicability. For example, you might say we already have standards of conduct and we do, but look at what has happened in the case of making war on Iraq, the case of the 2008 financial crisis and now the outing of thousands of cases of tax avoidance.

People bend the rules that are attributed to an outside source in a process of ‘beating the rules’ , ‘getting away with it’ and ‘if I don’t do it, someone else will’. These are self serving inventions and rationalisations. If on the other hand we place the source of the rules of conduct with the individual in question, he or she is guilty by force of breaking their own rules.

In other word the rule breaker defeats himself or herself, and condemns itself for its own behaviour and then having to start all over again so to speak. The tax avoider is no longer beating the system, but beating itself. This is the principle, but that does not address the issue of ‘bringing to justice’.
<11:00am~