Yesterday afternoon I first stopped at DJ’s for potatoes, apples, onions and one green Almond in the skin. I had to open it with a hammer and the nut was still white, about eight $$ all together.

From there I was on to Memory Express for some last questions on my Asus T100A tablet; I’ll use Atab for short. It should also work with a separate Bluetooth key board I was told, while over there it became clear that the Wi-Fi works as well. But, I still need to find a place where I can find Shaw Open and need to find an outlet for a case and a stylus.

Home at about four pm and time to make dinner preps and some phone calls. Thomas and I are still working on his email to Shaw from Telus problem, but I think that it has been isolated to his computer and or account and mailing practice.

In the evening I gave some more thought to ‘secularity’ and wrote a four page note on this topic – see Writings below. I also marked up last week’s daily entries, but did not post them as yet. Also, last year today was the day I returned from my west coast trip, just three days before the big waters hit Calgary.

The wreckers are working away in the alley behind and over from our building. The super structures – two houses and two bungalows – are gone and now it is the turn of the foundations and the remnants, which are carted away in broken houses moving trucks.

I elaborate on this here, because while I considered the idea, effects and affect of secularity I sensed similarity between the two. Obviously I am still grappling with the functionality and consequences that I have recently detected associated with the process of going through secularity.

In my frame work essay – in progress – I mentioned that I see secularity is a transitional stage between belief frame works, much like the way you cross a river by taking the ferry, the ferry 'Secularity ’ in this case!

However, referring back to my writings of yesterday I realise that last Sunday’s insight is much more about the workings and processes that take place in this 'switching of sides' across the river of human life and experience. The wreckers’ analogy makes clear that superstructure and foundations have to be cleared to make room for the new building which will rest and be placed on the now cleared land and soil.

This analogy is raising the questions in me as to what needs to go and what must remain of the old handed down belief frame works. In the four page note from last night I make clear that the old personal type references of the anthropomorphic god image is for me an old concept, albeit still with the value of reassurance. The foundational part refers to the idea of creation and ordering of the universe. Since the handed down stories and myths of the traditions are stories composed and written by humans, it must have been human insights that were so recorded.

To me this can be interpreted as a record of what humans became conscious of, with time and experience. We can then say that we humans discovered the order in the world around us, which helped us in functioning more efficiently in our daily affairs. By ordering it became possible for humans to deal consciously with more items in the daily experience.

The ordering was experienced as an awareness that came from outside, as in 'somebody must have put it there'. These are projected insights by the human who still has to assimilate that it is he who recognises the possibility of this order. At the start this is too overwhelming and so is projected on a power that represents the mystery that surrounds us still and is obviously greater, higher, wider and deeper than us mere humans.

We cannot expect to have all the answers, but we certainly can and must look for them!

To return to the wrecking analogy, we can also consider the idea of fixing up the old style houses and bringing them up to date with modern wiring, insulation, plumbing and much, much more especially money. This process too requires a lot of letting go as the old and familiar is turned inside out as it were.

Either way, wrecking and construction or renovation, the process of change as represented by secularity is difficult, costly and painful at times, but full of potential if planned and managed properly. How to manage secularity then becomes a crucial question? Old teachings and values must be re-evaluated, that is kept, changed or abandoned and new ones examined, tested, adapted and either adopted or rejected.

The word secularity implies to be in circulation. In the Middle Ages the possessions of the Church were in sacred trust and not in the market place. However, at times church property was put back in the circulation of the profane market – deconsecrated - and in this it became 'secular'.

This is the kind of process that is happening in our globalising world to the values and teachings of the handed down traditions. It happens violently in some cases as we can learn from the news, but in our 'Western' societies we see a debasement and shifting of values on a large scale.

It is incumbent on us not to just protest and oppose, but to understand and manage these processes consciously with fortitude and due diligence, such as is befitting of the conscious beings that we are. We cannot expect to have all the answers, but we certainly can and must look for them!
<10:04am~