Tonight's novelty: Unitarian 101 class. But first, some stuff that preceded it. And a little babbling to get me into the spirit. If you think I should have an editor, you're probably right. But this is how I play the game, so if you don't like it, you can direct your attention elsewhere. I won't be offended.

Restate my assumptions. Reevaluate my assumptions. Reformulate my plans accordingly. Meditate on the moment.

What am I doing here?

At Open Harvest today...

Rather than plod through the mundane details, I'll jump to the moment that stuck.

My shift had ended, and I was doing a little shopping. (Mmmmm.... Spinach. I'm now devouring the last of it. That didn't last very long at all. How unfortunate. I was hoping there would be some for tomorrow. Of course, I didn't want to get enough to last too long, because then it gets all gooey and yucky after a few days. It's hard to estimate how much one will consume.)

Before I left, I ran into T again, who was stocking the cooler. (We had been conversing randomly at various points during my shift.) I asked when her shift would be over, and she replied, "As soon as I get this done."

We talked a little more, I mentioned that I was going to the Unitarian class tonight, she said she had known a friend who was into that, and then I basically said, "See you later," and she wished me a good time at the class.

I didn't even really think about it until after I had walked out of the store, and had a moment to myself to think. Then, my internal forehead smacker kicked into full thrust. Why the bleep didn't you ask her if she wanted to go hang out at the coffee shop for a few minutes afterwards? You know you wanted to. A simple question. You had plenty of extra time before the class, and you knew you wanted to talk to her some more. Why, why, WHY?

For the majority of my ride to the church, including the stop in the park to commune with the ambience of non-human life (domesticated though it was), I pondered this question, doing my level best to keep the self-bashing aspect to a minimum.

To be clear: Though I am somewhat attracted to T, I'm not head over feet in love with her by any stretch; at least not at this point. I do know she seems like someone worth knowing as a friend. Beyond that, nothing is certain.

I vowed that if a similar situation presents itself again, I won't walk away without at least asking.

Then, there was the meta-analysis. If I truly haven't fallen for her, why am I making such a big goddamn deal about not asking if she wanted to hang out for coffee? I think I am being honest with myself when I say I really have no idea whether we'd be compatible at all, and in fact, it's probably a bit premature to even be thinking about that question. And I wouldn't be devastated if she didn't want to, or had other commitments. So... why all the massive post-mortem analysis over what ought to be a relatively trivial event (or lack thereof)?

One possible explanation: I really am crazy.

Another: My level of conditioned repression, likely imprinted beginning even before my first concsious memories, is so deep that even the tiniest hint of sexual interaction triggers an avalanche within.

This is a fact: Barring the presence of a severely altered mental state, there is no way for me to casually initiate relations with someone of the opposite sex when there is even the slightest chance that romantic involvement might follow. Everything has to be planned out beforehand. If I don't plan ahead and go in determined to overcome my fear and make a showing, then nothing happens, period. I might even pretend to make it appear as if I'm saying something on the spur of the moment. But that would be an act. A lot like when President Bush "spontaniously" goes and hugs disaster victims in front of the cameras. But anyway...

After further contemplation, I realized there's probably another factor at work here. With T's expressed intention to move to Portland, I am reticent to form any sort of relationship with her, even the platonic friend variety. I hate when I feel like I've just started to become friends with somebody enough to know I'd like to keep in touch with them, and then be separated by geography.

It's happened too many times, with both male and female friends of mine. We hit it off really well, then our lives take us in separate directions. Addresses (or emails) are exchanged. For a while, we keep sending messages back and forth. But eventually, the cold medium of only words gets old. Times change. The letters slow to a trickle. And stop.

It just doesn't seem worth the energy and anxiety to go through that.

(That's why the ending to Before Sunrise was so f*$@ing brilliant.)

OTOH, at its most fundamental level, life is always transitory. People are always changing, moving on, finding new pursuits. So... My vow to myself stands. If a similar situation comes around again, and the circumstances are favorable, I won't hesitate. I'll ask T if she wants to hang around for coffee, knowing full well that any budding friendship will almost certainly not go very far when her trip commences. This moment is all there ever is.

Unitarian class.

I arrived at the church over a half hour before class was scheduled to begin. (I knew this because I asked someone in the parking lot for the time. Turned out she was the one leading the class.)

I hung around outside for a while, ate some of my spinach (Mmmm... spinach), and eventually moseyed in. It turned out that, aside from the instructor, I was indeed the first person to arrive.

Everyone in the class sat at folding tables arranged in a square to face one another. I'd guess there were 15 to 20 people there. Like in the church service, we wore nametags. Each person also got a folder full of stuff. Documents explaining Unitarian philosophy and principles, a brief outline of the class, and some other papers I haven't even looked at yet.

The instructor gave a brief introduction, and then we went around the circle and everybody introduced themselves. We then learned about the sources of Unitarianism. (Pretty much all stuff that could easily be found on the website, or Wikipedia. But I knew the real purpose of this course was not to merely learn dry theory, but to get a more direct feel for it in practice, and also to meet other members.)

Then several people from the new member welcoming committee described their own belief systems, or ones they had researched. The instructor classified herself a Religious Humanist, and proceeded to describe the humanist ethos. Another person who was into mysticism talked about that, and handed out a pamphlet about it. Then there was a Naturalist, and a Deist. Each one outlined their ideas.

Then we broke up into smaller groups for further discusssion, where we could talk about what we identified with from the various "-isms" that had been described, and also discuss our own religious backgrounds.

When I talked about my rather odd and eclectic collection of sources for religious and spiritual development, the instructor (who happened to be in the same group I was) suggested I might try attending one of the CUUPS meetings. CUUPS is the subset of Unitarians who focus on Pagan rituals and ideas. She didn't have their meeting times handy, but I could probably find out next time I come to church.

Impressions

In principle, I like the Unitarian philosophy of open-mindedness. acceptance, and respect for differences in each other's spiritual journies. However, this evening, I went away feeling like I hadn't really connected very well with anyone there. They seemed like nice people. But it was like I wasn't on the same wavelength, spiritually.

Then again, how much depth can really be expected when you throw together a batch of total strangers for a couple hours? (Actually, that's not quite true. I felt like a stranger. But a lot of the people there had been attending the church for several months, so many of them knew each other at least a little bit.)

Of course, I still plan to attend the service this Sunday, and at least complete this 3-week course. At this point though, I'm less than certain that Unitarian is the church for me. Why? Intuition.

During the ride home, I attempted to further analyze and understand what I was sensing.

Much of the discussion seemed to focus on stuff I would have been thinking a lot about (and loved) 10 or 15 years ago. [In my best Al-Franken-as-Stuart-Smalley voice...] "You believe in a God in the sky. I believe in an animistic view of the universe. And that's... ok. He believes in reincarnation, she believes in an afterlife. And that's also... ok. Because we're good enough, we're smart enough, and doggone it, people like us. Or even if people from other churches don't like us, we like each other. So we're all... ok."

I'm sure that in some of their other courses and groups that focus on more specific topics, there's more meat to chew on, metaphorically speaking (hopefully). So like I said, I'm not ready to give up on it yet.

Other thoughts. In a post on yanthor.net, Nemo (a friend with whom I frequently disagree with on religious matters, but I have grown to respect his impeccable ability to reason with clarity and discernment) said that Unitarians seem to "delight in open-endedness". I don't necessarily see this as a weakness; at least not all the time.

However, he later states, in regard on the purpose of having a church at all, "people gain strength from congregating together with those of like mind."

With this, I can definitely agree. And so it is that I wonder, if a bunch of us sit around and talk about how nice it is that we can all have differing views and still get along, how much spiritual progress can really be made on that basis? Maybe if the focus of your religion is plurality itself, then that's good enough.

But as my own spiritual outlook gradually comes into clearer (and more specific) focus, I find that I hunger for more than mere "acceptance" of differences. I want to know more people who think like me, who share my value system (confused though it may often be), whose searches are at least going in a direction at least vaguely similar to my own. But more specifically I define that direction, the more difficult it becomes to find anyone else who might share it.

Over the past year, I think I've probably gleaned more spiritual insight from the gnostic writings of Jeremy Puma than from any other single source. He (and several other bloggers) seem to have an intuitive grasp of how things are on a deep level that comes through in their writings.

In meatspace, the closest thing I can say I've found to those who share my outlook are some people I've encountered who might call themselves "anarchists". Since anarchism is generally considered more of a political ideology than a religious framework, some might question whether I might be confusing or conflating the two.

Consider these questions. "What kind of world do we live in? If we've figured that out, how do we deal with it? What's our response? How do we react? What is our most important purpose in this life?"

To me, these questions are very spiritual in nature. They are the sorts of questions many anarchists seem to be asking. Rather than piddling around wondering about whether "God" is a deity in the sky, or a lump under a rock, we question our role in the world.

Another common thread among anarchist thinkers I've run into (which seems to be largely absent even from alterna-mainstream religions such as Buddhism and Unitarianism) is an acknowledgement that yes, there is something deeply flawed about the way modern civilization is run, and that part of our spiritual quest is to learn how to mend the wounds it has caused, and reacquaint ourselves with the wisdom found in nature's cycles, as well as the seeds of divinity buried deep within our own souls.

To my knowledge, this religious philosophy does not have a name. Calling it "anarchism" is not sufficient, as that word already has its own definition that does not include these ideas. I only mention the term because a lot of people who call themselves (or associate with) "anarchists" also seem to have a grasp of these notions.

One term that might work is Anarchognosticism, although I'm not sure even that encompasses the whole of what I've been getting at. (Coined and defined by Tim Boucher, symbol by J. Puma, big messy mutilation by me.)

Anyway, now I'm challenging myself to define my religion by its own specific characteristics, rather than globbing together a bunch of labels (such as "Buddhist", "Gnostic", or "Wiccan") from which I might have gleaned an idea or two.

Here's a rough draft stab at defining some principles, beliefs, fundamental values, what-have-you: (now I'm really just speaking for myself, as I don't know if there's anyone else in the world who will latch onto all these or not)

• Most of the human world as it is currently constructed (i.e. civilization) is out of order, bringing misery and suffering to millions of people, causing irreperable harm and destroying other life on the planet which humanity needs in order to stay alive. Dependence on the prevailing way of life is being stuck on a train approaching a cliff. We might die either way, but our best bet is to try to get loose (let go of attachments) and jump off.
• The source of the world's problems is not humanity per se, but the way in which humanity is ruled. This isn't to say that rulers are necessarily bad people, but that the very existence of ruling positions (regardless of the intentions of those who occupy them) causes harm. (Note that I should also define a distinction between "leaders" who inspire people into wanting to help them, and "rulers" who gain and maintain control with coercive measures, subtle or obvious.)
• True fulfillment can be found by reconnecting with the natural world, and forming a deep spiritual connection with non-human species. Wild, untamed life in any form is most sacred. This communion may be achieved through ritual, meditation, physical contact with the earth's processes, or other means. (Neopagan influence here is pretty obvious. Rituals may involve neopagan practices, but not necessarily so.)
• Cultivating compassion is also an essential component of healing the schism. Meditation is one way, but might not be the only way.
• The ideal existence is unmediated. (Needs more work to explain.)
• If any sin exists, it is the coercion or needless destruction of other life.
• Death is a necessary part of life.
• [more to be defined]

That's one stab at it. I'm not sure how far I'm going to go with this. I seriously doubt I'll be founding a new church or anything, but it's fun to draft and codify this stuff, rather than just sort of fumbling around with vague assumptions floating at the back of my mind. It would obviously need more work if I were going to use it for anything other than self-reflection, but this little list seems like a good start.

I'm getting the sleepies now, so that will be all for this excursion.