Koyanisquasti: "life out of balance"

am reading dan brown's da vinci code, really interesting, learning a lot about the history of christianity .. although most of it I already knew, (being an established atheist its my duty to know these things ;) historical evidence has shown that the current version of the bible and christianity are not entirely accurate. in fact the current version of it was really a result of charlamange's compilation back when he turned the roman empire into the holy roman empire, who's recompilation of the bible and selection of gospels for the new testament was specifically to promote the idea of the divinity of jesus and the role of women in the original sin, thus destroying centuries of religious ideology of the importance of the balance and equal importance of masculinity and femininity, centuries of worship and reverence to women and femininity and the source of life. until the moment of Council of Nicaea, Jesus was seen as a mortal prophet, bringing his message of humanity.

after all .. why should the act of Hieros Gamos, the natural sexual union between man and woman be viewed in shame? look where the lack of balance has brought us today, what Brown suggests as the "male ego [spending] two millennia running unchecked", resulting in "testosterone-fueled" wars and misogyny.

the fact is organized religion is about power. its about control. by way of suppression. and often in the pursuit of such power and control is the real goal of spiritual fulfillment often forgotten. heck, the term "organized religion" is an oxymoron, how could you put organization and structure on something as personal as religion.

imagine how the foundations of the church would shake, if it were popular knowledge that its version of history was indeed an inaccurate reinvention of history as a vessel for power. it would discredit its claims as the single path to reaching god. I say "popular knowledge" because, after all, what is truth but what is widespread perception?

its true what Napoleon said, "what is history, but a fable agreed upon"?

but this brings up an interesting point, what is "truth"? what is "real"? the fundamental question morpheus posed to neo in the first matrix. there's absolute truth, and then there's perceived truth .. and everything that we see or experience is merely perceived truth. everything we "see", "hear", "know" through our senses are filtered through our own preconceptions of what things are supposed to be.

how do I we know we "see" "blue" as the same thing? but then again does it matter?

therefore what is real? the world is full of data .. data is meaningless without interpretation. the screen that I see is really data on EM waves .. my mind interprets it as a computer screen. therefore, is "reality" meaningless? if perception is everything (flash that soda commercial, "image is nothing, thirst is everything"), if perception is "reality" per se, then if I were really hooked up to some machine and what I see is really a virtual environment pumped directly into my brain, is that so wrong then, assuming the conditions of that simulation provide me with the adequate rights to choice, comfort and sustenance?

just occurred to me that this sounds like what buddhists (or was it hundhus) say about the ultimate reality being "nothingness", and if you free yourself of attachments (mortal perceptions?), you will achieve this state of enlightenment, nothingness.

plato said that what we see are "shadows" of absolute, perfect forms. perhaps he was right after all

sorry, feeling a little contemplative today :)