Chasing Childhood Fantasies: What If That’s All Life Really Is?

How about a Saturday post, for when the noise quiets—something more personal to sit with in (hopefully) our off-hours, as we have time for reflect on our existence, our being, and on the path we're walking.

What if all life is just us trying to fulfill our childhood fantasies—until we do, or convince ourselves we did, or find a way to settle for something close enough?

And if that’s true...

What changes when we finally know it? 

That’s a powerful reflection.

If all life is a quest to fulfill—or reconcile with—our childhood fantasies, then recognizing this gives us clarity in several ways:

1. Awareness Brings Choice

If you know that some of your deepest drives come from the child you once were—wanting to be heroic, loved, seen, safe, or powerful—then you can step back and ask:

“Is this really what I want now? Or is it what that child needed?”

That awareness lets you make choices more aligned with your present self, not just the echoes of your past.

---

2. It Offers Compassion (Especially Toward Ourselves)

When you recognize this truth, you stop seeing yourself as irrational, broken, or lost.
You realize:

“Oh… I was just trying to become the person I once imagined I’d be—or needed someone else to be.”

This can soften the self-judgment and help you forgive yourself, and others.

---

3. It Explains the Ache—and Suggests Healing

If we’re chasing the unfulfilled promises of childhood (be it wonder, justice, freedom, or unconditional love), then part of life’s meaning might be to reframe those dreams—not abandon them, but reinterpret them.

To go from:

“I need to be the astronaut/firefighter/rockstar/my dad’s hero…”
to
“I need to feel purpose, courage, awe, or acceptance—and here’s how I can get that now.”

---

4. It Helps Us Let Go or Finish the Story

Sometimes knowing that you’ve been driven by a childhood dream gives you permission to finally say:

“I tried. I honored that dream. Now I can release it.”
Or…
“I never gave it a real shot. Time to give it one.”

---

So how does knowing this help?

It makes your life less accidental and more intentional.
It reframes old wounds into motives.
It shows you where you’ve been running—so you can stop, or run smarter.

Chasing Ghosts in the Mirror: Are We Just Trying to Fulfill Our Childhood Fantasies?

What if all life really is…just us trying to fulfill our childhood fantasies—until we do, or until we find a way to believe we did, or settle for something that makes it all feel close enough?

It’s a strange, even haunting thought. But one that can bring surprising clarity.

From the moment we begin to dream as children, we start writing the rough draft of our identity. We imagine ourselves as astronauts, knights, pop stars, explorers, powerful saviors, deeply loved heroes. We want to be seen, to matter, to win. Or maybe, we just want to be safe. Heard. Unconditionally accepted.

Then life happens.

Dreams are deferred, delayed, or destroyed. Sometimes by the world, sometimes by ourselves. But the need that gave birth to the dream? It doesn't disappear. It lingers. It shapes the paths we take, the people we choose, the risks we avoid, and the patterns we repeat. Even when we don’t realize it.

So what happens when we do realize it?

1. We Gain Perspective Over Our Choices

Recognizing that our motives are tied to childhood desires doesn’t make those motives less real—it just makes them more understandable.
That career obsession? That need for approval? That craving for control? Maybe it's not irrational. Maybe it’s just your inner child still trying to build a world where they finally feel safe, seen, or strong.

Once you know this, you can start choosing more wisely.
You can ask: Am I doing this for me, now? Or for the kid I used to be?

2. We Learn to Forgive Ourselves

There’s freedom in realizing we’ve all been improvising—struggling, succeeding, or self-sabotaging—in the name of unfinished childhood business.
You weren’t weak. You weren’t foolish. You were just trying to write a story that made sense of the one you were handed.

Understanding that lets you breathe. It makes space for compassion—especially toward yourself.

3. We Can Reframe the Dream

No, maybe you didn’t become the firefighter or the rockstar or the superhero.
But what feeling were you chasing? What core desire sat beneath the fantasy?

Security? Belonging? Significance? Wonder?

You can still have those. Just not always in the shape you first imagined.

The point isn’t to give up the dream.
The point is to let it evolve—into something more grounded, more possible, and more real.

4. We Get to Finish the Story

Maybe now is the time to give that fantasy one last, honest try.
Or maybe it’s time to say: I’ve honored it enough. I’ve earned the right to let it go.

Both are acts of maturity.
Both are acts of love.

---

Final Thought

Knowing that so much of life is driven by the dreams of our younger selves doesn’t trivialize who we are.

It humanizes us.

Because beneath the layers of armor, achievements, or cynicism, most of us are still just trying to be who we once hoped we’d become.

The trick is to do it consciously—so that your past doesn’t trap you, but guides you.

Not chasing ghosts.

But walking forward with the kid you used to be, finally hand in hand.

In recognizing this pursuit—the quiet pull of childhood desires echoing through adult choices—we encounter not a flaw, but a condition of being. Life reveals itself not as linear progress, but as a circling back, a yearning to make the inner world cohere with the outer. 

To know this is to awaken to the contours of one’s own becoming: the sense that meaning is not only achieved but remembered. And in that remembering, perhaps, we find peace—not because the dream was fulfilled, but because we finally understood what it meant to dream.

We may never live the dream exactly as we imagined it—

but we can still become the person who finds meaning beyond the dream.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

From Militia to Misfire: An AI-Powered Revisit of My 2017 Gun Rights Essay

 In 2017 I wrote a blog. I was curious what an AI would make of it. So I submitted it to MyReader AI and this is what it gave me.

The original blog is here: America Private Civilian (non) Militia Playtime Armed Forces (APCnMPAF)

MyReader summary:

The document presents a critical analysis of the Second Amendment, arguing against its interpretation that supports widespread civilian gun ownership, especially of military-style weapons. The author contends that the amendment was meant to ensure a well-regulated militia under government control, not to empower individuals against the state. They critique the historical misinterpretation of the amendment, particularly by conservatives and the gun industry, and emphasize the need for better education to address these misunderstandings. Ultimately, the author calls for the complete removal of the Second Amendment, advocating for systemic reforms to address gun violence in America.

Full summary:

This text presents a passionate argument against the interpretation of the Second Amendment that allows for widespread civilian gun ownership, particularly of military-style weapons. The author, a self-described university-educated researcher, argues that the amendment was intended to support a well-regulated militia under the control of the government, not to empower individual citizens to bear arms against the state.

The author begins by criticizing those who misinterpret the amendment, particularly conservatives and the gun industry, for their self-serving agendas. They emphasize the historical context of the amendment, highlighting the difference between the fledgling nation of the 1700s and the powerful, established America of today. The author then delves into the meaning of the amendment, arguing that "to bear arms" refers to military action against an enemy, not hunting or self-defense. They further criticize the current state of American education, which they believe has contributed to the widespread misunderstanding of the amendment.

The author then points out the absurdity of the argument that the Second Amendment is necessary in a country with a standing army. They quote Thomas Jefferson's concerns about the dangers of a standing army, but acknowledge that the system has functioned well enough to avoid those dangers.

The author concludes by calling for a complete removal of the Second Amendment, arguing that any attempt to reword it would be futile without addressing the broader issues of education, gerrymandering, and the electoral process. They believe that these systemic problems have allowed for the corruption of the amendment's meaning and intent, leading to the current dysfunctional state of gun violence in America.

The author's main argument is that the Second Amendment, as it is currently interpreted, is a dangerous relic of a bygone era that no longer serves the needs of a modern, powerful nation. They advocate for a complete overhaul of the system, starting with education and moving towards a more progressive and responsible approach to gun control.

Interesting.

I will say this, in this climate we can't amend the Constitution to rid us of the 2nd Amendment as it relates to the disinformation campaign today initially fomented by the arms industry. 

Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address on January 17, 1961: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Same with the gun industry. What we need now is not to eliminate the 2nd Amendment, but to educate America toward the belief and the efforts of making America safe enough that, "I need a gun for protection," is a comment people laugh at. Also, even before that, we don't need the kinds of weapons people think, or the numbers of them people become acclimated to and some addicted to.

While modern gun rights advocates often emphasize the individual right to own firearms, the Second Amendment was historically about much more — and sometimes, something quite different.

Broader (and original) concerns behind the Second Amendment:

1. Militia vs. Standing Army:

   • In 18th-century America, there was deep distrust of standing armies (seen as tools of tyranny).

   • Militias — composed of ordinary citizens — were seen as a safeguard against centralized power.

2. Federalism and State Power:

   • It gave states a means to resist federal overreach by maintaining their own militias.

   • This was part of the balance of power between federal and state governments.

3. Slave Patrols (in Southern states):

   • Some historians argue Southern states pushed for the Second Amendment to ensure they could maintain armed slave patrols without federal interference.

4. Civic Duty, Not Individual Self-Defense:

   • The "right to bear arms" was tied to citizens' duty to serve in militias — not unrestricted personal gun ownership.

   • It was not originally framed as a self-defense or hunting right.

5. Collective Security:

   • The framers believed a militia made up of armed citizens would defend the republic from invasion, insurrection, or tyranny — including potentially from their own government.

---

The modern individual gun rights interpretation largely stems from the 2008 Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller, which redefined the amendment to protect individual ownership unrelated to service in a militia.

How the Supreme Court Got the Second Amendment Wrong

In 2008, the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision radically redefined the Second Amendment. For over two centuries, the right to “keep and bear arms” had been understood in the context of a well-regulated militia — a collective right tied to state defense. But in Heller, the Court broke with history and precedent, declaring an individual right to own firearms unrelated to militia service.

This wasn’t just a reinterpretation — it was a reinvention.

Justice Scalia’s majority opinion selectively quoted historical sources, downplayed the militia clause, and ignored the founders’ fear of standing armies. The framers didn’t envision armed citizens resisting their government — they expected citizens to defend it, in organized, regulated militias.

Even conservative legal scholars have criticized the ruling as judicial activism, not originalism. It cherry-picked the past to serve a modern gun rights agenda, transforming a civic duty into a personal entitlement.

The result? A sweeping legal shield that now blocks even modest regulations — all based on a version of the Second Amendment that never existed in the founders' minds.

The time has really come to stop clinging to a mythologized past that endangers our present. The Second Amendment, long distorted beyond its original context, has become a tool for justifying violence rather than preserving freedom. If we truly value life, community, and public safety, we must be willing to confront uncomfortable truths—including the need to repeal the Second Amendment. Only then can we begin the hard work of building a future rooted not in fear and firepower, but in reason, regulation, and responsibility.

Compiled with aid of MyReader.and ChatGPT AI

Would John Wayne have liked "Pres." Donald Trump?

It's unlikely that John Wayne would have fully embraced Donald Trump, though there are aspects he might have appreciated — and others he likely would have strongly opposed.

Here’s a breakdown:

What John Wayne Might Have Liked About Trump:

Patriotism and Anti-Communism: Wayne was a staunch anti-communist and nationalist, values Trump frequently invokes (though in a different context and tone).
Law-and-Order Rhetoric: Wayne often portrayed lawmen or soldiers and publicly supported strong law enforcement.
Media Criticism: Wayne distrusted liberal Hollywood elites and media narratives — something Trump built his brand on challenging.

What He Might Have Disliked:

Draft Dodging and Lack of Service: Wayne deeply admired military service (despite not serving himself due to age and timing), while Trump famously avoided the draft via questionable deferments.
Lack of Personal Discipline: Wayne valued traditional masculinity, self-control, and dignity — qualities many would argue Trump lacks in his personal behavior and speech.
Disrespect Toward Institutions: Wayne supported traditional American institutions (military, presidency, government) while Trump has frequently undermined them.
Populism and Demagoguery: Despite his tough-guy image, Wayne had a complex political philosophy and may have seen Trump’s tactics as dangerously manipulative or self-serving.

Contextual Note:
John Wayne was a conservative, but an old-school one. He was against the New Left but also valued certain democratic norms. His 1971 Playboy interview (controversial for good reason) shows a man of his time — with views that today read as racist and patriarchal — but not necessarily aligned with the kind of extremism Trump flirts with.

The Constitution Under Siege: When Manufactured Crises Yet Again Threaten Our Freedoms

 A White House seriously "looking into suspending habeas corpus" based on an "invasion" that objectively isn't happening signals the following:

---

1. Authoritarian Creep
Suspending habeas corpus is one of the most extreme measures a government can take—it removes the fundamental right to challenge unlawful detention. Doing so based on a manufactured or exaggerated crisis is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes.

2. Historical Red Flags
The last time habeas corpus was suspended in the U.S. was during the Civil War by Abraham Lincoln—under actual rebellion and invasion. Doing so now, without a comparable threat, would be an abuse of executive power.

3. Weaponizing Fear
Calling routine immigration or border crossings an “invasion” is propaganda, not policy. It's designed to justify otherwise unconstitutional acts and rally a political base by stoking xenophobia and fear.

4. Constitutional Crisis
Such a move would likely provoke immediate legal challenges and possibly a showdown between the executive branch and the judiciary—especially if people are detained indefinitely without trial.

5. Precedent for Political Persecution
If habeas corpus can be suspended under a pretense, it sets a precedent for using it against political opponents, journalists, or activists. It opens the door to indefinite detention of anyone the administration deems a threat—real or imagined.

---

In short: it's not just bad policy—it's dangerous. It signals a government testing how far it can go in dismantling constitutional rights under false pretenses.

Would you like a comparison to other historical moments when this kind of tactic was attempted?

Here are some historical comparisons where governments invoked false or exaggerated threats to suspend civil liberties—especially habeas corpus or equivalents—to consolidate power:

---

🔴 United States – Lincoln’s Civil War Suspension (1861)

• Real crisis: The Union was literally being torn apart by secession and armed rebellion.

• Action: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to detain Confederate sympathizers.

• Backlash: Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled it unconstitutional in Ex parte Merryman, but Lincoln ignored the ruling.

• Lesson: Even in the gravest national emergency, it was controversial—and today, doing it without any real invasion would be indefensible.

---

⚫ Nazi Germany – Reichstag Fire Decree (1933)

• Staged crisis: Nazis blamed Communists for the Reichstag fire, likely set by the Nazis themselves.

• Action: Hitler used the emergency to suspend civil liberties, arrest political opponents, and usher in dictatorship.

• Lesson: Manufactured threats can be a gateway to totalitarianism. The first step is usually stripping legal protections.

---

🟤 Philippines – Marcos Martial Law (1972)

• Faked threat: Ferdinand Marcos cited a supposed Communist rebellion to declare martial law.

• Action: Suspended habeas corpus, censored media, arrested opposition.

• Result: Marcos ruled as a dictator for over a decade.

• Lesson: Once habeas corpus goes, so does democracy—often for a generation.

---

🟡 United Kingdom – Internment in Northern Ireland (1971)

• Exaggerated threat: British authorities used IRA violence to justify internment without trial.

• Action: Detained hundreds of Irish Catholics without charges.

• Backlash: Fueled resentment and radicalized more people, escalating violence.

• Lesson: Suspension of rights can worsen tensions and lead to more instability.

---

🟠 India – The Emergency (1975–1977)

• Political ploy: Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a national emergency to avoid being removed from office.

• Action: Habeas corpus was suspended, thousands detained, censorship imposed.

• Aftermath: Widely condemned as a dark chapter in Indian democracy.

• Lesson: Even democracies can tip into autocracy when leaders abuse "emergency" powers.

---

Summary Quote:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of tyranny is for good people to do nothing."
– Often attributed to Edmund Burke (though disputed)

---

If a U.S. president attempts to suspend habeas corpus over a fictional "invasion"?

The comparisons aren’t with Lincoln—they're with Marcos, Hitler, and Indira Gandhi.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Folly of Wanting “Just Anyone” to Be President

 Why Experience in Politics Actually Matters

Can we?

There was a time I thought a country run by a businessman might be a good idea. After all, if someone can manage a billion-dollar company, surely they could run a nation, right?

Then someone asked me: “Would you want the CEO of your company to run the country?”

Absolutely not.

That was the beginning of a shift in my thinking. I had bought into the fantasy that a “non-politician” could somehow sweep in with fresh ideas and fix everything wrong with Washington. No baggage. No alliances. Just results.

But governing isn’t a solo project. It’s not an episode of Shark Tank or a hostile takeover. It’s managing 330 million people, each with needs, rights, and voices—not shareholders. It’s steering an unwieldy ship through treacherous waters, with entrenched institutions, conflicting interests, and complex international dynamics. You can't fire Congress. You can't deregulate democracy.

When I stopped to really think about what it takes to govern well, I realized the idea of “anyone can be president” is not inspirational—it’s naive. Sure, in theory, anyone can run. But that doesn't mean everyone should.

A qualified political leader isn’t just someone who can speak in slogans or “tell it like it is.” It’s someone who has:

• A clear understanding of the political landscape—personalities, factions, history

• A grasp of policy—how laws are made, how bureaucracies function

• Experience in negotiation and alliance-building

• And ideally, a sense of service rather than self-interest

The outsider fantasy is appealing because it promises change without effort—"burn it all down" and build something better. But in reality, the outsider either becomes part of the system they don’t understand or breaks it trying to rule without wisdom.

It’s not impossible for an outsider to do well. It’s just not reasonable to expect they will—especially if they lack curiosity, humility, or the patience to learn.

So no, I don’t want “just anyone” to be president. I want someone who knows what they’re doing—and has the scars to prove it.

I sure as HELL don't want some failed "businessman", convicted felon, malignant narcissist, authoritarian to be president.

If nothing else, the Trump era should have shattered the illusion that charisma, wealth, or outsider status are substitutes for competence, character, or understanding. Electing someone like Trump—someone with no interest in learning, no respect for institutions, and no grasp of governance—isn’t just a bad idea. It’s a warning sign of a democracy forgetting why experience, empathy, and accountability matter.

In closing,..

Trump assures dock workers, truck drivers, and others employed in port associated businesses that they’re losing money, and perhaps their jobs, for a good reason.

This man? Is an idiot.

---

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Facing the Darkness: "Death of Heaven" Receives 5-Star Praise from Readers’ Favorite

 It’s always gratifying when a story you’ve lived with, wrestled over, and finally released into the wild finds a reader who gets it. That happened recently with a new review of Death of Heaven from Keana Sackett-Moomey at Readers’ Favorite, who honored the book with a glowing 5-star rating.

Keana writes:

“JZ Murdock's Death of Heaven is an exciting combination of science fiction, mainstream horror, cosmic mysticism, and unique storytelling... It is nearly impossible to put the book down due to its pulsating action and tension, vivid characters withstanding trauma, and sensational feats of imagination.”

That kind of response hits home—especially for a book like Death of Heaven, which never set out to be easy. The story follows two childhood friends, Jimmy and James, whose lives splinter after a traumatic event. One becomes a protector, serving his country in Special Ops. The other spirals inward, battling darkness that may not be entirely his own. Their reunion isn’t just a personal reckoning—it becomes a journey into the foundations of existence, faith, and fate itself.

Told across interwoven narratives and short stories, Death of Heaven explores the terrifying origins of humanity and the forces that may lie behind the curtain of our shared reality. Readers of Dead Silence and The Luminous Dead will feel at home in this chilling universe—but no one gets out unscathed.

“Murdock skillfully crafts an immersive world that blurs the lines between philosophical intrigue and sheer terror,” the review continues. “He explores topics like religion, human nature, and the concept of right and wrong in a shocking, realistic, and imaginative way.”

I wrote this book not just to entertain (though I hope it does), but to dig into uncomfortable truths:

• What if what we call “God” isn’t what we think it is?
• What if we’re not ready to know?
• If we were—would we survive it?

• What if our history as a species is built on falsehoods—so far beyond anything we ever imagined—that the truth would drive us mad, tear the fabric of our reality, and force us to confront powers older than time itself… watching, waiting, and wishing to return?

• What if those forces had enemies—greater powers even they feared... and hid from?
• And what if those greater forces, one day… arrived?

If you’re a fan of horror that dares to be cerebral, speculative fiction that’s unafraid of existential dread, or simply want to see what happens when friendship collides with revelation, I invite you to take the plunge.

Read the full review here:

📖 Readers’ Favorite Review – Death of Heaven

And if you’ve already taken the journey—thank you. Please share with others and I’d love to hear what you saw on the way down.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Exploring a Personal Path: From Slovakian Catholicism to Modern, Scientific Buddhism and Humanism

We are all shaped by our past, but the journey to self-understanding and personal philosophy is rarely a straight line. For me, while my father's family was of Irish descent (he mostly left my life when I was 3 and we were living in Spain), my mother's family is of Czechoslovakian descent and so the path has been long, winding, and full of exploration — beginning in my Slovak Catholic upbringing, moving through my study of and degree in, psychology, and eventually arriving at my own form of Buddhism and Humanism, all crafted through years of personal learning and introspection.

It’s not a "traditional" Buddhism — far from it — but one that resonates deeply with me, grounded in the original teachings of the Buddha, modified by an open, scientific mind.

The Catholic Foundation: A Starting Point

Raised in a Slovak Catholic household, my early years were defined by rituals, dogma, and a community of believers who lived their faith with devotion. Catholicism provided me with an early understanding of ritual, morality, and a sense of belonging. But as I grew older, I started questioning what I had been taught. I couldn’t shake the feeling that something was missing, that the answers provided by religion weren’t as satisfying as I had hoped.

---

Breaking Away: A Search for Truth

In high school, I began my intellectual journey, starting with psychology and broadening into other religions. I wasn’t content to simply reject my upbringing; instead, I sought out other traditions, attending different churches, reading religious texts, and talking to people from various faiths. I wanted to understand — not just what was right or wrong, but how each belief system fit into the complex puzzle of human experience.

It was through this process that I discovered the basic teachings of Buddhism. But my approach was far from traditional.

---

The Path I Chose: A Modern, Practical Buddhism

Unlike the Buddhism practiced in countries where it’s been entrenched for centuries, my form of Buddhism is more of a personal, pragmatic approach — one grounded in the Buddha’s core teachings, but without the added layers of mythology, reincarnation, or sectarianism. I didn’t buy into the different "schools" of Buddhism that have evolved over the millennia. I instead focused on the Buddha’s teachings themselves, as he outlined them: suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path leading to the cessation of suffering.

This approach allowed me to take the essence of Buddhism without the doctrinal baggage that has piled up over centuries. Zen has had a particular resonance for me. The Buddha’s instruction to "kill the Buddha when you meet him on the road" — a radical rejection of attachment even to the teachings themselves — has always stuck with me. It’s a reminder that no idea, no teacher, no system should be clung to too tightly. The essence of wisdom isn’t in what we’ve been told, but in how we live and embody that wisdom.

---

A Scientific Lens: Buddhism and Rational Inquiry

But there’s another crucial aspect to my journey: science. I wasn’t about to accept any belief system without critical thought. The study of psychology gave me a framework for understanding the mind, emotions, and human behavior. It wasn’t enough to just take Buddhism at face value. I wanted to ground my spiritual practice in reality, using evidence and empirical understanding to guide my choices.

This meant acknowledging that I couldn’t fully embrace the idea of reincarnation. Instead, I approached it as a concept rather than a truth. I recognize the possibility, but I don’t base my life around it. I prefer to focus on the Buddha's teachings in the present moment — on mindfulness, awareness, and self-regulation.

In essence, my form of Buddhism is a practical, secular approach to personal transformation, one that operates in the real world. It guides my decisions, my relationships, and my understanding of suffering and compassion — all informed by my personal experiences and years of study.

---

Living the Path: A Modern Approach to Buddhism

The Buddha's teachings are more than just religious doctrine — they are tools for navigating life with clarity, equanimity, and mindfulness. For me, this means using the Buddha’s Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path as a guide for understanding and addressing life’s challenges. Whether it’s dealing with personal suffering, the suffering of others, or the overwhelming complexities of life, Buddhism provides a framework to respond with awareness and compassion.

But it is not a path of blind faith or reliance on supernatural beliefs. Instead, it’s a continuous journey of self-discovery, reflection, and evolution — a way of shaping my understanding of life and the universe, informed by the best available knowledge and insights from both Buddhism and science.

---

The Journey Continues

This is not a destination, but an ongoing process. My understanding of Buddhism, and of life, continues to evolve as I learn, grow, and encounter new experiences. It is not an identity I attach to — but rather, a way of being that allows me to continually check my own assumptions, reconsider my orientation, and live more fully in the present moment.

I didn’t find all the answers in one religion or philosophy. I had to ask questions, explore deeply, and synthesize what resonated with me — and through this journey, I’ve discovered a form of Buddhism that feels uniquely suited to my life. A life guided by reason, empathy, and mindfulness.

And while it may not be the Buddhism practiced in monasteries or by those born into Buddhist cultures, it is mine — shaped by experience, knowledge, and an unyielding search for truth.

---

Thoughts

If there’s one thing I’ve learned on this journey, it’s that spirituality doesn’t have to be about adherence to dogma or following pre-existing systems of belief. It’s about finding what works — what brings peace, clarity, and wisdom to your life.

I invite anyone who’s on their own spiritual journey to explore, question, and find the path that feels most true to their own experience. Whether that path leads to Buddhism, science, or something entirely different, the goal remains the same: to live a life of awareness, compassion, and understanding.

But there's more...

"The Urantia Book: A Revelation for Humanity" (1995) by Martin Gardner details a history of how this book came to be written, but also about the local environment it was developed in. Which includes some of the American history detailed in the meme above.

The Urantia Book: A Cognitive Reorientation

When I first encountered the Urantia Book in the early 1970s, I didn’t approach it as a religious text in the traditional sense. While its content — an intricate narrative of the universe’s history, cosmology, and divine beings — is undeniably fascinating, I found its real value not necessarily in its doctrines, but in the way it reoriented my perception of the universe.

The Urantia Book demands a radical rethinking of basic concepts. It challenges how we understand everything — from the nature of God to the structure of the cosmos, and even the very words we use to describe existence. Words like "truth," "reality," "spirit," and "life" take on new meanings, encouraging the reader to redefine them in ways that make their usual sense seem limited or outdated. This shift is subtle yet profound: you start seeing connections between things that seemed unrelated before, and you begin to perceive more in less — finding depth, richness, and layers of meaning in moments or ideas that once felt trivial.

For example, the book introduces a cosmology where life is part of an evolving, interconnected, and purposeful universe. This perspective isn’t just about celestial realms and divine beings; it forces you to expand your understanding of life itself — the interconnectedness of all things, the purpose behind suffering and joy, and the dynamic nature of existence. It's not about dogma; it's about mental reorientation. By altering your understanding of certain concepts, you begin to view your place in the universe not as fixed, but as part of an ongoing, expansive journey.

---

A New Way of Seeing: From the Religious to the Philosophical

My son’s journey into the Urantia Book, along with his exploration of other religious texts like the Bible and the Qur’an, is part of this same broader quest to challenge assumptions and expand mental horizons. But the Urantia Book offers something unique: it alters the way you think about the universe, existence, and even the very nature of reality. It's like a lens through which you see the world more expansively and richly. But in this, it’s also a bridge between religion and philosophy, especially as he continues his studies.

Where the Bible and Qur’an offer moral frameworks and narratives rooted in faith and divine authority, the Urantia Book invites the reader to engage with its teachings in a way that feels less like doctrine and more like an invitation to think expansively. In this way, it challenges the mind to evolve, much as the Buddha’s teachings, Zen practices, and phenomenology encourage deep personal reflection and critical thought.

This is why I suggested that my son turn his focus next to Phenomenology of Perception by Merleau-Ponty. Just as the Urantia Book altered my perception by expanding the definitions of key terms, Merleau-Ponty offers a philosophical deep dive into how we experience the world — how perception, embodied experience, and consciousness shape our understanding. For someone who has already been questioning and expanding his spiritual and intellectual horizons through religious texts, this philosophical shift is a natural progression. It’s an exploration of how the mind constructs meaning, which ties beautifully into the way Urantia reorients one’s mental framework.

---

A Journey of Expansion: Final Thoughts

The intellectual and spiritual journey I began decades ago — from a Slovak Catholic upbringing to an open-minded exploration of multiple religious and philosophical systems — mirrors the journey my son is now undertaking. What we seek isn’t simply the answers to life’s questions, but the expansion of our minds and the deepening of our understanding. Whether it's through the complex cosmologies of the Urantia Book, the grounding philosophies of phenomenology, or the timeless teachings of Buddhism, the goal is the same: to grow beyond the limited confines of inherited belief and engage with life in its fullest complexity.

For me, The Urantia Book was never about accepting its content as absolute truth. Instead, it was a tool — a way of reshaping how I perceive the world. It altered my mental framework structurally, not in my knowledgebase or beliefs, thus inviting me to think bigger, to see more deeply, and to question what I thought I knew. This is the gift I hope my son receives: not just intellectual knowledge, but a deeper, more flexible understanding of reality itself, one that keeps evolving as he continues his journey of inquiry and exploration.

Regarding the concept of 'questioning authority': it's crucial to understand when to question and when not to, as some can get carried away with unfounded beliefs, losing their ability to think critically or function rationally. For within that is an orientation that can destroy families, or even entire countries.

As I continue to guide along my own path, I realize that the most important lesson I’ve learned — through every book, every conversation, and every experience — is that wisdom isn’t a destination. It’s a continuous process of transformation, constantly challenging and expanding the boundaries of our perception.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT