No one can provide definitive evidence on what is objectively true (science, our most effective and reliable model of reality, still has fundamental questions about the nature of reality that it is currently trying to solve).  That being the case, a working definition of truth could be:  a paradigm that propagates functionality and fits within the constraints of ethics that is able to iterate over long stretches of time (thanks Professor Jordan Peterson).  People encounter trouble when they ditch functionality (hippies) or ethics (fanatics), or the consideration that requires them to iterate their methods over time (idealists).  So in order to avoid these pitfalls, I leave objective reality up to physicists and professional philosophers; I’m not a good enough mathematician or deep enough thinker to keep up with those folks.  I simply focus on constant self-assessment, asking myself if I’m functional, ethical, and whether I’m iterating both those considerations as best I can in the present moment.

I don’t think setting out to inspire people is the most effective aim; I think the important thing is to clarify to oneself what it means to behave in an inspirational manner, and then hew to that standard.  I think when people witness that, it encourages them to apply inspiration-worthy behavior to their own unique constraints. 

The rest takes care of itself.

If I goof up or procrastinate, I’ll laugh and grin…but only if it’s the exception and not the rule, because most of the time, I like to trust myself to be productive and sharp.  As far as others go, I like to be as forgiving as possible, because who knows what they’ve gone through?  As long as they’re not messing with me, then it does me good to be compassionate, to leave them be, and if there’s no practical need to do so, it only does me harm to judge them harshly.

I believe Life gives people clues.  I believe these clues—gentle at first, but more forceful as time progresses—urge people to stop mindlessly repeating what others have said/done, and to iterate timeless truths in a manner which is both eternal and novel.  And isn’t that the goal of a legit teacher?  Not to have their students dogmatically bleat the same combinations of words, but to have them internalize a teaching so they can express it through their unique perspectives.  This delivers vitality into whatever those “students” say, for those “students” have gone beyond the teacher/student paradigm, and it is not just words they deliver, but resonance.

What if there is no “why” behind anything?  What if there was no [heaven/nirvana/god/enlightenment/etc./etc.] and this was it?  To me, it seems the sensible thing to do in that case would be to enjoy the present moment, apply myself so that I experience fulfillment, and be nice to others. 

But if you get down to the core teachings of all the “why” propagating beliefs, isn’t that basically what they tell you to do?  😉

Do whatever floats your boat—a heroic dose of psychedelics, meditation, prayer, ritual, magic, holy quests…my theory is that if you pursue a method to its given end, it’s only going to reveal that everyone/everything is interconnected, and to be brutally honest with yourself to keep your perception clear, which in turn allows you to intuit what is the best course of action…

Which will allow you to live the most fulfilling life possible.

A Zen koan implies that if you encounter [Buddha] on the road, you need to kill him because your perception is divorced from the reality that you ARE [Buddha], and need no teacher or savior.  But what if the idea of “teacher” was just an illusory concept that the all-powerful aspect of ourselves created so we could have fun playing the role of “student?”  Siddhartha Gautama said he would one day reincarnate as Matreiya, or “friend.”  Maybe that means that when he reincarnates, his students will have ditched the idea that there’s anyone to teach, or anyone to be taught, and that all [Buddha] becomes is someone to have fun with.  Or maybe it means that when you stop hating others (even though you might have to outwardly fight them), and you accept them into your heart as a friend, then they can fulfill the function of [Buddha] and fill you with wisdom.  

I like either interpretation.

Symbols hold power over us, right?  Don’t we prefer certain body shapes or high numbers in a bank account because they signify a higher societal status, or the ability to manipulate worldly goods?  (We can go deeper than that, but I’ll stick with those because they’re obvious).  To me that means that if there’s a deeper (often unstated) significance behind symbols, then the adept use of symbols can trigger a bone-deep flush of meaning.  From what I’ve seen, whoever’s being triggered doesn’t even have to fully understand what is happening to them, or why.  They simply enjoy drinking in that significance. 

What do you think a writer does?  😉

(Feel free to correct me; I don’t understand the math behind science) Strip away the dry connotations that weigh down science and trace its mechanisms down to the frontiers of discovery, where electrons are clouds of probabilities that collapse into points when entangled with observation, or how electrons don’t move between orbits but teleport onto them when they gain/lose energy, or how time is a construct which slows and ceases in dense enough singularities, possibly eliminating causality and only leaving conditions that iterate into existence…not only that, but chemicals aren’t just antipoetic strings of letters/numbers; they’re dancing bits of matter/energy that directly influence us humans, we who are BIGGER sacks of matter/energy.  

Just my opinion, but I think science is just as mysterious and cool as any pie-in-the-sky system of magic.

Will existence fall apart without us?  Are humans REALLY that important?  Do we NEED to accomplish this or that?  Take away the urgency of righteousness and epic causes, and every endeavor becomes quantified by whether or not it propagates fulfillment.  The rest is just cool dress-up we can choose to engage in.