It has now been bothering me for a few days about my two previous posts (Rhino and Watermelons…). How can I have the gall to post so self… confidently about philosophy or religion? Don’t I know that I’m just some guy? I’m no Kant, no pope, no Maslow. Don’t I realize that?

So, I thought more. This is what I came up with… first of all, those two big topics … religion and philosophy, with all their “sub” topics (reason, logic, epistomology, metaphysics, la la la) are all journeys, not end points. At what point does a text acquire meaning, and at what point does it cease to have value? In theory, it should acquire value as soon as you read it or think it. And in actuality, it never ceases to have value. Yes, you may process the information, decide its bunk, and move on, but you will have stepped through that process of analysis, compared it to your own thoughts and thinking, and spit it out the other end in some gastronomic expulsion, properly digested and consumed.

Further, that journey is an individual journey. That path has many branches. Not everyone is as far along as any other, and it also needn’t end in the same place for everyone. If it did, we’d only have one “world religion” and one way of thinking. How boring. So you may think… “Hey, I read what you wrote. You’re wrong! Its refuted in EurypiHegelKanticles’ master work _Dance of the MetaChroniManifesticle_”. To that I say “Hoorah!” … I’ll hit Amazon right away and dig my teeth into its juicy hide. I’ve got some serious digesting to do.

As a final thought, I will leave you with the wise words of ZenRhino: “One man’s metaphysics is another man’s wankfest”. Thanks Rhino, you always manage to drop it down to the real deal. Fo’shizzle.