What does belong is the heart wrenching story of prioritization of life following the death of a family member, same with complications of a daughter. Many of us are planning on having children soon, so the perspective is very interesting.

You know what I think would make this posting better? If 'pg added a feature I just came up with to HN that allows us to collaboratively edit Paul Buchheit's stories as if they were Wikipedia articles or Stack Overflow answers. I bet, as a group, we'd sure do a great job of capturing what Paul thinks about what's important in life, and also we could better inform people about why they shouldn't use vi because modal editors are relics best left to the 1970s.

It's not given or taken. It's not a thing. It's not a pie -- in which, once you've eaten it, no one else can.

It sometimes feel like it is a thing, a limited resource that we must hoard. Something made up of hormones and bioenergy. Something precious and delicate that we must protect. But that's fear, not love.

We're born in love. We receive it from our mother and father. But as we grow older, we forget that Love Is. So we attribute it to our parents. Our parents have bad days too. And we learned to seek out attention by doing things. We've substituted need for approval for love.

And then puberty happens.

What is it that the ancients say? A thirsty man stands in the middle of a river, screaming his heart out because he doesn't know what he needs it right there in him.

The gift is in remembering it's always been there. It's not something someone gives you because you've been a good boy. It's not that special: everyone, regardless of sex, race, or faith or lack of faith -- regardless of the acts you've committed, the shame, guilt, fear that tortue you -- everyone is loved. That is the "unconditional" part of "unconditional love."

"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?", asks the nerd. "No, for thou art not a day in a particular season and the comparison would make no sense. Also, stop using vi."

Sometimes I disagree with you, but man, Thomas, you are on point in this thread today. Thank you.

Sometimes the occasional jab at fundies is overlooked, sometimes the occasional mention of solace in a higher power is tolerated; but the nature of Paul's characterization was beyond the cultural norms of this board.

The strength and appropriateness of someone's statement in areas that are beyond his or her's direct involvement in a particular project or field should come directly from the innate strength of the arguments themselves and from the innate appropriateness of the arguments themselves.

Paul is a great man. He's directly impacted my everyday work flow and many of my ideas - but the closeness of this community is damaged by divisive and potentially offensive claims. If anything he should be setting the standard for what is expected here; and I say this with full knowledge of of how many of his potentially offensive arguments rang truth to my ears.

If someone is in pain and they wish to talk to someone close to them, even with potentially offensive ideas, that is one thing. Writing something on the internet and submitting it to an online forum, however, is an implicit acceptance of the review of others at that board.

I truly believe he is well meaning, civil, caring, etc. But this place will devolve quickly when the subject matter becomes highly subjective and divisive.

I suggest examining how the concept of God bothers you in the essay; I'm not saying this to say you don't get it or that you are wrong. That disturbing feeling is the Jungnian shadow speaking when one is trying to reject something. Unconditional love is unconditional: even the concepts and feelings that disturb you.

Though ... if it doesn't bother you, then there's nothing further to say, eh?

Anyways, good luck, man.

I can tell you that, if you meditate (mindfully) long enough, you will trip out. Whether what you see while tripping out is something you want to call gods, or God, that is up to each individual. The religions you encountered as a child will frame much of the experiences you have during the trip, whether you want that or not.

There is a big difference between talking about being mindful, and practicing mindfulness. People like talking about it for a variety of reasons, and none of that helps with practice. Being mindful, you are probing into the fundamental nature of things: things come and go, they don't satisfy, and they are not you.

Things come and go: that includes any of the heavenly and angelic beings you might encounter while tripping out meditating. Easy to do if you don't want to believe their realness in the first place. However, that also includes any fears and aversions you might have about religion.

So ... the religious and mindfulness are not really separate. I've written some cheat-sheets and minor how-tos on how to practice mindfulness while avoiding bringing in religion. Because I know a lot of people have hangups that trigger this. (And I want to eat :-)). But essentially: if you are religious, then the attachment you let go is that of slavish worship; if you are not religious, then the attachment is in the aversion to anything smacking of religion. Either way, your actions and thoughts are being controlled by things that happen in the early childhood, ... that's not really being mindful ...

I don't know how to talk about the "first flowering" -- that first time you feel unconditional love while meditating -- without bringing in talk about the wisdom traditions. At best, I say, "practice this, and see for yourself." Usually it is, "practice this so you can feel calmer and be more effective living your life." And if they start blissing, well, let them be even then. They can come to their own conclusions.

I don't know if that helps you talk with your friend or not. I think it will come out better in your own words anyways :-D

@leibniz sound interesting, how about taking this privately by email?

Thanks for sharing, Paul.

It's as if someone took a few beautiful pictures of picturesque landscapes and then in the last few shots the bottom of the photo included their stinky foot and some empty cans of Bud Light. You could make $20 predicting the moans about that, too.

You and I both know there are plenty of people on HN who both believe and don't believe in God, and you had to have known that a comment like this would cause contention and detract from the point of Paul's post.

Better? I believe Paul is really referring to an abstract concept here, not what most people think of as God.

My mother-in-law is afraid of dying. But more than a healthy respect that one might expect with regards to ceasing to exist, so afraid that she cannot talk about it. She cannot utter its possibility, nor conceive thoughts which involve a state of the world in which she is no longer living. It really puts a crimp in estate planning as you might imagine. Here is a person who refuses to write a last will and testament. The will is only a useful document when you are dead, and to think about the things you put into a will you have to start with "ok so when I am dead ..." And for her, she will not think that thought. She cannot even think of being dead in the abstract her fear is that powerful.

I've met people who respond that way thinking about God. Abstract or not, conversational or theological, just can't go there. My Dad is like that. Its because he has combined the notions of "God" (sort of the abstract concept that Paul talks about of forgiveness and love) with "Religion" which Paul talks about as using Fear and Greed to exhort behaviors.

It is sad when being unable to think thoughts about a subject causes hurt to those you love. Their love prevents them from bringing it up, and the circle is complete.

Nowadays I aim to focus on the underlying intent, rather than the literal meaning. God is a fairly abstract, catch-all word that can mean a lot of different things to different people.

Exactly right.

What I have observed however that talking about God locks some people up. Sometimes in an actively un-responsive way. So for them the word is associated with a meaning they are running away from. And you can't talk about their meaning because, well they are running away. The is the circle I alluded to in my original comment.

This is incredibly presumptuous.