I don’t fall under the label religion, religion is organised. I’m not. I do and write what I want.
Related to religion, some see me as a buddhist. I’m not a buddhist. I find a lot of interesting ideas in buddhism, and a lot of interesting and open minded people. But I have also found a lot of open minded people with an islamic, a hindu or christian background. I have never read the real old buddhist writings, I do not believe in reincarnation or karma, neither in heaven or hell for that matter. Anything I write that might sound buddhist, christian or whatever, is inspired but not sourced. You could say, based on rumours.
I’m not spiritual. In fact, I have forgotten the meaning of this word. I like talking to spiritual people, but I always have the impression that many of them just made their own private self-organised religion, that they have consolidated into a concrete faith in whatever it is that they once found out and now believe. I don’t follow conventions. I adapt all the time. Whatever is written today, might be found useless tomorrow. I do not search for the sacred, I only want to know what is true. If there are true things.
Searching for truth makes me a philosopher, but a stupid one. Because I know that there are no answers to be found about the truth that lies beyond mind with the instrument of mind itself. And there my philosophy ends. Philosophy can only use the mind, needs reasoning and logic, and I posit that this is not useful to find the truth beyond reason. Metaphysics seems to me like watching stars at noon on a cloudy day, and guessing where they might be.
A psychologist? No sir, No madam. I only analyse myself. I have no reference point in doing so, and this is quite unscientific. Moreover, I need thousands of subjects and studies to define my own psychology, and I’m not interested in that. My path might inspire your track, but there it ends.
An existentialist? I have an existential attitude. But I’m not that label. I like some of the ideas written by some people on the wikipedia page on existentialism, but I also seem to disagree with a lot of what is written on that page. I don’t know how far the ‘existentialists’ went into silence. I know they wrote a lot about being, being a lonely individual, and the fear thereof. So if you see existentialism as a label to those things that cannot be labelled, I’m perhaps part of its class. But if you see it as what is written on that wiki-page, I probably have nothing to do with it either. I always feel that I go in a different direction.
No label? Not labelling people gives you a freedom to discover, without judgement, what they are, what they do, and how this interrelates to your being and your existence. The first time you meet someone you don’t know yet, your mind is already trying to label before they even have opened their mouth. If you never label, you will remain open towards the same person as long as you have encounters with her/him. Not labelling will at the same time give you an openness to an ever renewable appreciation and a discernment towards unwanted behaviour, without wearing the glasses of convention or conformism.