tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63566063529615807072024-03-05T02:47:56.049-05:00The Philosopher StonedA blog concerning lay philosophy from a unique perspective.Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-53180192178433953422014-10-29T09:51:00.000-04:002014-10-29T09:51:49.009-04:00A Neopagan Theology (2): Theology & Neopaganism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Theology is the science of Deity and of
the relations between Deity and the universe. The term comes from
the Greek words <i>theos</i>, meaning “deity,” and <i>logos</i>,
which means “discourse.” In the narrow sense, theology has to do
with the nature of Deity, but in a broader sense it covers the entire
range of issues concerning man's relationship to Deity.
Unfortunately, due to historical and cultural developments, the terms
"theology" and "Christian Theology" are often
used interchangeably in the Western world, although theology is not
exclusive to Christianity, and this lack in distinction sometimes
leads to the false assumption that theology is particular to
Christianity, which quite often leads to the bias opinion that
theology is somehow an invalid form of inquiry and spiritual
expression, because it is incorrectly assumed to be in opposition to
the "Neopagan way."</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The aim of theology is to ascertain
the nature of Deity and the relations which exist between Deity and
the universe, in order to display the results of such an inquiry in a
rational unity, as related parts of an organic system of truth.
Theology recognizes the relations between revealed truths and the
principles which unite them into a comprehensive organic system. In
theology, the arrangement of these revealed truths and their
relations is not optional, but is determined by the nature of the
material with which it is concerned. Just as science is not
constituted by facts alone–it is facts plus relations–theology is
revealed truths (<i>i.e.</i> facts) in addition to and in conjunction
with their relations.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Theology is important to us because it
organizes our particular Neopagan world view into a consistent and
coherent system of thought which defines our particular faith and is
able to accurately express its meaning in a systematic and rational
manner. Without theology we could not logically and effectively
defend our faith against attack, study it, live it, or effectively
share it with anyone who might inquire concerning the nature of it,
because the teachings of our faith would have no real meaning beyond
the incoherent interpretation of the individual. In other words,
theology is important to us because it organizes and expresses the
revealed truths and relations necessary to the our faith.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>The Three Principles of Theology</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Our theology, and indeed all theology,
is grounded in the existence of Deity (know to us as God/dess), the
capacity of the human mind to know Deity, and the provision of the
means by which Deity reveals Deity's self to man. There are six
common objections which are made against these three basic
foundational principles of theology:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Objection #1:</b> Since Deity and
these relations are objects apprehended by faith alone, they are not
proper objects of knowledge or subjects of science.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Response:</b> Faith is a higher
sort of knowledge than that which can be obtained by mere sense
perception, it is knowledge conditioned by divine affection; and
therefore, faith and only faith can provide suitable and sufficient
material for scientific theology. Faith furnishes us with an
understanding of realities which are inaccessible to sense
perceptions alone, and thus is the highest kind of knowledge which is
manifest as an operation of man's higher rational nature.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Objection #2:</b> We cannot know
Deity because we can only know phenomena.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Response:</b> There are two types
of phenomena which can be known: mental and physical. We are able to
know the underlying substance of these phenomena through them, and
our minds unite these phenomena not only with the knowledge of their
substance, but also the knowledge of space and time, cause and right,
and other such knowledge which is in no way phenomenal. The fact
that Deity is not phenomenal cannot prevent us from knowing Deity
anymore than we are prevented from knowing those other things which
are not phenomenal.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Objection #3:</b> We cannot know
Deity because we can only know what bears analogy to our own nature
and experience.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Response:</b> Similarity between
the knower and the known is not the only means of acquiring
knowledge, nor is past experience. We are able to know by difference
as well as by likeness, and our past experience is not a measure of
our potential experience nor of our possible knowledge. Even still,
if this were true we might still know Deity as we are made from Deity
(<i>creatio ex deo</i>) and thus are very similar in our nature and
our ability to experience.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Objection #4:</b> We cannot know
Deity because we can only know that which we can perceive in the
sense of forming an adequate mental picture or image.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Response:</b> We both conceive and
know many things which we cannot form a mental image of, and which
have no known correspondence to any other sort within reality such
as: force, law and space. It is entirely possible for us to know
Deity despite our inability to form an adequate mental image of
Deity, just as it is possible to conceive of and know force, law and
space.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Objection #5:</b> We can only truly
know that which we know in whole and not in part.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Response:</b> We know nothing in
whole, as we know no single thing in all of its relations. As
creatures which are currently in a finite, and consequently, fallible
condition, we are incapable of obtaining the whole of a thing;
however, merely because we cannot know the whole does not negate the
acquisition or importance of knowing the part. If we do not
acknowledge the value of partial knowledge, then we lose all value to
all knowledge. We may know Deity in part because Deity is composed
of parts, and this knowledge is adequate to the purposes of science.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Objection #6:</b> The revelation of
Deity is a purely subjective experience and can furnish no objective
facts that would constitute proper material for science.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Response:</b> "Objective
facts" is merely a term given in reference to similar entities
experiencing similar ocassions in a similar subjective manner, as all
known conscious entities experience and measure (<i>i.e.</i>
interpret) their external reality in a purely subjective manner
(<i>cogito ergo sum</i>). What makes a fact seemingly objective and
scientific is that it works; that is, its pragmatic application, and
not some sort of objective truth. In other words, objective facts
are merely subjective facts made to work in one's wholly subjective
and presupposed frame of reference – <i>a posteriori</i> flows from
that which is <i>a priori</i>. It must be remembered that it wasn't
until someone was able to make rocks falling from the sky "work"
within their own rational framework that science even considered such
a revelation to be proper material for science. If one finds that
the purely subjective experience of the revelation of Deity works
(which itself is a subjective interpretation in accordance with one's
very personal frame of reference), then it constitutes proper
material for scientific inquiry.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>The Basis of Our Theology</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Our theology is primarily derived from
that which is revealed in nature. Natural Theology is the summary
and explanation of the content of Deity's self-revelations through
nature. By nature, it is meant not only the physical realm, or truth
in regard to properties, substances, laws and forces of the material
universe, but also the spiritual realm, or truth in regard to
intellectual and moral constitution, as well as the orderly
arrangement of human society and history. The universe is a source
of theology, and the systematic presentation of the truths derived
from observation, history, or science constitute natural theology, or
the theology of nature.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It must be remembered when dealing
with natural theology that it is merely a tool used to adequately
explain Deity's revelation. If a philosophical argument or
scientific fact is adequately refuted, found to be false, or
seemingly found to be false, it should be remembered that such a
refutation does not necessarily have a bearing upon the truth of our
faith or its teachings, indeed, even if all natural theology were
refuted it would not necessarily have any bearing upon the truth of
our faith. Man is a finite and fallible creature with limited
knowledge, a tendency to error, and an ego which tends to seek out
what it desires rather than what is. What man deems true today may
be shown to be false tomorrow.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>On Doctrine &
Teaching</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Although the
concept of any sort of doctrine may seem alien to Neopagan thought,
it is really just another way of saying, "that which is believed
and taught." The word <i>doctrine</i> comes from the Latin
<i>doctrina</i>, which is from <i>docere</i>, and means "to
teach." Doctrine is properly understood as <i>that which is
taught and believed to be true by a group</i>. In various ways many
groups will sanction their own "official" teachings and
doctrines.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Our doctrines
are developed over time and are influenced by natural theology,
spiritual enlightenment, physical and spiritual experience,
scientific discovery, contemporary cultural contexts, and other
specific theological factors. So understood, it should be noted that
various interpretations of doctrine can be fallible, some can be
false, and still others can be widely accepted until found to be
inadequate or in error. A doctrine is merely an individual or
group's interpreted teaching of the revealed truth. A doctrine which
is later found to be inadequate is not a nullification of the
revealed truth, but rather a potential nullification of the way that
truth is currently interpreted or applied. The fact that different
religions exist which teach varying and often conflicting doctrines
is testimony to the fallibility of interpeted teachings of revealed
truth, which we call doctrine.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It is our
position that no doctrine can be said to be the absolute truth;
therefore, in our Neopagan world view our doctrines are meant to be
looked at as "guides" rather than rigid and unbending
truths that must be adhered to at all costs.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Principles of
Doctrinal Development</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In general,
there are seven principles we use in our doctrinal development. All
doctrine should be analyzed through the extremely fine-tuned lense of
revelation, experience, reason, utility, current human knowledge, and
ethical and traditional considerations. The following principles are
most often used, but are not necessarily the only criteria used in,
the determination of our doctrine:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<ol>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Revelation.</b>
The doctrine is of both a personal and natural revelation; and the
doctrine is revealed by Deity to the mind of the individual or group
and confirmed to be true in nature, in accordance with its proper
context and content, as a whole.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Experience.</b>
The doctrine is in agreement with an individual's physical, mental,
emotional, and spiritual experience; the doctrine is able to be
reconciled with past experiences; the doctrine is inclusive of; that
is, considerate of the experience of the whole; and the doctrine is
in agreement with revelation.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Reason.</b>
The doctrine is reasonable as interpreted; the doctrine is coherent
and consistent in context and content; the doctrine does not
conflict with common sense in an unreasonable manner; and the
doctrine is in agreement with revelation and experience.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Utility.</b>
The doctrine works in accordance with currently held beliefs and
understanding; the doctrine is of practical use in spiritual growth
and understanding; and the doctrine is in agreement with revelation,
experience, and reason.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Contemporary
Context.</b> The doctrine is in accord with current human knowledge
and understanding; and the doctrine is in agreement with revelation,
experience, reason, and utility.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Ethical
Consideration.</b> The doctrine is not in conflict with an ethical
consideration of the whole; and the doctrine is in agreement with
revelation, experience, reason, and utility.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Tradition.</b>
The doctrine is considerate of the traditional understandings of
the family; the doctrine is considerate of the traditional
understanding of Paganism and Neopaganism; and the doctrine is in
agreement with revelation, experience, reason, and utility.</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Theology is
important to us because it provides us with a logical and coherent
system of beliefs for the purpose of guiding our spiritual
enlightenment so as to cultivate the quality and enjoyment of
conscious experience in the individual; and indeed, all which is
within existence that is capable of benefiting from such spiritual
growth. This is done through the development of doctrine which is
brought about by observation, reflection, and an unceasing thirst for
love and truth.</div>
</div>
Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-85581265439490192014-10-19T23:02:00.000-04:002014-10-19T23:02:58.912-04:00A Neopagan Theology (1): On Method & Inquiry<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>On Method
& Inquiry</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
by Alraune
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Philosophic Method</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
To undertake an honest inquiry into
anything we must first begin by questioning what it is that we can
know with the utmost certainty; that is, that in which we are most
capable of holding the least amount of doubt concerning the surety of
truth in regard to our knowledge. We are capable of ascertaining
that this is where we must begin our inquiry for the simplicity of
it, or rather, we can little doubt that if we are incapable of
approaching the simplest and easiest of a thing we will most
certainly fail to ascertain those things which are of greater
complexity. This system of inquiry is known as <i>methodic doubt</i>
(also known as <i>hyperbolic doubt</i>),
and it is comprised of four steps:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<ol>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The acceptance only of information
which can be affirmed true with certainty.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The dismantling of truths into
smaller units.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Solving the simpler problems
first.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Making complete lists of further
problems.</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The system of methodic doubt was first
used by the French philospher, mathematician, and physicist Ren<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">é</span>
Descartes. In brief, it was through this system Descartes deduced
that, putting aside all perceived things, it would seem that there is
but one thing which can be known with a higher sort of certainty than
all other things, and that knowledge is: I am, I exist; I am that
"I" am known by myself to be; or I think, therefore I am
(<i>cogito ergo sum</i>). It is from this very simple and seemingly
obvious; indeed, even seemingly insignificant conclusion, that two
other conclusions were able to be further deduced, and what would
come to be known as the <i>Laws of Thought</i> would be firmly
established, or:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<ol>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>The First
Fact</b> – I exist.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>The First
Principle</b> – Something cannot be that which it is not.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>The First
Condition</b> – I am capable of knowing.</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The Laws of Thought state that an
individual can know they exist; that therefore they are capable of
knowing; and that because one can know they exist and that they are
capable of knowing, it becomes apparent that something cannot be that
which it is not (<i>e.g.</i> both existent and nonexistent). These
three <i>primary truths</i> must be accepted at face value; that is,
as they are, or all manner of reason must necessarily break down.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Subjective Truth & The Axiom of
Self</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Descartes' famous deduction brought
one other very important revelation to light; that revelation being
that, all knowledge, and therefore truth, which we are capable of
knowing, is purely of an idealistic nature. That is, everything
which we think we know through both deduction and perception is
restricted to the mind of self. In other words, it may be that there
exists an actual material realm which is divorced from the realm of
ideas, but even if such is the case, we are, as conscious
individuals, entirely incapable of knowing such a realm actually
exists with any degree of certainty without first accepting the
inescapable truth that everything we know to be true is, in all
actuality, purely of the realm of the mind.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Furthermore, this realm of ideas from
whence we perceive and reason all things, is of a purely subjective
frame of reference. It is not necessary that all things which exist
must be of some sort of <i>subjective idealism</i>, but that all that
we know of existence, as individuals, must be from the reference of
our own subjective consciousness. In other words, so far as reason
is concerned there is no escaping the fact that the root of all truth
which any individual is capable of ascertaining is firmly predicated
on subjectivity (<i>i.e.</i> the "I" in the Laws of
Thought) and the reality of the realm of ideas (<i>i.e.</i> the
"thinking" that the "I" is, or is doing).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Now, certainly there has been and
there still exists some considerable debate regarding <i>dualism</i>
and the <i>mind-body dichotomy</i> and the philosophies of
<i>materialism</i> (from which <i>physicalism</i>
eventually developed) versus <i>idealism</i>,
and in this debate is contained the underlying question as to whether
or not ideas arise from purely physical properties, physical
properties arise from ideas, or there are in actuality two distinct
realms of the physical and ideas; however, even if one were to
suppose that ideas arise from the physical realm, it would not negate
the fact that any philosophical position taken is necessarily
predicated on subjectivity due to the <i>a priori</i>
truth on which all empirical knowledge rests. That is, one cannot
experience one's existence but rather one who exists experiences
things. The existence of self is ultimately a very personal
existential revelation on which all subsequent rational thought is
based (<i>i.e.</i> the "I"
who is thinking).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
That being said,
it is not necessary that at this time we rationalize what constitutes
the body and the mind, how they interact; or indeed, if they even
exist independent of one another, but rather only that we simply
recognize that the subjective self is the starting point of that
certainty of truth which we are most capable of obtaining.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Nature As
Reference</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Once we recognize
that the subjective self is the axiom on which all our future
knowledge rests we are then able to begin asking the next most
obvious question which arises: <i>What am I, or what is I, and where
did that which I recognize to be I come from?</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The answer to at
least part of our question would appear to be readily apparent; in
that, if I immediately recognize that there is something which I
refer to as myself, then there must also be that which I consider not
to be myself, or I; for the First Principle clearly declares that
something cannot be that which it is not. What is that which
differentiates that "something" which is "I" from
that "something" which is not "I"?
Self-awareness. The self is cognisant of what it is in contrast to
what it is experiencing. Hence, we readily know that the self is
present, and it is from that subjective frame of reference that self
is also able to determine that something else is present which self
is experiencing.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
However, we know
that experience is necessarily subjective, and therefore anything
which the self experiences must be known through thought, and thus is
deemed to be of the idealistic realm. We also know that in order to
have an experience one must first exist, and thus is deemed to be of
the physical realm; therefore, it must be concluded that thought is
contingent upon the mind, and the mind is contingent upon thought.
Now, it could be that the natural realm is merely thought eminating
from the self, and thus, is not truly separate from it, but merely an
action which the self takes; it could be that the idealistic realm is
eminating from the physical self, and thus also not truly separate,
but merely a process of the physical self; or it could be that the
natural realm is entirely separate from the idealistic realm, but so
far as the self is capable of knowing, the two are both necessarily
separate and contingent upon one another. Thought cannot exist
without first having the self, and the self cannot exist without
first having thought. In other words, any sense of self requires
thought, and any self-awareness requires the existence of self.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
"I" am
both a physical, that is existent being, and a being of ideas, and
furthermore, I can know no other way in which any thing which exists
can exist except both in the physical realm and the realm of ideas.
Taken one step further, I cannot know with any degree of certainty
the existence of any thing without also accepting the idea of that
thing as a necessary contingent of its existence. Although there may
be ideas without physical representations and there may be physical
things without idealogical representations, I, and all logic and
reason which is founded upon the First Fact and the other Laws of
Thought which any individual rationing "self" uses, must
accept that the most "I" am capable of knowing with the
utmost degree of certainty, is that ideas and physical existence are
necessarily separate realms or states which are contingent upon one
another.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Thus, we may
conclude that a second axiom of truth exists which is necessarily
part of the axiom of the subjective self – nature. That is, nature
and the subjective self are both two separate parts of the same
whole.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
This does not mean
that a thing is both that which it is and that which it is not, which
would violate the First Principle, but rather that there are two
polar halves of the same whole: I and existence. Taken further, it
then follows that there can be no existence without self-awareness,
and that it may be that there can be no thing that exists which does
not contain some sense of self – <i>panpsychism</i>.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In conclusion, we
now have two frames of reference, which are contingent upon one
another, by and from which we may obtain knowledge of a higher sort
of certainty: the subjective mind of self and nature. The
subjective mind of self looks to nature as a frame of reference
concerning the truth of "what is".</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Revelation in Nature</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
By using our method of inquiry and the
consequential axioms which it yields, we are able to conclude with a
higher sort of certainty than we have in all other things, that
nature (<i>i.e.</i> the universe) is equipped to provide us with a
reference whereby we might be guided toward an existential truth;
that is, because nature is, in part, a representation of what is
likely to be true, then it also likely contains, at least in and
throughout the entirety of itself, part of the revelation of any
truth which is.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It is because of this realization that
we look to nature as a whole, and in its entirety, as a means by
which to discern what is and should be and what is not or should not
be. Among the many questions nature is able to aid us in answering
are:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Questions of truth and reason –</b>
Nature shows us that truth can only be known subjectively, and that
reason is written into nature, of which the self is part, and that
such reason essentially consists of logical consequence, or rather
the relation between propositions as "either, or" and "if,
then".</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Questions of reality and
existence –</b> Nature provides us with a reference by which we
might determine what is real and what is existent, such as the
necessary contingent (so far as the self is capable of knowing) of
physical existence with that of consciousness.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Questions of purpose and
meaning –</b> Through nature we can see that purpose and meaning
are found in both individual liberty and interdependence, as parts
of the whole, in which our own subjective experience plays a role in
conjunction with its utility and support for the whole of existence.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Questions of ethics,
justification, and moral behavior – </b>Nature, since we are part
of it and it is part of us, clearly reveals to us that that which
upholds the sustainment of the whole, to the greatest degree; that
is, with the least degree of unnecessary hinderence and interference
upon others, and sustains the self by means of the most positive
experience possible, must be that which is justified and ethical.</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It is by using this method of inquiry
that we are able to develop our philosophical system from which is
derived the systematic theological presentation and argument for our
particular Neopagan belief system; that is, a set of logical and
coherent revelations which culminate in a full blown system of faith
and which underline the basis for our own subjective world view.</div>
</div>
Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-8643268027861763282014-05-01T15:12:00.003-04:002014-05-01T15:12:59.715-04:00Bisexuality and Masculinity<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I will be the first to admit that being
bisexual, truly <a href="http://philosophiastoned.blogspot.com/2013/02/in-defense-of-bisexuality.html" target="_blank">bisexual</a>, and a
man is a hard thing to swallow and an even harder thing to defend.
Both men and women will either outright claim you are queer or they
will secretly harbor suspiscions, and if so, they are both wholly and
entirely wrong, so long as the man knows himself very well.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It is a double standard: a woman may be
bisexual and it is accepted as such, but if a man claims such a thing
suspiscions arise. Why? Is it not permitted for a man to
emotionally and sexually express himself with his same gender and for
only women to do so? Is it somehow "cooler" for women to
be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_bisexual_people" target="_blank">bisexual</a>? Do women get excited less by
the idea of two men having sex than men get excited at the thought of
two women having sex? I doubt it! I know that both women and men
want different things in this world, usually (a woman wants to be all
and a man wants to have all), but if they have a desire for the
opposite gender, then they most likely also have erotic feelings when
perceiving two or more of that gender uniting in sexual activity. If
for any other reason it is because sex between members of the same
gender is something "bad" and "forbidden" for the
opposite gender to perceive.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But I ask, "What is wrong with two
men expressing themselves as two women might?" What is less
beautiful or right about it? And why not see it as the same? Why is
one driven upward in society as exciting (female bisexuality) and the
other driven downward (male bisexuality)? Why the double standard?
And why do more women not come out in support of bisexual men as men
do for bisexual women? Is it that women are so into "being all"
rather than "having all" that this is not the case, or is
it something else? I wonder these things...</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Granted, I have known a few women who
are quite openly excited by the thought of a man being with another
man, so this is not the case across the board; indeed I have dated
women who encourage such sexual activity. Certainly, not the whole
of society views bisexuality and masculinity as contradictory states
of existence, nor has this ever been the case; in fact, in
gladiatorial days it was quite common
for the victor to sodomize the loser as an added show for the entire
arena, which I am certain was much loved or it would not have been so
common an occurrence. I can guarantee that if the women did not love
it and the men did not also find it exciting, it would have rarely
been an occurrence at all!</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
What makes anything about same gender
sexual activity exciting to the opposite gender? Perhaps men love
the beauty of female <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome" target="_blank">homosexual behavior</a> and females love the power of male homosexual behavior? I
do not know, but I do know there is a double standard.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
On to me and my bisexuality...</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I am quite secure in my bisexuality,
although I do not advertise it to anyone but those who both have a
need-to-know and who deserve to know, such as any partner I am with,
particularly if I am in-love with them and wish for them to be
in-love with the real me. It is hard being a man who is bisexual,
but it is my place in life. I am capable of loving both genders and
am capable of being sexually excited by both. I am able to express
myself across the board and to allow others to express themselves.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Maybe I am just oversexed, or maybe I
am just trying to be balanced in my life on many varied levels? I am
no less a man, no more heterosexual and no more gay – I am
bisexual. I am proud to be bisexual and I find myself at exactly
where I should be and maybe even at a higher plane of evolution for
being there. I am what I am. I am a bisexual man, secure in who he
is and what he desires, as well as who he loves. I am a bisexual man
and I am faithful, honest, and proud.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I <a href="http://philosophiastoned.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-love.html" target="_blank">love</a> the woman I am
currently with and I want to marry her and I can and want to be
committed, but I am capable of loving and finding sexual fufillment
in both men and women – this is true bisexuality. A common
misconception of bisexuals, particularly men who are bisexuals, is
that they are incapable of commitment and loyalty. Just because I
can love both women and men, and I am able to find both women and men
sexually attractive does not mean that I must act upon those feelings
at all times. In that aspect, bisexuals are no different than
heterosexuals and homosexuals.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Peace & Happiness,</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Alraune</div>
</div>
Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-17481579660490051102013-09-25T16:11:00.005-04:002013-11-20T15:00:08.089-05:00On Love<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
</div>
By Alraune<br />
<br />
The definition of “Love” is one which has escaped human endeavor throughout the ages, but that does not mean it has not been attempted and, in some instances, very closely arrived at. It is my intention here to offer my own attempt at defining “Love,” if I may be afforded the opportunity by the dear reader.<br />
<br />
First, it should be noted that “Love” is not an objective thing which can be accurately and adequately defined for all conscious entities, nor is it a purely subjective thing which can hold any definition, but it is much more of an interjective thing, meaning it by definition involves some sort of relationship.<br />
<br />
I therefore propose that the definition of “Love” requires the inclusion of relationship; otherwise, it cannot and is not what we all know to be Love. 'Tis true one can love their self or love another without return, but a relationship of some sort, either superficial or between “me” and “I” must necessarily be in order to have any sort of Love.<br />
<br />
I further propose that “Love” requires the recognition, acceptance, and desire for the unique characteristics of that other with which a relationship is being shared, and that varying degrees of Love can and do exist in direct correlation with the amount of recognition, acceptance, and desire entered into.<br />
<br />
Finally, I propose that there is a difference between “loving” and “being loved.” The former is the degree of recognition, acceptance, and desire for another from the first person perspective while the latter is the degree of recognition, acceptance, and desire being felt by one in the first person perspective. “Love” is then, the condition of feeling “Love” for another (loving), or feeling “Love” from another (being loved), or being in-love (the reciprocal relationship of loving and being loved).<br />
<br />
For the layman then, “Love” is what is experienced with someone whom you can be your true and naked self around, and who can be their true and naked self around you, and you both recognize, accept, and desire one another for exactly what you are individually and together.<br />
<br />
True Love is the freedom to enter into a relationship without fear or reservation concerning who you are, and with no fear or reservation concerning who the other is, but rather acceptance and desire for one another.<br />
<br />
This is the best definition for “Love” I have arrived at to-date, and I do not think it can be surpassed by me in any other way other than poetry and art and expression, for “Love” is a form of expression as well as feeling.<br />
<br />
How else could I define “Love?”<br />
<br />
<u>Jennelle</u><br />
<br />
I explode with joy and excitement,<br />
I burst into flame,<br />
I thirst to be me in you, <br />
For you to be in me,<br />
All fades and is nothing,<br />
We are clarity and life,<br />
I am alive, I am me!<br />
<br />
You have become my breath,<br />
I suck you in,<br />
I soak you up,<br />
You soak me up,<br />
I am full and happy,<br />
We are complete and one,<br />
You are alive, I see!<br />
<br />
You melt with my desire,<br />
I consume you,<br />
I experience you,<br />
You experience me,<br />
You are safe and warm,<br />
We are united in being,<br />
We are alive, we feel!<br />
<br />
An ocean washes in,<br />
I am calm in you,<br />
You rage in me,<br />
Our emotions stir,<br />
We flow and ebb,<br />
We bath in our delight,<br />
We share total existence!<br />
<br />
There is nothing else now,<br />
Time ceases to exist,<br />
Space is meaningless,<br />
Life is purposeful,<br />
We are, that we are,<br />
All pain and sorrow fades,<br />
Love has come, I awake!<br />
<br />
It was all just a dream,<br />
It was all just a dream.<br />
We are not the dream,<br />
We are the dreamers.<br />
<br />
It's alright now,<br />
The dream is over.<br />
We have awoken in Paradise,<br />
Lying beside one another.<br />
<br />
The birds are singing,<br />
Butterflies are everywhere.<br />
The grass is soft,<br />
The Sun is warm.<br />
<br />
We frolic in the woods,<br />
We laugh and sing.<br />
We bathe in cool waters,<br />
We share all things.<br />
<br />
The Sun sets but we do not sleep,<br />
We make love in the moonlight.<br />
Our emotions rise into the sky,<br />
In this place we find our being.<br />
<br />
Sleep creeps in and we both grow scared,<br />
Hold my hand! Hold my hand, my Love!<br />
Together we can overcome,<br />
Our love is far too strong!<br />
<br />
We drift off to sleep in each others' arms,<br />
I am asleep, but you awaken.<br />
You cover me with a blanket, and all your love.<br />
You kiss me, I moan in delight.<br />
<br />
The Sun rises and we both are roused,<br />
You are still there, I am still there.<br />
We are in love, we are one.<br />
I hold you close to my chest.<br />
<br />
We are not the dream,<br />
We are the dreamers!<br />
<br />
We were not the dream,<br />
We are the dreamers!<br />
<br />
Hold my hand! Hold my hand, my Love!<br />
Hold me tight, hold me close.<br />
Cover me with your love,<br />
I long to awaken beside you.<br />
<br />
Love has come.</div>
Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-40829171333925140252013-05-15T02:03:00.000-04:002013-05-15T02:03:09.473-04:00True Human Sexual and Relational Behavior<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Definition.</b> “Desirable” <span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—</span> any number of subjective and deeply personal perceptions</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
True human sexual and relational behavior is much like is describe in classical texts about sexual evolution and such liberal and modern texts on sexual evolution as <i>'Sex at Dawn'</i> by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jeth<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">á.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The woman wishes to be ejaculated within by as many “desirable” men as she possibly can within her fertility cycle, once she loses her fertility cycle she wishes to be ejaculated within only by “desirable” men which she trusts to be disease free, safe/loyal, and who are also fertile (she still hopes in technological society or supernatural salvation), although she will occasionally stray from that guideline if the male or female is extremely attractive (seeking 'pleasure'). Afterward, the major portion of her project becomes “self preservation” with the secondary hope of “help for her” along with a fertile and a “desirable” male.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Her “denial” stage is marked by the very real possibility of salvation and her realization of growing older, running out of time, and having become less biologically (and therefore instinctually) acceptable. She adapts and becomes more sexually “open” to compensate for her lack of “biological attraction” and becomes more sexually “liberal” At the same time the resourceful woman becomes more conscious of the end of things; and therefore the end of life, and becomes more spiritually “open” to love, and its many forms. She seeks to “give birth” through other means and seeks out “relationships” as a means to continue to “give birth.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Eventually she accepts her circumstance in life and she desires someone she feels the most satisfaction and comfort in to be someone to die with or die loving. Her entire sexual, relational, and sexual moral belief system is eventually discovered as being based upon and centered around “giving birth” and “seeking pleasure.” The woman becomes fully conscious of herself!</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Meanwhile, the male action is completely different. First the man seeks the women most easily had, then he seeks out the women most “desirable”, and then he seeks out the most :fertile” and otherly pleasant. He does this constantly and consistently, in a cycle. The male is as equally concerned with pleasure as he is reproduction, if not more concerned for the former. His primary concern is “relief of stress” followed by “survival through reproduction.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It must be understood that the male “emotional” outlook is much different from the female “emotional” outlook. Men do not necessarily at FIRST feel their survival in the feminine sense. It may be more about “personal NOW preservation” than “later preservation,” but this is the dominant masculine view (I am confident any study would prove).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
At first, men will likely act more on “attraction” and “mere pleasure” than on any sort of attachment. Next, as they grow older they will act more on “relationships”, attraction, interaction, and united states, because they will realize that although their seed is still good, their “appearance” in comparison to other young and fit men becomes increasingly difficult to counter-display. Although they “hold” the part, they no longer “look the part.” By doing this older men find a way to adapt to the still available women and find the “attraction” and “mere pleasure” which drove them and still drives them to begin with.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The infertile women find pleasure in their many available options, and the elder or infertile men, then find the same. Inevitably, both genders, if given sufficient thought, end up with bisexual and polyamorous tendencies due to life experience and the wisdom gained from it.</div>
</div>
Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-11066843235841299792013-04-07T21:02:00.002-04:002013-04-07T21:02:25.226-04:00Hypothesis On Magick<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Ordinarily and almost across the board, in Western society, many things chalked up to “magick” are dismissed as coincidence and/or psychological anomalies. I have pondered this thought and held this thought for many many years (mostly due to indoctrination in the Western education system), but I no longer think it may be true.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I base my conclusions largely on experience, but also upon logic. I do not think “magick” is something which can be, or is meant to be, understood via the traditional Western understanding of knowledge, but more upon experience and the knowledge gained through 'relationship.'</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Most Western thinkers, especially psychologists and philosophers, would agree that there is something to be said for “we create our own reality”, but they would emphatically state this is minimal and possibly no more than 25% of true and objective reality, with most stating the percentage of reality created by subjective “opinion” is much less and therefore much less important. They would even go one step farther and state that those who believe otherwise must be either confused/mistaken or mentally-ill/insane. They base this upon their subjective opinion that materialism/physicalism as an axiom underlying their worldview is 100% correct – at least once you boil the “logic” down.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
As I approach age forty and read, learn more, and experience more, as well as think more, I tend to be nagged to death by my own conscience to disagree and reevaluate the underlying axioms of this worldview.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
“If” panpsychism is, or could be, true, “if” positive thought is recognized as a force within psychology, “if” modern physics admits the place of the observer, “if” parapsychologists have empirical evidence of psychic phenomena, and “if”various philosophers of consciousness (such as Christian de Quincy and/or Galon Strawson) could be correct in their assessments, then my personal subjective experience combined with rational analysis could very well be a heavy indication of something<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">―</span>another force<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—</span>much more powerful than is, and has ever been, recognized by modern scientific thought.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In other words, I look back on various “experiences” and I cannot logically assign them to coincidence or any “natural” occurrence. Take the wonder and excitement of my teenage years for example – that which occurred was not chance, but much too perfect. I had a great early life, and I expect to have a much greater life as I go!</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Too often I got what I placed my “intention” into, not just in my teenage years, but beyond – even now. These things were too often against chance occurrence, in my mind. How could I by chance “find beer” on many occasions as an underage teen deeply desiring such, be with two women or more at once, have the women I desire, experience the things I longed for, have the paranormal experiences I was excited to have, experience mystical/magical/paranormal phenomena, go through the things I thought “normal” occurrences in life, and generally get exactly what I either expected or longed for including those things indoctrinated and drilled into my head as “normal?”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
This is too much for me. I cannot chalk this up to chance occurrence – I somehow made it happen. You would not understand unless you experienced it and been through it. Somehow, someway, I can, we all can, make a large portion of our reality despite the supposed objective reality – it has to be! Subjective “intention” must account for 50% or more of objective reality – it just seems such to me when I view it in light of experience.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The only other option is that what is “thought” to be uncommon is actually common, which means someone or something is screwing with us all, which, in my mind, is just as “crazy” as my hypothesis. Either “magick” is true, or someone knows the probabilities and possibilities of objective reality and they are using them to control us. Which do you believe, because it can only be those two – in my estimation. Something is going on “experientially” which requires explanation beyond the normal.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I cannot really explain my experienced reality, but I can state that when I look back it could not be mere chance. Somehow I made (or something listening to me or monitoring my experience made) a large portion of my reality, if not all of it, occur – this is the true definition of magic or the supernatural in most minds.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Just look! Tally it up! Take the good and the bad, evaluate it against what you desired, throw in a few other subjective things and LOOK! Something is going on!!! Either someone is working with you or against you – we all see it. Well, what if it is largely “you”?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
This is my hypothesis on “magick” - we actually <u>create</u> a very large portion of our reality, but not necessarily all alone. Objective reality is merely an agreed upon subjective reality, but maybe and perhaps not even as deeply as we believe. Maybe it is more like 75% subjective and 25% objective makes reality or more towards the subjective, or at the very least 50/50? What “if?” There are plenty of <span lang="en-US">experiential</span> reasons to “know” this – we just lack understanding.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
We do make our reality, but sometimes it takes time – which is maybe something else to consider, and perhaps something that remains taught but is entirely forgotten? There is certainly something going on and it should not be denied, but explored. Somehow we are actually “making” reality and not by the traditional scientific worldview in this present day and age. Something “larger” is going on! I feel it in the depths of my being – I “know” it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Forget about what I said, just take your life and calculate “chance” against your own thoughts and “intentions” <span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—</span> see what YOU think. Experience tells me magick, to some degree or another, is true. It is completely obvious to me, especially after all these years of pondering and searching for “logical' evidence to potentially support what seems obvious. What can be more “logical” than searching for supporting evidence for what you know to be obvious, especially if you understand logic and axioms? You will be told it is wrong, but in actuality if you look at the core of what makes the scientific method you will KNOW the axioms and/or “assumptions” are the true reality of your thought-processes! You need only demonstrate them, and not necessarily consistently, if you agree one can change their mind and the “observer” is key.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The knowledge of the truth of “magick” is experiential, and that is how and the only way in which the truth of “magick” can ever be understood by the wise man or woman. “Magick” is experiential “knowledge”, which is another true form of knowledge and perhaps the only one.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Peace,</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Alraune</div>
</div>
Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-31405027384563421222013-03-28T18:46:00.002-04:002013-03-28T18:46:54.924-04:00Youtube, Digital Music, and the Next New Sound<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Allow me to make a prediction... The next big thing in the music world is going to be an underground music movement, much like Punk but probably more in-line with rap/metal (a sound that crosses cultural barriers) which is grassroots and utilizes video and song as a means to promote individual liberty and the knowledge (aka 'philosophical underpinnings') necessary to truly understand it in a presentable, exciting, and instinctual manner. In short, this is precisely what the masses of youth desire and need.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It will be the movement of the 2010s, reaching into the 2020s, and likely will mirror much of the sixties and seventies of the twentieth century. Additionally, it will usher in a 'customized' fashion industry through the premise of individualism and artistic expression, and may even include the ability to exchange such artistic expression with those whom one desires to have a relationship (something like pins and patches, stickers, and similar items which can be customized yet exchanged or easily discarded as one's opinions evolve).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It is going to be something entirely unique, individualistic, yet communal. It will likely include respect and conscious reverence for the environment, yet emphasize individual liberty and the acquisition of knowledge which is characteristic of the Information Age. I base all of these conclusions on what I see, what is, and my personal ability to see the greater picture.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
This music, of which this article is primary concerned, will be a new yet not entirely a new sound – its ability to cross cultural barriers will be much more important than its “newness.” It will be accompanied by videos packed with useful knowledge and information, even educational, yet which provide entertainment and visual instinctual fulfillment. Even live concerts will include this visual appeal and most 'followers' will be as interested, if not more interested, in the visual aspects of the music as they are in the music itself.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In other words, the new sound, or more appropriately 'experience', will be a holistic musical approach. Musicians in live performance may even go so far as to include smells as well as visual and audio stimulation in their performance, though this is the farthest stretch of my own imagination. By far the holistic sights and sounds will be the main attractions, which can be done on many levels not inclusive of the live performance.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The useful knowledge gleaned from the video along with the enchantment of the audio performance will be the key factor, without a doubt.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
This new sound, indeed new experience, will likely have philosophical underpinnings (probably much along the lines of such geniuses as Christian de Quincy and Alfred Whitehead) and will appear to the older generations as much more like a cultural revolution than a musical movement; indeed, most truly influential music movements have a philosophical core and sociological objective.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The movement will probably evoke such thoughts as those held by the influential philosopher Jacques Ellul, but with a potential and offered solution which utilizes technology while promoting basic humanity, individualism, sustainability and ecological conscience. Indeed, it will be something entirely different and entirely fresh and youthful.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
This catalyst of individualism with a communal consciousness will undoubtedly also offer a new sexual revolution – perhaps that of polyamory and a new understanding of human sexuality and identity. It is going to change society, perhaps globally, and alter perceptions. It will be the first truly global, yet grassroots movement, driven by the language of music and visual art. It is going to be an exciting time – Woodstock times a thousand. This is my prediction...</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The State or “the man” will no longer be the Enemy, but the entire 'Old World Order' and “System' itself. Anything which stands in the way of individualism and one's individual position within the communal and holistic cosmopolitan sphere will be deemed wholly inadequate and backwards.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Prescription drugs will be frowned upon but not entirely condemned and holistic approaches will take presidence. Formally outlawed yet holistic drugs will become the “in” thing, and all things natural BEFORE man-made will be the overarching cry! “Nature” will be a big term, but with the inclusion of useful and holistically thoughtful technology.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The world is about to be turned upside down and undergo a major revolution due, for the most part, to the Information Age and the human influence upon it. Individualist hackers and computer geeks will become viewed as champions of freedom, religious and traditional political extremists will be labeled conformists and non-individualist thinkers as well as eco-terrorists, and those who embrace the 'Old World Order' will generally feel the same effects.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Certainly, governments will try to ride the tide, join and influence the movement, but it will be so diverse, so quickly, and so supported by lone wolves of the Digital Age that completely fooling the masses will be next to impossible. No government authority of the 'Old Order' will succeed in altering the course, simply because the seeds of individual liberty and how to recognize if one has such have already been planted as of this writing. Old methods of mass control will be practically useless for the mere reason that “thinking for oneself” will be the global call-to-duty.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
This is the coming revolution, and as always, it will begin with art – the universal and unnameable expression. It will be the greatest moment in human history, effectively dissolving the remnants of Aristocracy and dismantling the entire system on which we are currently founded. It will not turn out as globalists and their think-tanks have thought, for humanity and the human individual, especially the mass of them as individuals, is much stronger and wiser than any model could ever predict.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I am optimistic about the future and I await the “new sound.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
There will be a rejection of nearly every supposedly necessary pillar of civilization in an effort to rewrite the entire formula. It will be an entirely new look at how things “can be” and how they “must be.” And it will start via the mass education of individuals about such things through the mass dissemination of music combined with visual art and practical knowledge via the means available in the Information Age – a movement which could never be stopped once started (and it is already beginning).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It is going to be an interesting time with many facets, especially as the 'Old World Rulers' attempt to compensate and maintain control or evoke small progressive steps and hatch multi-generational plans to regain control.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
To be honest, I do not think the 'Old World rulers' and their “thinkers” understand the can-of-worms they have opened in allowing the Digital and Information Age to come into being in their arrogant hopes for complete and total domination, although some may have seen it coming and tried to warn their comrades of such. The individual human spirit is a powerful thing, and when allowed to work individually yet in mass it is unstoppable. We have already passed the precipice for controlling what is already unfolding and it will now be. Even a complete and total lock-down or gradual <span lang="en-US">usurpation</span> is doomed to failure – the Pandora's box of individual liberty and communal spirit has been opened and it cannot be closed. Perhaps, one may suppose, great men and women already knew this and allowed and encouraged it to happen?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Blessings and happy future,</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Alraune</div>
</div>
Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-52689943631151313832013-02-15T21:42:00.000-05:002013-02-17T00:45:55.118-05:00In Defense of Bisexuality<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXh2upPi2Ixer2o7LVrCgpQ-eVpeZm85OnscbwG6tIjYehnPWNqvhFhMkeNFUF0QaRy56PaaZPS5dIlmMOzrZ9H9kg54cS6dPZjC8UFUlzQqQRTyyQHA-8dxikvkcv56Q-FaI9kkXKp8g/s1600/Bisexual+Pride+Flag.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXh2upPi2Ixer2o7LVrCgpQ-eVpeZm85OnscbwG6tIjYehnPWNqvhFhMkeNFUF0QaRy56PaaZPS5dIlmMOzrZ9H9kg54cS6dPZjC8UFUlzQqQRTyyQHA-8dxikvkcv56Q-FaI9kkXKp8g/s1600/Bisexual+Pride+Flag.png" uea="true" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>In Defense of Bisexuality & Why It is a Natural and Socially Beneficial Sexual Orientation</b><br />
<br />
It is true that one might utilize the argument that only members of opposite genders may reproduce in a natural manner, and the argument can be made that this is the sole purpose of sexual activity, but to do so means that one must consider there to be no other purpose for sexual activity and that any means of sexual activity outside of that very small exception are unnatural in themselves. Kissing, caressing, licking, and other forms of sexual affection, as well as masturbation, oral and anal sex would all have to be considered unnatural sexual activities if one holds to this argument and philosophical position. Birth control would also have to be considered unnatural (including the ingestion of plants that naturally cause abortion), and a very extreme position would have to be taken to truly believe in and hold to this position on the nature of sexual activity.<br />
<br />
I do not believe most reasonable people could truly take the aforementioned position on the nature and purpose of sexual activity, nor do I believe the evidence provided by Nature supports such a narrow viewpoint. In fact, nature shows us that kissing, caressing, many forms of sexual affection, masturbation, oral and anal sex are all wholly abundant and rampant throughout the animal kingdom, meaning they are both natural and normal forms of sexual expression and stimulation. Since this is so, it therefore follows, that Nature does not support the idea that sexual activity is merely for reproductive purposes. In fact, Nature appears to show that most sexual activity is initiated, guided, and driven by both the quest for self-pleasure and emotional and social interaction.<br />
<br />
If Nature provides overwhelming evidence for various forms of sexual activity which cannot support and do not directly promote reproduction, then it logically follows that all forms of sexual activity are not designed or intended for such a purpose, but rather that some, indeed most forms of sexual activity, are designed and intended for non-reproductive purposes; and if they are intended for non-reproductive purposes, then the argument assuming that only sexual activity between members of opposite genders is natural and correct because of the necessity of both genders in reproduction becomes invalid and illogical. This is so because:<br />
<br />
1. Oral sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than oral sex among members of opposite genders in that all the necessary components are there and the idea that all forms of oral sexual activity should take place between members of the opposite gender is merely a social construct or personal preference with no basis in nature or reality. Oral sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider oral sex itself to be.<br />
<br />
2. Anal sex between two male members is no less natural than anal sex between a male and a female in that, once again, all the necessary components are there for the precise same sort of sexual activity, and the concept that all anal sexual activity should only take place between members of the opposite gender is, once again, merely a social construct or personal preference with no basis in nature or reality. Furthermore, anal sex between two females is no less natural than anal sex between a female and a male, where the female takes the active rather than passive role. Anal sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider anal sex itself to be.<br />
<br />
3. Kissing, caressing, and showing forms of sexual affection to the same gender is no less natural than kissing, caressing, and the showing of sexual affection to a member of the opposite gender, in that all the necessary components for indirect sexual stimulation and affection are present and capable of fulfilling the exact same purpose. Hugging, licking, petting, or passionately kissing a member of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider those forms of sexual affection to be in the first place.<br />
<br />
It seems obvious to me that many forms of sexual activity are natural and for various reasons, some of which are not supportive of the idea that sexual activity is meant for the sole purpose of reproduction. However, of all forms of sexual activity, I do believe that the case can be made that anal sex is unnatural (in all cases) in that it almost always does immediate damage to the recipient, but this position can only be taken if one has concluded that immediate harm to the self is never a natural and acceptable condition of both self pleasure and social as well as emotional interaction. Such an argument could only be helped by evidence for permanent damage caused by either all forms or certain forms of anal sex. That is it! In my mind there is no other argument which could ever be leveled against any form of sexual activity which makes any logical sense other than that just mentioned concerning sodomy.<br />
<br />
Personally, I believe sodomy and other forms of anal sex to be natural forms of sexual expression, but unfortunately I must admit I do not have any solid arguments for this sort of reasoning, at this time, at least in the form of arguments involving Nature.<br />
<br />
I believe the evidence for heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual activity in Nature is overwhelming and very prevalent. All three forms of sexual activity are rampant everywhere within Nature and are therefore natural; however, I do not believe this is where the crux of the debate lies – it is actually a moral and social issue, which makes it not a debate as to whether or not certain forms of sexual activity and orientation are natural, but whether or not they are good for both society and the spiritual nature of humankind.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the greatest argument against homosexuality (not necessarily bisexuality) is that it is a form of sexual activity which is harmful to the social organism, in that it does not promote or provide reproduction, which is essential to the continued evolution of a society. Fortunately, I do not need to confront this issue, as a true bisexual sexual orientation does not harm society in any way; in fact, the argument can be made, and will be made by me, that bisexuality is more helpful to society than either strict heterosexuality or strict homosexuality.<br />
<br />
Bisexuality promotes both reproduction and birth control, which are both essential to an efficient and workable society. Bisexuality promotes birth control merely because it does not, by nature, view all sexual activity as for the sole purpose of reproduction, and it promotes reproduction because it certainly does not exclude the natural sexual intercourse of both genders which enables reproduction. In other words, true bisexuality does the very best and most efficient job for not only the individual (it provides the greatest options for sexual pleasure) but also the society (it provides and promotes the dual need of growth and control of growth within a society). In my mind, bisexuality is clearly the best option for any society and the greatest form of individual sexual expression provided by nature.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, a true bisexuality is, it seems to me, the most beneficial means of social and emotional interaction, in that it allows for the greatest possible human expression and emotional interaction within any society, which can only promote and drive cohesion and commitment. What sort of evidences can be leveled against the natural existence of bisexual activity and orientation, or against the social utility and practicality of bisexuality? Much more could be said under either nature or society against strict heterosexuality or homosexuality than could ever be said of bisexuality. From the greatest logical viewpoint as well as very human and emotional viewpoint, bisexuality provides the greatest and most efficient means for all things which sexual expression and sexual necessity demand on both the natural and societal levels.<br />
<br />
Bisexual expression promotes the greatest form of human expression in love and interaction, it aids in birth control, it promotes natural sexual behavior, it supports and promotes the natural drive for self replication, it provides the greatest spectrum of variation in experience and pleasure, it provides a great form of individual liberty and the expression thereof, it, by nature, promotes the concept of polyamory and open relationships which are arguably the best form of relationship for over-all social unity and natural selection. It is, in my mind, clearly the most natural and socially beneficial form of sexual expression and interaction. That is not to say that if one feels they should be strictly heterosexual or homosexual that they are somehow wrong or inferior, but that bisexuality seems to make the most sense in all truly intellectual examinations concerning nature, society, and sexual orientation and expression.<br />
<br />
To me, bisexuality is the norm, and all other forms of sexual expression and orientation are either personal norms or social constructs. I believe the evidence and logical arguments overwhelmingly support bisexuality among non androgynous species. In fact, the very existence of androgynous species seems to promote bisexuality in nature by itself!<br />
<br />
Should a male choose to sexually please or interact with a male, or a female choose to do such with a female, or a male and female choose to do such with one another, the natural evidence as well as the societal evidence seem to indicate to me that all of these choices are equaly valid, natural, and beneficial; however, the restriction of these forms of sexual activity to a specific "rightness" may arguably be considered harmful to the individual, the preservation of nature, and the benefit of all societies. In other words, to say that only men belong with women, men with men or women with women, is to say that only certain "kinds" of the same species belong interacting with each other in certain ways. Such a world view is ridiculous and the heart of bigotry, prejudice, and racism.<br />
<br />
Granted, there is a strong argument against interspecies sexual expression (for those who prefer extremist positions and who will make bisexuality into total pan-sexuality), and I do not deny this or even attempt to argue against such, but species specific bisexual activity and sexual diversity is an entirely different matter. There really is no good argument against species specific pan-sexual activity on either the natural or social level. Bisexuality, seems to me, very human, very natural, and very socially beneficial. To go beyond the species specific level is to go beyond the initial examination and invalidates any argument against bisexual behavior, as it no longer becomes merely a question of bisexual expression but interspecies expression, which is an entirely different argument. Likewise, raising concerns of age and consent is not specific to the argument, and sex with minors of the opposite gender is not normally considered a sexual orientation specific debate, so why should any form of bisexuality concerning minors be included in the debate of the best and most proper or natural form of sexual expression?<br />
<br />
It seems to me, that if there is a natural and normal form of sexual orientation and a correct and beneficial form of social sexual expression and activity, then bisexuality is the most natural and logical fit. In other words, in my mind, everyone is and should be bisexual to one degree or another dependent upon their individual needs and preferences. No other form of sexual expression provides the optimum means for self-pleasure, self-preservation, social interaction, the fulfillment of social and individual needs, and the greatest spectrum for the adequate expression of human emotion and interaction.<br />
<br />
I am bisexual and this is the basis of my argument in defense of myself and those like me. Bisexuality is as normal and natural as it gets, in my opinion, and I really don't think any truly intellectual arguments can ever disprove that fact. If a male or female wish to be true to themselves they should, in my opinion, embrace and commit to their bisexuality, even if they have a preference in gender for whatever psychological or biological reasons. In fact, for homosexuals or heterosexuals to say we (bisexuals) are confused is more assinine than saying we are confused in our breathing – such people deny reality, in my opinion. If anyone is more right, it is the bisexuals, but I do not say bisexuality is the only and right way – only that if one must be, it must logically and socially be at least equivalent.<br />
<br />
Bisexuality makes natural sense and it makes social sense. It is the greatest form of human emotional expression and love for other humans. Bisexuality benefits both the individual and their society on many levels. The only obsticle to true bisexual expression is the concept of monogamy, and consequently, it may just be monogamy which makes certain people believe one must either be homosexual or heterosexual and not ever bisexual. However, I will leave this debate to a later discussion on the natural and social truth and benefits of polyamory and open-social relationships – one I hope to take up at a later date.<br />
<br />
Bisexuality is natural in that it is a great expression given from one to another, regardless of gender, it seeks to provide great pleasure and emotional interaction to all for all, and it helps society to both evolve through reproduction, and stabilize due to non-reproductive sexual behaviors. It is really the best of both worlds – balanced, harmonious, and beneficial!<br />
<br />
Furthermore, it seems to me that members of the opposite gender, unless severely mentally wrecked by distorted social norms, always find the sexual interaction between members of the same gender sexually appealing and arousing. I submit that this is so because it is not only natural for both genders to show bisexual sexual expressions, but because it is natural for both genders to be sexually aroused by bisexual activity – we find it both normal and appealing unless taught otherwise by society. Even supposedly homosexuals will find sexual expression between a male and a female arousing unless taught to think otherwise! Likewise, supposed heterosexuals will always find the homosexual behavior of at least the opposite gender sexually arousing unless indoctrinated to feel otherwise. Can a man who loves seeing two women in an act of sexual expression be considered truly heterosexual, or a woman witnessing two men in an act of sexual expression, who finds it appealing, be considered truly heterosexual? How could a true heterosexual find a homosexual act appealing? And what supposed heterosexual would not find a homosexual act of the opposite gender appealing without social standards telling them they should not? Furthermore, what supposed homosexual could witness a heterosexual act and not be aroused in some manner or form unless they were taught or told they should not find such appealing?<br />
<br />
I could be wrong, which makes things all that much more complicated, and I apolgize if my incorrect analysis insults you, but this is simply how I see it, and it does not detract from the force of my arguments – there is a place for bisexuality.<br />
<br />
There are many arguments against bisexuality from both heterosexuals snd homosexuals – why I do not know. It seems that they both fear something in admitting it is normal and natural; however, I feel it is the normal and natural function of myself, so I offer this defense and argument. I believe all men and women are inherently bisexual and should be. I believe we, all humans should accept and learn to live with our bisexuality, regardless of which gender, if any, we prefer. I believe bisexuality is extremely beneficial to all individuals and to the progress of society. I further believe that anyone who denies their bisexuality denies their own human nature, which is bad for Nature and society, and such an attitude should be quietly observed and of concern to others (as it is not natural). We should not deny the feelings of those who feel they are strictly heterosexual or homosexual, but we should fear those positions if a bigoted and prejudice spin is being promoted by those individuals.<br />
<br />
I realize I am in the supposed minority, but I believe this is all social show and most believe as I do, especially since the natural evidence and logic falls in the favor of those who think like me. So I present this argument here in the hopes that it will be spread forth either in its eintirety or in various personal forms. I give permission this instant for anyone to use this article in its entirety for whatever purpose or argument they choose, especially those who feel as I do and who wish to promote the validity of bisexuality!<br />
<br />
I love both males and females equally, and I do not think this wrong, abnormal, or socially destructive. I think sexual expression to both men and women is moral and right, and I see no good argument against it. I believe we should all embrace our bisexuality, express it, and promote it. I think all social concepts against bisexuality or in thinking that a male is less manly or a female is less womanly because they practice bisexual behavior is insane, illogical, and bad for society and the ultimate preservation of nature.<br />
<br />
Bisexuality is true human sexuality and I promote and support it.</div>
Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-18004306267138742722013-02-02T05:27:00.000-05:002013-02-02T05:27:51.433-05:00The Natural Rights of All<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
These are the natural rights of all living things:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
1. All conscious beings are born with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and any culture/society/civilization which attempts to hinder this beyond natural bounds is not only regressive, but criminal and terroristic in nature.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
2. All living creatures, by virtue of their nature and existence, have a natural right to the free access, foraging, and harvesting of organic food for the sustainment, growth, nutrition and health of their individual mind and body. If a society must take possession of land in order to acquire what it deems as “progress” it does not have a right to do so in such a way that all living creatures may not exercise their natural right to such free access and use of organic medicines and foods. Furthermore, such activities of “progress” have a moral and ecological duty to give back to the Earth and all of its inhabitants a greater or equal share of free resources than what it took to acquire “progress”, or such activities may not be considered, by any right, to be a form of “progress”, but rather are and should be deemed theft and rape.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
3. All living creatures have a natural right to hunt, fish, and/or harness other life forms, by virtue and in accordance with their nature and existence in such an unregulated manner as to allow the full sustainment of their individual livelihood in a free and unhindered manner. If a society/culture/civilization attempts to regulate this to the point where such cannot be done freely both inside and outside of society and/or in accordance with nature it amounts to regress of nature and is the equivalent of rape and theft.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
4. All living creatures, capable by their very nature and existence, of acquiring and storing food and water for individual use in a natural manner which accords with their natural existance, within and for a definitive time frame in accordance with natural cycles in which such is plainly and absolutely necessary is entitled to do so, by nature, and any hinderance and attempt to control such a right is unnatural, anti-life, and pro-authoritarian.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
5. All living creatures, by virtue of their nature and existence, have a natural right to free access and use of freshwater and saltwater resources for the purposes of self-sustainment, nutrition, hygiene, and medicinal application.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
6. All living creatures, regardless of gender, but in accordance with natural processes, have the natural right to uncontrolled reproduction and/or the natural means of birth control and reproduction which are available by means of nature up to the point of actual birth.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
7. All living creatures have a right to acquire, build, and utlilize natural means of shelter and warmth, according to their capability, without social/cultural/civil influence so long as such means are not a voluntary part of the society/culture/civilzation (meaning the individual being can opt entirely out if they so choose and are capable of such a choice). If such cannot be done without risk to society/culture/civilization, by virtue of intellect, the society/culture/civilization must be considered inferior, unadaptable, and flawed, as a superior form of existence should always be capable of existing without controlling or tampering with the supposed inferiority of a lesser state of existence. How can one claim "progress" if they must control (beyond their own individual and direct influence) what nature already declared favorable and evolved in accordance with local and natural ecological standards as a whole?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
8. All living creatures have a natural right, by their very nature and existence, to the total, complete, and unrestricted freedom of movement in accordance with their natural abilities and knowledge, and no society/culture/civilization has a right to restrict such movement in members who have not volunteered to relinquish it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
9. All living creatures, especially those who require it, have a natural right to free and unhindered access to sunlight in accordance with nature and natural phenomena.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
10. All living creatures have a natural right, in accordance with their very nature and existence, to the free use and access of natural and local resources, in accordance with their current individual needs, without hinderance, so long as such living creatures have not volunteered to give up such rights on behalf of a society/culture/civlization (meaning they can freely opt out). If any society/culture/civilization feels the need to hinder such access to involuntary members, such a society/culture/civlization is clearly inferior to the natural process and should be considered totalitarian and clearly flawed in character, outlook, and initiative.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
11. All living creatures have a right, by virtue and in accordance with their nature and existence, to free and mutual association. Attempting to control the associations of any creature is an attempt to control that very creature, and amounts to ecological, individual, and social "regress" not "progress".</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
12. All living creatures, by virtue of the realization and knowledge of self-identity inherent in humans, have a right to their own body and mind. Furthermore, if we are to expect recognition and respect for the guidance of our own vessel we should do the same for all others by virtue of the same reasoning.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
13. All living creatures, by their very nature and existance, have a natural right to defend all the rights which they deem existent in whatever manner they are capable of doing in accordance with their own individual nature and through their own individual actions.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
14. All living creatures, through free association, have a natural right, in accordance with their individual means and existence, to choose to participate in or not participate in a human-made and manufactured society/culture/civilization, and not to be unnaturally hindered or punished for such a free decision.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
15. All living creatures, in accordance with their nature and existence, have a right to free expression, free protest, free thought, and free belief by very nature of their ability to do or have such.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
16. All living creatures have a natural right to legislate their own constitution and to reap the pleasures or suffer the consequences of the decisions they make in accordance with their core beliefs and principles.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<i>This is by no means a comprehensive list of natural rights, but a list which is fair, level-headed and aware of natural phenomena as well as man's respective place in the environment. In this list a 'right' is defined as that which comes from nature and does not require social or political influence in order to sustain it as a right.</i></div>
</div>
Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-63862210334390091012012-12-23T02:45:00.004-05:002012-12-23T04:24:35.801-05:00Proof of Panpsychism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed (the First Law of Thermodynamics), emergence is impossible because something cannot arise out of something which did not already contain its characteristic (<i>“ex nihilo, nihilo fio”</i>) - true “wetness” cannot arise from the same elementary building blocks as true “dryness”, and so, conscious life cannot arise from material and unconscious existence, and entropy (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) states that converted energy will escape and be unrecoverable, and also that it will tend to be less orderly, yet life (specifically human) multiplies despite its need to consume life; therefore, consciousness must be arising from the energy already contained within the universe and that energy must already hold the quality or characteristic of consciousness, in some form, within it unless both energy and consciousness are being introduced from outside the system.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In other words, consciousness must have always been in existence as long as physical existence within this universe and been part-and-parcel to it in every instance, or there is another, likely intelligent force manufacturing both energy and consciousness from somewhere outside of our universe. Despite the possibility of multi-verses or deity, there is still the problem of creation from nothing, for both deity or randomness (<i>“ex nihilo, nihilo fio”</i>), meaning we are created essentially “ex deo” (despite one's definition of deity or otherwise as the building blocks). This means that panpsychism is not only the most logical assumption, but that it is the only logical option despite its seeming conflict with what is known as “common sense”, since common sense (and logic) both dictates the two main points of the argument set forth, and common sense, and therefore its physically verifiable assumptions, are also based upon physical perceptions which are predicated on the assumption that all which exists can be observed mainly via visual or auditory measurements (specifically via the scientific method) – certain forms of common sense can be manipulated by invalid assumptions.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A must always be the equivalent of A, B cannot arise from A alone, nor can A become multiples of A, yet A is both B and multiples of A; therefore A must be more than was assumed or an outside force is adding to A (in violation of the first premise); therefore, the answer must be that A is not perceived correctly, or the first premise is entirely wrong – either way, the first premise must provide both A, B, and multiples of A in itself and that would mean a complete rewriting or understanding of everything – like it or not.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Consciousness must necessarliy coexist with matter from the beginning. God is not dead – we just have always looked too shallow.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Peace. Alraune.</div>
</div>
Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-88331137820047493992012-11-09T18:16:00.000-05:002012-11-09T18:16:25.977-05:00On Society and Authority<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Today, I watched as a young child, perhaps three of four, took a stick, which he had found, and began beating a bush with it. This made me think:<i> if many would think this action wrong due to the unnecessary effects to the bush and owner's property, or if others would call this unnecessary violence, then how can any say we are born naturally peaceful or innocent?</i> <i>Furthermore, how do we know the child is wrong in what he is doing and we are correct in our assessment, and furthermore in correcting him? Finally, what does the act of the child (and therefore other acts which are deemed wrong or immoral) mean concerning the many beliefs of the afterlife and judgment if his actions are not learned, but natural?</i></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Surely the child was only “having fun” and he was also driven to improve his motor skills, and likely he had no intentions of harm, but how can we know? If he did or did not have intentions of harm, would this mean that intentions and not actions are the fulcrum of judgment, or is it that our actions have consequences regardless of our intents and these consequences teach us right from wrong? And if proper actions must be learned through consequence or taught, then how can any say that humans (or any living thing) are inherently good? And if some would say we are born inherently bad or sinful, then from where does our goodness and morality emerge, for <i>“from nothing, nothing comes”</i>, and goodness and morality cannot come from badness, immorality, or indifference.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
When I was a small child I got into a lot of trouble one day because some friends and I decided to build a fort in a neighbor's tree without their permission. We cut many branches in the tree and damaged it badly for the sake of fun. I learned this was wrong, and I even got to be a very scared five year old being interviewed by the state police. This happened because our society said it was wrong, but where did our society get this idea from? Was it learned through consequence? Did it emerge from a deep recess? Was it inherent, yet denied? Or was it created by the wrong, for the wrong, for all the wrong reasons?</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
I did not get into trouble for what I did to the tree, but I got into trouble that day because that tree was the neighbor's property. As a child I had no concept of anything like owning a tree. I had learned one can own a house, a toy, a car, furniture, a bed, and even a pet, but "owning a tree" or the very earth everyone walks on had never crossed my radar. The key phrase here, I think, is "I had learned".</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
There was nothing "naturally" wrong with what my friends and I did to the tree that day, in fact, any animal or natural force could have done the same and no police would have been called. Had an animal built a nest in the tree, insects come and devoured the tree, or a lightning strike or whirlwind come and destroyed the tree, no police would have been called despite the owner's belief that they "owned" the tree. So what is the difference between natural forces and the actions of a few small boys? The answer, I believe, is simply that small boys are humans, who are a part of a human society which invented the idea of "ownership", and thus, as small boys we were expected to learn the necessary and entirely created moral concept of recognizing and respecting "ownership". What we did was not inherently wrong, it was socially wrong.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
This revelation, if true, leads to many other questions: <i>Do social wrongs trump natural actions? Is there such a thing as a natural right or wrong? Can a social system be considered natural, since for instance, humans are a part of nature and humans are inherently social creatures? Is human society natural to the whole, or is it only natural to humans and, if so, are its moral guidelines and boundaries only applicable to humans? How can invented social standards justifiably override natural human actions, and where does this authority come from? Who decided that artificial social standards trump the concrete and natural? By what natural element is the idea of social law and acceptable behavior derived which allows for the artificial and often varying social standard to be elevated above the natural standard and still be rationed from out of the natural standard which is the only concrete point of origin from which one can begin to reason?</i></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
The problem here is very simple, yet not entirely obvious as to how it can be resolved, if it can even be resolved. Simply put, the social arises from the natural, yet it appears to turn the philosophical concept of <i>superiors and inferiors</i> or <i>greater and lesser things</i> on its head. How can the child come from their parent and justifiably claim to have a superior origin? What sort of reasoning is being used to assert the power of social law over what is otherwise deemed to be natural?</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Is it that human social standards are not claiming to have a superior origin, but rather these various "systems" are claiming to have a superior future? If this is so, by what rational basis is this assertion being made? By what measure can one claim they are better, superior, or more pleasantly evolved other than by pure arrogance?</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Society is a very complex structure, but the justification, and therefore necessity and purpose for it, lies in the answer to this problem: <i>From where does it come; from where does it derive its authority; and can it justifiably claim both superiority and authority over its origin?</i></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Finally, if social law is derived from the consent of those it governs, how can the governed be expected to consent to unnatural standards such as not stealing when hungry, the institution of marriage, peacefully accepting one's own offspring being taken by State institutions, consenting to the restriction of movement, the honoring of borders, and other social laws and customs which are nowhere to be found in nature? How can humans be expected to do what is not found in any nature, let alone human nature? What sort of madness is this unless the idea is to "change" human nature?</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
In my mind, most social laws and customs are entirely artificial, derived from nothing but human imagination, and therefore have no moral imperitive outside of human society. Some social laws and customs may indeed be based upon a sort of natural law which presides as an undercurrent in all things, but a very large portion of social laws and customs are as unnatural as a fetus in the womb of a male mammalian – they are insanely derived with highly unreasonable expectations, and it is quite probable that all social ills and problems can be traced to such unreasonable and unnatural expectations.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
The only reasonable conclusion I am able to come to concerning the creation and implementation of seemingly unreasonable and unnatural social laws and customs is that they are intended to change human nature, but for whom or what, for what end, by what authority, and in accordance with what manner of reason? The answer may be pleasant or it may be too scary to face, for the only time humans try to change nature is when they intend to control it.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
The purpose behind all social law and custom is control, this is obvious to anyone and agreed to be necessary by most; however, actually altering human nature rather than merely managing and containing it is an altogether different and potentially dangerous or disasterous undertaking. As individuals we owe it to ourselves, our environment, and our neighbors to question the wisdom of such an undertaking and to postulate not only the end result, but the "who", "what", "where", "when", "how", and "why" which lies beneath the surface of this undertaking. Altering human nature, if even possible, is something which should not be taken lightly, and we need to have an open discussion about it.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Peace,</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Alraune</div>
</div>
Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-25560112690098252402012-11-08T18:31:00.000-05:002012-11-09T18:29:05.445-05:00In Defense of Idols: Neopagans and Idol Worship<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
When pagans, heathens, and wiccans place images of a deity or several deities upon their ritual altar outsiders, particularly monotheists, atheists, and agnostics, might be compelled to think that they are worshiping a material object, but this is not so. The reality is that neopagans use idol images to enable them to better conceptualize their deity in much the same way that monotheists utilize their sacred texts to conceptualize the attributes of their deity, or in the same way anybody uses mathematical symbols to represent mathematical concepts.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Math, art and language are not all that different. A work of art is created by combining various symbols in a single space to create a single work of art. Like art, all language (including the language of math) is comprised of sets of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol" target="_blank">symbols</a>, and like those who utilize the written language contained in their sacred books to envision the nature, character, and attributes of their deity, neopagans utilize idol images for much the same ends. Pagans, like everyone else, believe in the power symbols have to call to mind the various concepts and attributes which are intimately connected to those symbols.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
When heathens, wiccans, or other neopagans erect idol images they are not, as many might suppose, worshiping the image, rather they are revering the Platonic "forms" behind the image which comprise the attributes of a deity, lesser deity, nature spirit, etc. Since this is the case, it must be noted that one simply cannot grasp the purpose of idol images unless they first grasp Platonic philosophy and the concept of <a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/thforms.htm" target="_blank">Plato's "forms"</a>, especially given the fact that most all of modern Western neopaganism has been heavily influenced by Platonic philosophy, particularly Plato's doctrine of "forms".</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
For instance, in Christian Theology there are both <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Concept_of_the_Divine#Essence_and_attributes" target="_blank"><i>divine attributes</i> and a <i>divine essence</i></a>. The divine attributes are derived from both reason and Scripture (both being communicated using a rational set of symbols called language), and are defined as those attributes which define who God is, while the divine essence is God. This theological framework is not all that different from what a pagan is intending when they set-up an idol, in that, the idol image serves as a visual representation (the means of communication, rather than language) of the divine attributes which define who a particular divine essence is. In other words, a pagan kneeling before an idol is not worshiping a vain image, but rather, he or she is attempting to invoke the attributes of their deity to gain a closer relationship with the essence which is that deity; frankly, this is no different than a Christian reading their Bible in order to call "God" to mind.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
With this in mind, it only stands to reason that if a neopagan can be accused of worshiping <i>"graven images"</i> then a monotheist is equally guilty of worshiping their sacred text and not their "God".</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Peace,</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Alraune</div>
</div>
Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-72618956229357207282012-01-02T14:00:00.000-05:002012-01-02T14:00:46.144-05:00Why I Am a Cynic<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXgmwA1VvcDmohFqC0SKvbRpDbCM01aISGtoX8XboOSAQVckkQhPs0gUccqiR3FxCJDGwT5rgvVCX1D2HxNo96nVkO6x0RaCr34nUzEGaEPDUfIIv-mlc8SlIe6-TtgLXo3o8kqu7anYo/s1600/Statue+of+the+Unknown+Cynic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" rea="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXgmwA1VvcDmohFqC0SKvbRpDbCM01aISGtoX8XboOSAQVckkQhPs0gUccqiR3FxCJDGwT5rgvVCX1D2HxNo96nVkO6x0RaCr34nUzEGaEPDUfIIv-mlc8SlIe6-TtgLXo3o8kqu7anYo/s320/Statue+of+the+Unknown+Cynic.jpg" width="215" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">Statue of the Unknown Cynic (public domain)</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Why I Am a Cynic</b></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">By Alraune</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I'll readily admit that I have entertained the idea of anarchism, but I will also admit that after following those thoughts through I quickly realized that true anarchism is a breeding ground for all sorts of evil. In an anarchist society (with humans anyway) the crazies and the truly evil are going to take over and enslave everyone to their society - it's just a matter of time. I'd even go so far as to suggest that the civilization arose from the minds of crazy and evil people who took the first leap to bring it into being and point to history as my evidence, particularly the form of governance known as the State, if it wouldn't get the lovers of society so riled up they would miss the point of this post.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Laws, laws, laws! That's the problem and the joke. We don't require so many and we all know it, yet we find ourselves living under more and more. Sure, we require some laws or else we'd have anarchy, so rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater I'd like to just take a look at laws and bring to your mind what I mean when I say they are the problem.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Who makes laws? People. And in a democratic society who makes laws? The people (supposedly). And since laws are nothing more than universally accepted decrees by people how does one go about making a law that is accepted by the majority? You change public opinion. So essentially society is governed by a set of agreements on things called "laws" that are decided by public opinion which can easily be influenced, changed, or altered by nothing more than a seemingly convincing arguement, or a couple billion dollars and a huge media operation. Does this realization make me bad for declaring myself a <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/cynics/" target="_blank">Cynic</a>?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">But let's look at the core of society and civilization and ask ourselves...Why do we need laws? We need them because the crazies and the truly evil will hurt us and rule over us without them. So we need government whether we like it or not. If we don't have some form of governance a form will be given to us by the crazies and the truly evil.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">So, with that in mind, what sort of laws do we really need? And here is why I am a Cynic...We only truly need a handful of laws - that is it. I'd think 99.9% of people would agree we need a law to say "This is our form of governance", another law forbidding murder, one forbidding all forms of rape or forceful and violent bodily harm, one forbidding theft, one forbidding swindling, one protecting the planet from being raped, and that's about it. The rest can sort itself out in anarchist type fashion without turning into Hell on Earth.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Plain and simple. We only need a handful of laws that cannot ever be changed or altered, which are absolute and eternal (unlike other laws), which require no interpretation. If a jury of peers says it happened, it happened - end of story, and they even get to create the punishment to fit the crime.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Yeah, you're still going to have wrong-doing, but at least you won't have anyone telling you what to put in your own body, to wear your seat belt, or to please stand over here while you protest (such laws are put in place to prevent death and harm, supposedly, but personally I'd rather take my chances at being self responsible and responsible for my offspring, as well as responsible for whether or not I kill or hurt anyone through my actions than have more laws telling me or anyone else what to do. Unlike some, I have faith that in such a society common sense will eventually win out and be a dominant trait rather than nonexistent like it is in our modern society.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Some might cry, "But what about equality? How would we guarantee all people are treated equally?" To that I answer, "You can't do it. We can't even do it in this hellhole we call modern society." It's not laws that make people equal - it's morals. So long as murder is murder and harming others is seen as one of the universal laws, that's about all that "government" can and should do - the rest is up to us. Less laws and more self involvement through responsible action and moral integrity - that's the ticket!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And still some would say, "You said theft should be outlawed, but how would we know what belongs to who without more laws?" A jury of peers. Your neighbor isn't going to want to see you lose your property anymore than you want to see him lose his, and if dishonesty emerges, everyone will understand that what comes around goes around, because some day it will be your turn on the jury deciding your neighbor's fate, which promotes honesty and integrity.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In my humble opinion, life is complex and hellish because we have so many complex and hellish laws and hoops to jump through and sort out in the name of "safety and security" - it is always in the name of safety and security. All of this forced prevention stuff has to end and we have to bring back self responsibility. For example, we have to make people not want to drive drunk and kill people (through the creation of moral integrity, a reason to live, and maybe even wanting to live sober, as well as have self responsibility) rather than forbidding them to drive drunk, which then brings on checkpoints and all sorts of ridiculous laws which invade our privacy, our lives, and our peace.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And forced preventitive "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precrime" target="_blank">pre-crime</a>" laws are just one category of laws destroying society rather than helping it. Basically, in my opinion, if it doesn't land under one of the handful of necessary laws I suggested - it is unnecessary and tyrannical. Educational laws and tax laws would be two other forms that simply shouldn't be, in my opinion. Who's going to build the roads then? Whoever the hell wants too. And how are we guaranteed a right to use that road? You're not, but you would be guaranteed you couldn't be killed or beaten or swindled for trying.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">We need to simplify. It shouldn't be illegal to counterfeit, rip-off people, or sell worthless junk, and have all the laws that come with those decrees, it should just be unlawful to swindle others - one law says it all. Let a jury decide if any instance amounts to swindling. Don't allow government or some agency to interpret the law - let the people do it, and only let the people do it in small numbers on a case-by-case basis!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">So why am I cynical of society besides some of the reasons mentioned above? Because you can't drive 65 in a 55 because it is unsafe, but it is perfectly safe for a cop with flashing lights to drive 80 in a 55 just to catch up with you to pull you over and give you a fine - it makes no sense. If the point is that you might kill someone by driving at such an unsafe speed, then why is the cop driving at an unsafe speed and potentially threatening lives just to pull you over? Yeah, he might be taking more precautions, but for what? The presumption that you "might" kill or hurt someone? It's kind of stupid when you think about it, especially when you realize that people still speed, so all the speeding laws are really doing is placing double the lives in jeopardy for a pre-crime concept, and of course, generating money for the criminal State. Maybe more people would drive safely if more people cared about life, and maybe more people would care about life if they had more self-responsibility, and maybe more people would be responsible if they had more self-responsiblity on their plate and less laws made by the State to provide them with "safety and security"?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">So, I am an extreme minimalist on many levels, and one of them is when it comes to laws and governance. In this society, the one we have, I am a Cynic. I laugh at it and see it all as one huge joke. Like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope" target="_blank">Diogenes of Sinope</a>, you might think of me as a dog or a poor and lowly creature for not loving this magnificent civilization, but like Diogenes, I think the dog a nobel creature who needs but a few rules to govern his life, a life with more dignity and care for the self and others than any so-called civilized society in existence on this planet. Sure, a dog might do some pretty disgusting things, but then again...who decided those things were disgusting - it wasn't the dogs. But don't worry, even if you happen to think your dog does some disgusting things he'll still greet you with enthusiasm and love when you return home after your most recent outing in this magnificent hellhole we call modern civilization, and be there to remind you that someone still gives a damn and he (or she) didn't need any damned laws to teach them how to love others.</div></div>Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-5158344561778423482011-12-28T02:53:00.005-05:002011-12-28T03:30:19.189-05:00Five Refutations of Christianity<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Five Refutations of Christianity</b></div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">By Alraune</div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Christianity has been a cancerous growth in my family's side from day one. It has taken me many many years to realize this. I was just about to realize it, but then I had given up (out of fear) and headed back towards Christianity when I finally saw the light.</div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">My brother, a minister and die-hard Christian, who was struck by a vehicle and incurred some brain damage, went from feeding and preaching to the poor to trying to kill me with a butcher knife (due to the brain dmaage changing his personality). I now know without any doubt in my mind that the Christian "change" and baptism of the Spirit is nothing more than a state of mind.</div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">That moment, combined with many thoughts and problems I have with the Christian faith have led me to believe that Christianity is a false religion.</div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Christianity, in my opinion, is an evil curse, created by black magicians in order to subdue whole peoples: <i>"cursed is He who hangs on a tree"</i>. The very acceptance of it requires the acceptance that one is under the power of a curse (the Fall of Man), and so I recommend people stay as far away from it as possible.</div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">What follows are five points of a fifty-point refutation I will be providing over the course of time. Unlike many atheists and agnostics my refutations will not be tackling the problems of Christianity from an outsider's perspective, but rather from an insider's perspective, where I will be specifically showing how core Christian theological doctrines, more specifically the doctrines of Calvinism, are in gross error and are indefensible by any honest human being.</div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">All Scriptural references are to be understood in their proper context in their original languages. Where various translations are noted the name of the translation is given.</div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>The Problem of Support by Fallacy and Unfalsifiability</b></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">By examining the Christian faith one would think that someone had a book open before them listing all of the possible fallacies of logic one could commit, in which they intentionally tried to fit them all into the support and defense of Christianity. Christianity uses the <i>fallacy of division and composition</i> in order to defend its doctrines. It takes a bunch of separate documents written by some forty authors over a period spanning more than a millennium, then calls them a whole, and claims that what the whole states is what all the parts intended based purely upon insufficient data, in that it presupposes that God inspired the texts and meant for them to be taken together, and then uses those texts to support the idea of inspiration.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Christianity uses the fallacy of <i>argumentum ad hominum</i> by labeling those who disagree with the claimed truths of it as possessed, influenced, or blinded by the Enemy. It uses <i>genetic fallacy</i> by claiming that unbelievers are unable to understand due to their total depravity or fallen nature. Christianity uses appeals to force and prestige such as "God blinds people to the truth." It is guilty of <i>petitio principii</i>, or circular reason, in that it claims that the Bible is the truth of God because the Bible says it is the truth of God; that Jesus is God because the Bible says so, and the Bible is authoritative because Jesus says so; or the Bible is true because the Church said so, and the Church has authority because the Bible says so.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Furthermore, Christianity presupposes its own inability to be <span lang="en-US">non contradictory</span>, or in other words, if anything contradicts the Bible, then either the Bible is correct and the contrary evidence is wrong, or one or the other is misunderstood, but never considers that the Bible itself and/or the Christian faith could be and is what is contrary to the evidence (learned theologists know this is a key view to hold).</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Finally, even if one were to suppose that Jesus rose from the dead, it does not then follow that just because the Bible says He endorsed the Scriptures, that He actually did endorse the Scriptures as the word of God, especially the New Testament Scriptures which were undeniably written after His supposed lifetime, and which serve as the only record that He ever might have endorsed the New or Old Testament Scriptures in the first place.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>The Problem of Free Will and Predestination</b></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Free will is a prerequisite of self-awareness, for you are not truly self-aware unless you self-determine it. There is no self-awareness until self-determination is acquired, because you, yourself, must make the determination that you are aware.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Free will cannot exist alongside any sort of predestination. In order to be free to exercise one's own will one must have the ability to be self-determined, and freedom of self-determination requires at least a sort of semi-causation; that is, if one is forced to act, or rather compelled toward self-determination, then one must be both fully capable of choosing to act in any random number of ways within the realm of possibility, and be capable of choosing to not act at all. Such things may well be possible in a realm containing <i>causality</i> (a topic too large to discuss here), but it would be an impossibility along side predestination (Eph. 1:11) because predestiny automatically implies limited ability in self-determination to such an extent that one could not have chosen to act or not act in any other way other than the way in which they acted or did not act, meaning that any choice they thought they had was merely an illusion.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The main thrust of the argument here is not that of causality and free will, or whether or not free will does indeed exist (I believe it does), but as to the implications predestination undeniably has for the Christian faith. If an individual is not free to choose to act in any way other than the way in which they are going to act, then they really have made no choice in the matter at all, and they are predestined for eternal life or eternal damnation based upon <span lang="en-US">judgment</span> for actions which were entirely outside the realm of their actual control. Such a situation would make man something akin to an action figure, and God something akin to a child who caused one action figure to assault another, after which, punishment was exacted on the first action figure for the evil the child projected upon him.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i>Free agency</i>, would be reduced to a form even less than that of a rat in a cage who is free to do whatever she wishes, but who is going to be killed the following day regardless of what choices she makes. Such a situation is unjust enough and in itself implies the act of either God showing favoritism or drawing lots for His favorite rat to be spared. Under either situation described, justice and judgment would be a mere illusion that was really a matter of choosing based upon one's own preferences or random selection, and not based upon any element concerning the object of <span lang="en-US">judgment</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I, for one, refuse to allow God to be reduced to the status of a mad scientist or a play-acting child, and I most certainly refuse to rebel against the common sense which tells each and every one of us that free will is as real as we are. To reject free will is to reject one's very self-identity, for your identity becomes wholly what it was predetermined to be, and not what you made it. No amount of mental gymnastics disguised as reason or desire for the hope and necessity found in faith is capable of convincing me that I must reject the self-determination of conscious beings.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>The Problem of Unconditional Election</b></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The doctrine of unconditional election (Jn. 15:16) creates a number of problems in my mind, the greatest of which would probably have to be the obvious partiality (<i>ie.</i> favoritism) of God, for if such divine selection is done based upon not what man has done or not done, believed or not believed, and God is not showing favoritism, then the selection process is nothing more than the luck of the draw, or the casting of lots.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">One of the problems with the obvious favoritism of unconditional election is that it is a direct contradiction of the supposed impartiality of God (2 Ch. 19:7; Ro. 2:11). If God selects you for eternal life or eternal damnation without basing it upon anything on your part, such as who you are, what you did, or at least what you intended to do, then not only does it follow that God is not fair (which I am not claiming I have a right to say He should be), but also that we could not believe in God unto salvation even if we truly wished too, meaning God is not deserving of worship from all (who would worship a God who rejected them, but a mad and obsessed man?), and both believers and unbelievers were forced into the destiny of eternal life or eternal damnation in the first place (having no freedom to choose concerning the matter), rending the reasons for faith and morality outside of subjective human experience or social pressures to actually be moot points.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Unconditional election (and damnation) means that I could not have believed in the saving power of Jesus Christ unto salvation even if I had wanted to. It means I have no choice in the matter whatsoever, and those who believed and loved me will eternally be separated from me based upon the whim of God and nothing that either of us actually did, or even intended to do had anything to do with either of our fates. Either God simply favored them and some strangers among them over me<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—</span>to which they may decide on their own if that is acceptable for their God to do to all of us<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—</span>or God simply randomly selected them out of the luck (or unluck depending on how you look at it) of the draw.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">If God were not supposed to be omnipotent, I would be able to draw an analogy that my human nature could understand (which is all that God or man could expect of me), in that I could reckon God to be that of a fisherman who happened upon a sinking passenger ship, and who was able only to save those whom He happened to pluck from the water at random. However, I know that the Christian God is supposed to be omnipotent (Job 42:2; Mt. 19:26; Lk. 1:37), so there is no excuse for this supposedly just God's refusal to save all of mankind, and His failure to at least spare the women and the children before some pot-bellied shepherd is a good indication that most of the men and women who He would condemn are more worthy of honor and respect than He.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>The Problem of the Doctrine of <i>creatio ex nihilo</i></b></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">If God is infinite and eternal, then it follows that God is all there ever was, all that ever is, and all that will ever be. If God is all that ever was, then there was nothing by which for Him to create any thing from, and it is a logical impossibility for any thing to come from Nothing whether God created it or anyone else. If God is all that ever is, then nothing could possible exist besides God. Furthermore, if something could come from Nothing, then there is absolutely no good reason to suppose God must be eternal, for God, the universe, or even a slug could have suddenly appeared out of nothingness.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">If God is that which is infinite and eternal, then we can reasonably assume that Nothing must be that which is the absence of God, which would be impossible, since one cannot fashion something without coming into contact with it in some manner or another, <span lang="en-US">never mind</span> God's attributes of infinity and omnipresence. Even if we allowed for God to mysteriously create something from out of Nothing (abandoning all Reason which we used to support the conclusions concerning God and His existence in the first place), we would still be compelled to conclude that Nothing was actually created out of something, which was the Mind of God (the point of causal contact) – the something which formed the nothing into something, or imagined it. Therefore, it becomes necessary for us to conclude that either God is not infinite and omnipresent or God is incapable of creating something from Nothing. Put quite succinctly, if zero is the value of Nothing (or the absence of value) and one is the value of God (or value), then 1 + 0 = 1, not 2 or any other value.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This leaves us with only three other possibilities if we are to assume that God must at least be eternal: either that which is, is God in whole, and the act of creation is merely an act of transformation (pantheism or atheism); that which is, is God in parts, or <i>creatio ex deo</i>; or something which was not God existed besides God – <i>creatio ex materia</i>.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">No matter how we approach the subject, if approached with reason, we must conclude that the traditional monotheistic concept of God in conjunction with the doctrine of <i>creatio ex nihilo</i> is an irrefutably irrational view. To simply declare that "we do not know how it is possible," in this instance, specifically when the doctrine of <i>creatio ex nihilo</i> as the means of creation used by an infinite eternal monotheistic God flies in the face of the law of <span style="font-style: normal;">non-contradiction</span>, or <i>principium contradictionis</i>, is to deny reason itself and negate the validity of honest theology (to say the least).</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>The Problem of Contradictions in the Bible Texts</b></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The premise of contradictions in the Bible is that if the Scriptures contain any contradictions, then they are false, which implies imperfection or lying, which would mean that the Scriptures could not be inspired by a perfect and good God. A single contradiction or blatant mistake would be good and compelling reason to conclude that the standing Canon is not trustworthy as it is, and that the book in which the contradiction or mistake was discovered is wholly suspect of having not been inspired by a perfect and good God. Furthermore, it would mean the same for any other supposedly inspired author who dared to endorse the alleged uninspired author or book.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Many accusations have been made that the Bible contains contradictions or blatant mistakes. Of course, the various ways in which these contradictions are worked around are either that we are not dealing with the <i>autographs</i> (originals); the unexplained is not necessarily unexplainable; the interpretation is fallible not the revelation; the passage is out of context; the passage is difficult and should be interpreted in light of other, more clear passages; the passage is obscure and so it should be viewed in favor of the entire Scriptures and not in opposition to them; the Bible, although inspired, contains human characteristics so it will have human expressions and exaggerations; the truth in the Bible is in what it reveals, not what it records; the Bible uses common non-technical language; both rounded and exact numbers are perfectly alright; generalizations and general truths are perfectly acceptable; and the Bible is a progressive revelation, so what God reveals later <span lang="en-US">supersedes</span> what He previously revealed.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I deem many of the ways in which known contradictions are escaped to be nothing more than parlor tricks. For example, if it is acceptable for there to be errors because we are not dealing with the <i>autographs</i>, then it would also seem <span lang="en-US">acceptable</span> to reject anything which is not the <i>autograph</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> but rather is a mere copy,</span> as not being fully inspired, meaning that the entire Bible, as we have it, cannot be considered to be fully inspired. If the Bible, as we have it, is not the fully inspired word of God, then there is no reason to trust it as a faithful representation of the fully inspired word of God. The implication of this is, of course, that we cannot trust the Bible, as we have it, as being or even containing the full and accurate communication of God to man concerning Himself or anything else.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">While I will admit that supposed contradictions in numbers seems rather trivial, and that most of the apparent contradictions are along the lines of such trivialities, so that they might not qualify as disqualifying characteristics to many less anal-retentive individuals, I do believe there are enough blatant errors and contradictions which exist in the Scriptures we possess to disqualify them as inspired by a perfect and good God.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">One of the most undeniably blatant errors found in the Scriptures is that in which Matthew incorrectly attributes the prophetic utterance of Zechariah to that of Jeremiah.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
<em>"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."</em> -Mt. 27:9-10 (KJV)<br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">How could anyone be expected to believe that a perfect God would forget which one of His prophets he used to communicate a prophecy directly related to the conspiracy concerning the death of His own Son? This blatant error is usually circumvented by pointing to some obscure passages in Jeremiah (Jer. 18:1-6; 19:1-11; 32:8-9) and claiming it in conjunction with the prophecy which is actually in Zechariah (Ze. 11:12). The problem with this excuse<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—</span>and that is what it is<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—</span>is that Matthew only quotes from Zechariah and quotes nothing which can be directly attributed to Jeremiah, whom Matthew directly attributes the prophecy to.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The explanations given which try to excuse this error, which I have heard, are four: 1) the Syriac does not give a name and 'Jeremiah' was a later addition, 2) Jeremiah wrote the final chapters of Zechariah, 3) the prophecy was spoken by Jeremiah, but written down by Zechariah, or 4) Jeremiah is the first book of the prophets and Matthew was referring to the entire collection of the Prophets (a solution offered by Lightfoot and based upon remarks in the Talmud).</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">There are several problems with these excuses, not the least of which is wondering when we shall admit that all of the excuses for the contradictions found in the accepted texts of the Bible, when tallied, might be considered to point to an obvious lie. These excuses can be dismissed because we know that Zechariah was likely written after Jeremiah, meaning that it is unlikely that Jeremiah wrote the final chapters of Zechariah, or that they could have been one and the same person. Furthermore, we know that Jeremiah is not the first book in the collection of Prophets, but rather Isaiah is and was (Sirach lists Isaiah before Jeremiah), not to mention there is no other example of such a usage. We also have no reason to suppose that Matthew would have known that Jeremiah spoke the words and Zechariah only wrote them down, or that a good God would intentionally try to confuse us by having Jeremiah speak them, Zechariah write them down, and Matthew attribute the words to Jeremiah.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">We are then left with one other excuse for this blatant contradiction by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, which is the idea that the name 'Jeremiah' was a later addition, however, according to St. Augustine, Bruce Metzger and most scholars, the reading 'Jeremiah' is firmly established; therefore, this excuse also fails to adequately explain an obvious error.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Many other errors and contradictory statements can be found throughout the Scriptures, but for now we shall be content to list but three other of the more obvious contradictions found throughout the Scriptures:</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>The contradiction of Christ</u> – Jesus made contradictory statements in the Gospel of John (John 5:31-37, 8:17-18), which remain contrary to one another when taken in the context in which they were intended<span style="font-size: small;">.</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> In chapter eight, Jesus plainly bears witness to Himself and intends Himself as one of the two necessary witnesses to collaborate a true testimony, which He states in chapter five to be an indication of false testimony, while implying that God the Father is a man (John 8:17 – a theological nightmare), and ignoring the fact that He and the Father are one (John 1:1-3), thereby bearing dual testimony of Himself by proxy.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<em>"<strong>If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.</strong> There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape."</em> -John 5:31-37 (KJV)</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
<em>"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. <strong>I am one that bear witness of myself</strong>, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also."</em> -John 8:17-19 (KJV)<br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>The contradiction that God cannot be tempted with evil</u> – God cannot be tempted with evil (Ja. 1:13-15), yet in the Gospel of Matthew we read that Jesus, who is God, was tempted by Satan (Mt. 4:1-11), who is most definitely an evil entity as are all demonic forces, or devils. So if we are to take James to mean that God cannot be approached by evil with a tempting thought, then it becomes clear that this is indeed false, and a contradiction, but if we are to presume that what James is indicating is that it is impossible for God to fall into evil, then we can conclude that there is no way in which Jesus, who is God, could suffer temptation in the same manner man suffers temptation, which would contradict Hebrews (He. 2:16-18, 4:15), because it would have been an impossibility for Jesus to actually choose to fall into evil, unlike it is for men (barring the difficulties concerning free will and predestination). Either we must conclude that there is a contradiction in that God can be tempted with evil, or we must jettison the theological position that Jesus is God.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
<em>"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."</em> -Ja. 1:13-15 (KJV)<br />
<br />
<em>"Then was <strong>Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.</strong> And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. And when <strong>the tempter came to him</strong>, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him."</em> -Mt. 4:1-11 (KJV)<br />
<br />
<em>"For verily he [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that <strong>he himself hath suffered being tempted</strong>, he is able to succour them that are tempted."</em> -He. 2:16-18 (KJV)<br />
<br />
<em>"For <strong>we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are</strong>, yet without sin."</em> -He. 4:15 (KJV)</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><u>The contradiction that God tempts no man</u> – God created all things (Re. 4:11), God made man (Ge. 1:27) and if God made all things (1 Co. 8:6, 11:12), then God must have also made evil (Ge. 2:9). Man is evil (Ge. 8:21; Mark 7:20-23), he is totally depraved (Ro. 3:10-12), and he only desires to do evil continually (Ge. 6:5), yet he tempts God (Mt. 22:18; 1 Co. 10:9) in contradiction to James (Ja. 1:13), and is tempted by God through his own desires (1 Co. 10:13), which God must have made if God made all things (Ac. 17:24-28), thereby contradicting James (Ja. 1:13) once again, which claims that God tempts no man. If God made man and God made all things (including evil and temptation), then God tempts man by proxy regardless of how many theological hoops you jump through, as God is the author of all things (Pr. 26:10; Eph. 1:11, 3:9).</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
God cannot tempt with evil, nor does He tempt man: <em>"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for <strong>God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man</strong>: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."</em> -Ja. 1:13-15 (KJV)<br />
<br />
God created all things: <em>"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for <strong>thou hast created all things,</strong> and for thy pleasure they are and were created."</em> -Re. 4:11 (KJV)<br />
<br />
God created man: <em>"So <strong>God created man in his own image</strong>, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."</em> -Ge. 1:27 (KJV)<br />
<br />
Again, God made all things: <em>"But to us there is but one God, the Father, <strong>of whom are all things</strong>, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, <strong>by whom are all things</strong>, and we by him."</em> -1 Co. 8:6 (KJV)<br />
<br />
If God made all things, then it stands to reason that God must have also created evil: <em>"And <strong>out of the ground made the LORD God</strong> to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, <strong>and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.</strong>”</em> -Ge. 2:9 (KJV)<br />
<br />
Man is evil: <em>"And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, <strong>out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts</strong>, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."</em> -Mark 7:20-23 (KJV)<br />
<br />
Man is totally depraved: <em>"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; <strong>there is none that doeth good, no, not one.</strong>"</em> -Ro. 3:10-12 (KJV)<br />
<br />
Man only desires to do evil continually: <em>"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and <strong>that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually</strong>."</em> -Ge. 6:5 (KJV)<br />
<br />
Man, who is evil, and who only desires to do evil, tempts God: <em>"But <strong>Jesus perceived their wickedness</strong>, and said, <strong>Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites</strong>?"</em> -Mt. 22:18 (KJV)<br />
<br />
But God cannot be tempted with evil: <em>"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for <strong>God cannot be tempted with evil</strong>, neither tempteth he any man:"</em> -Ja. 1:13 (KJV)<br />
<br />
God made all things, and having made all things He would have had to also have made man's desires, especially since man, who is evil, lives in, moves in, and has his being in God: <em>"<strong>God that made the world and all things therein</strong>, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: <strong>For in him we live, and move, and have our being</strong>; as certain also of your own poets have said, <strong>For we are also his offspring</strong>."</em> -Ac. 17:24-28 (KJV)<br />
<br />
Man, who is evil, is tempted through his own human desires, which were made by God: <em>"<strong>There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man</strong>: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but <strong>will with the temptation also make a way to escape</strong>, that ye may be able to bear it."</em> -1 Co. 10:13 (KJV)</div><br />
God cannot tempt man, yet He does so by proxy, having made man, his desires, and being that in which man moves, and lives, and has his very being: <em>"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, <strong>neither tempteth he any man</strong>:"</em> -Ja. 1:13 (KJV)<br />
<br />
Again, God made all things: <em>"<strong>The great God that formed all things</strong> both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors."</em> -Pr. 26:10 (KJV)<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
Therefore, God is the author of man's sin, his sin nature, and his evil desires: <em>"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, <strong>being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will</strong>:"</em> -Eph. 1:11 (KJV)</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Many contradictions can be found throughout the Bible texts (numerous books have been written about it), and what I have presented is by no means an exhaustive list. The ones presented here have been just a few of the contradictions that I deem to be the most serious and perilous condemnations which clearly indicate the Scriptures cannot be inspired by a perfect and good God, and that the Christian faith must be a very great lie. I intentionally chose these contradictions because they are areas where theological disagreements arise among Christians, proving that no one can agree on how to resolve these blatant contradictions which are commonly referred to as "difficulties" for no other reason other than the fact that these various factions refuse to accept the obvious – that they are defending a lie!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Final Note</b></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I encourage all non Christians to read the various systematic theologies and core theological doctrines of the Christian faith, understand them, and read the various problems and contradictions found in them. I encourage Christians to do the same and to learn how ridiculous the hoops one must jump through to maintain these doctrines become. I further encourage Christians to investigate where the core Christian doctrines come from and how we got them. If told the Bible, ask who gave the Bible authority, if told the Church, ask who gave the Church authority, if told God, then ask what evidence we have the authority comes from God. You will realize very quickly that the authority for each thing is circular and therefore a lie! Test me. Try me. Prove my last statement incorrect.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">If the authority for the Bible comes from Jesus, the only evidence of that is the Bible, so that evidence fails because the support is circular. Jesus cannot support the Bible because the Bible says Jesus supports the Bible; otherwise I could claim to be King of the World because I have a document that says I support it, and it claims I am King of the World – it don't work that way. Even if Jesus did rise from the grave and is God, it does not follow that because the Bible claims He endorsed it, He really did endorse it.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">If authority for the Bible comes from the Church, the Church cannot claim it has authority because the Bible says so – that is the same problem.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">You might think such evidence is good enough, but I don't believe anyone who believes that has really thought through the implications of accepting such logic, nor are they willing to apply it in other places.</div></div>Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-68870501374378687592011-11-22T05:12:00.000-05:002011-11-22T05:12:21.040-05:00On the Nature of Society<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>The Dialogues of Jeff & Kim: On the Nature of Society</b></div><div align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">by Alraune</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Our conversation continues in the small apartment occupied by our young couple, somewhere in Pennsylvania.</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Here is another mass-produced beer.</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Thank you.</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Since you claim the way things are run are so horrible, why don't you just make your own home-brewed beer and be a small bug in the system?</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: You make an excellent point, and I move closer every day to implementing such things, but the fact of the matter is (for example), if enough people simply made their own beer, the people for which this society was truly designed and intended to benefit would outlaw the making of such. They'd never allow it if it really threatened their money and their power.</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I don't know about these elite people you speak of, but I think you are probably correct in thinking that someone (probably the major beer manufacturers) would push to outlaw home-brewing if it got to be a threat to their profits.</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yes. Thankfully it is not a threat because it costs too much, so if one chooses they may take that route, at least as things currently stand.</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: But couldn't we just say that they dominate because they make a good product for cheap and so people are willing to pay for it?</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yes we could, and I would go for that, but the fact of the matter is that corporations and individuals<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—</span>I'm not really speaking about beer right now<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—still use government to make profits by outlawing things or suppressing things, and that is not right. It is no longer the law of supply and demand when they use their money and power to squash the competition.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Yes. I suppose you are right.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Such people are no longer playing by the rules of supply and demand, but instead are trying to cheat the game by buying off the referee. And that speaks directly to why I say society is not designed to benefit us, but to benefit a small few.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: So are you going to tell me what society is supposed to be for and why it is not being used for that purpose already, or are you going to make me wait all day?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Yes. I will. Now, what did we say the purpose of man was?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: If by the purpose of man, you mean our purpose as humans in this life..."The purpose of this life is to sustain our existence in the least intrusive manner necessary in order to attain the greatest possible abundance of personal and communal experiences of a positive nature."</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: And by the “least intrusive manner necessary” we mean "the least intrusive manner of necessary self-sustainment,” correct?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Yes.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Well, society has no useful purpose to any individual human being unless it is purposed to aid in the acquisition of the purpose of man; that purpose being what we just cited.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: So you are saying that the purpose of society is also to sustain our existence in the least intrusive manner necessary in order to help attain the greatest possible abundance of personal and communal experiences of a positive nature?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Yes, that is precisely what I am saying.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Well, wouldn't progress be part of that?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Yes it would.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Then I do not see what your problem is. I mean, I understand there are imperfections which need fixed, but you claim the entire thing is broken and never was intended for that. I just don't see it. Furthermore, it seems kind of hypocritical for you to be accusing society of all these wrongs while sitting in a house, drinking a beer, sitting on a chair, and listening to the radio.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Look. Just because some dude who works for a major radio or television station tells you something, you shouldn't just go out and repeat it, because frankly, that's what that accusation of "hypocrasy" of your's just was, and we both know it. I am not saying the things we produce are wrong. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. I am saying it is how we obtain them and who benefits that is wrong. Furthermore, so long as I or anyone else has no choice in the matter, arguing that I utilize things made in the system is a meaningless argument.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: You do so have a choice!</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Tell me, I'd love to hear.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Just leave. Drop out of society if you don't like it!</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: And be arrested as a criminal, a vagrant, or mentally ill. Yeah, sure. Because that's leaving it. Having society come and lock you away for refusing to be part of it is hardly what I call a choice.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Well, then move to another country.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: It's all the same wherever you go. Different governments and cultures, but the same system. There is no where to go, Kim, so don't play that card. The fact is, I don't have a choice, and neither do you.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: You're sounding like an anarchist again.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: What is it going to take to get through your head that I am not bashing your precious television or your running water or any of that? It's the root purpose of it all, don't you get that? I'm saying it is what stands at the heart, not what you see on the surface. I don't hate society, I despise the wrongful and manipulative purpose it is used and intended for.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: So you want society to fall?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: No.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Then what do you want? You are confusing the hell out of me.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: That's because you are giving me all your pre-programmed defenses before you even bother to hear what I'm actually going to say. It's alright. You can get them all out and then we can have an actual conversation.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Don't do that to me.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: What?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Your "you are being programmed" hoo-dee-do. Don't even start.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Fine. I am sorry if I offended you. I just want to speak without being labelled an "anarchist" or accused of hypocrasy or any number of things. Can we debate the matter and both leave attacks on the messenger out of it?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Yes. Let's do that.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Fine. So tell me then who you think society is supposed to benefit?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: I suppose the majority.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: And why so?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Because you can't make everyone happy, so the best thing would seem to be that society should seek to aid the purpose of this life by doing what is best for the majority.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: So if you believe society is supposed to benefit the majority, then why do you suppose anyone would "sign-up" for it, knowing that sooner or later they would not be in that majority?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Well, maybe it's not supposed to only benefit the majority then. If the purpose of each and everyone of us is to live as long as possible in order to have as many positive experiences as possible, in the least intrusive way, then I don't see how anyone in their right mind would want to be part of something which only benefited the majority, since you are correct. Sooner or later you will not be in that majority, and the benefits do not necessarily outweigh the negatives if the majority chooses to benefit itself in a way that greatly screws you.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Like taking their tanks and their bombs and blowing people up so they can heat their homes in the winter?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Yeah.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: And maybe locking you away "just in case" because they just so happen to be blowing up your grandparents over in some foreign country where you originally immigrated from?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Yes.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Or maybe taking your children because you smoke pot, and the majority don't think you should?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Well yeah, but the majority don't care if people smoke pot.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Which would be evidence of why society is not meant to benefit the majority.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: But it can't be intended to benefit the minority, because that's just as bad as benefiting the majority! Society should be in place to benefit the whole.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Now we're cooking! It is my belief that <b>the purpose of society is to aid in the sustainment of the existence of the whole of its members, in the least intrusive manner necessary, in order to help as many of its members as possible (all preferably) attain the greatest possible abundance of personal and communal experiences of a positive nature. And if possible, to improve upon the ways in which it seeks to carry out that mission.</b></span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Okay. I can agree with that, and I knew that's what you were eventually going to say, but how is our society (or any society for that matter) not doing that?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Well, first let's look at how society aims to achieve anything in the first place. Our civilization, our society, is made up of four great pillars: economy, government, morality (or religion), and science and the arts as well as the dissemination of them (<i>ie.</i> education, language, etc.). Those four things are the tools any civilization uses to achieve its purposes.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Okay. Now, I'm not accusing you of being an anarchist, but are you suggesting that we should do away with those things?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: No.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Good.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: But I am suggesting they are all used improperly and that is why the world is screwed up. I would also suggest a complete revamping of the pillar of economy. I would not recommend any economic system that currently floats around out there as a solution (especially socialism). I would suggest something entirely different. Furthermore, I would state that the heart of the problem I speak of is that economy, government, religion, and the arts and sciences, particularly the dissemination of them via education, are all used to control us in a very intrusive, ignorant, and malicious manner.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: That's quite the statement. What do you have to back it up?</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: How about two very well respected and prominent philosophers, just for starters.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Jeff reaches for his cell phone and thumbs through </i><span style="font-style: normal;">it.</span></span></div><div align="left" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Jeff: Here's</span> Socrates...I'll read to you directly from Plato's Republic. Socrates is speaking with Glaucon.</span></div><div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Socrates: And how can marriages be made most beneficial? That is a question which I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for hunting, and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. Now, I beseech you, do tell me, have you ever attended to their pairing and breeding?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Glaucon: In what particulars?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Socrates: Why, in the first place, although they are all of a good sort, are not some better than others?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Glaucon: True.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Socrates: And do you breed from them all indifferently, or do you take care to breed from the best only?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Glaucon: From the best.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Socrates: And do you take the oldest or the youngest, or only those of ripe age?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Glaucon: I choose only those of ripe age.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Socrates: And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds would greatly</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">deteriorate?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Glaucon: Certainly.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Socrates: And the same of horses and of animals in general?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Glaucon: Undoubtedly.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Socrates: Good heavens! My dear friend, I said, what consummate skill will our rulers need if the same principle holds of the human species!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Glaucon: Certainly, the same principle holds; but why does this involve any particular skill?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Socrates: Because, I said, our rulers will often have to practise upon the body corporate with medicines. Now you know that when patients do not require medicines, but have only to be put under a regimen, the inferior sort of practitioner is deemed to be good enough; but when medicine has to be given, then the doctor should be more of a man.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Glaucon: That is quite true, he said; but to what are you alluding?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Socrates: I mean, I replied, that our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects: we were saying that the use of all these things regarded as medicines might be of advantage.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Glaucon: And we were very right.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Socrates: And this lawful use of them seems likely to be often needed in the regulations of</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">marriages and births.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Glaucon: How so?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Socrates: Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior as seldom, as possible; and that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Glaucon: Very true.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Socrates: Had we better not appoint certain festivals at which we will bring together the brides and bridegrooms, and sacrifices will be offered and suitable hymeneal songs composed by our poets: the number of weddings is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the rulers, whose aim will be to preserve the average of population? There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Glaucon: Certainly, he replied.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Socrates: We shall have to invent some ingenious kind of lots which the less worthy may draw on each occasion of our bringing them together, and then they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.79in;">Glaucon: To be sure, he said.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Oh my God! That sounds like eugenics. And what was that about using medicines on the general public and lying about it? And that stuff about festivals and sacrifices and the pairing of the less worthy with the less worthy. That's not freedom! That's total control.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Oh, you're quick. But hold it there one second. Allow me to quote a man who is considered one of the greatest philosophers of modern time. I am sure you have heard of Bertrand Russell, the man who wrote <i>A History of Western Philosophy</i>?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Yeah. I know who that is.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Here's Bertrand Russell in his book, <i>The Impact of Science on Society</i>, where he says on pages 49-50: <i>"Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy...It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche</i> [Fitche, as you know, was a prominent philosopher of the German Idealist school, and a proponent of German nationalism] <i>laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished."</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i>"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i>"Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Holy s<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—</span>!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Hold on. I'm not done yet. Here's Mr. Russell in his book, <i>The Scientific Outlook</i>, <i>"In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviorism, and biochemistry will be brought into play...All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called 'co-operative,' i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them."</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i>"Except for the one matter of loyalty to the World State and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative..."</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i>"On the rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it."</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Did he just say they need to kill anyone who gets too smart for their breeches?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yes. That is exactly what he said.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Okay. I'll have to let these quotes you just read me sink in for a little bit. That's some pretty wild stuff. I can hardly believe such prominent and well-respected men really said those things. And to think, so much of our modern society is based upon and shaped around the ideas of these men.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Precisely my point.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: But just because they said some crazy things doesn't mean we are really doing them, does it?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Just because Socrates and Russell actually did make those statements, does not mean they are being implemented, but they are being implemented nonetheless. However, that is not the point I am trying to make anyway, so it doesn't matter whether you believe those things are actually being carried out or not (although they are and have been for quite some time, and I urge you to research the matter for yourself). Those quotes were read to you to give you a glimpse of those things, but more importantly to show you that our society, our civilization, is a well-thought-out machine. It is planned and ordered, and neither you nor I are anywhere near those who do the actually planning and running of society. Furthermore, if you read the works of those who mold and shape society with their philosophical arguments, you will see that the four pillars we spoke of <u>are not</u> used to achieve the ends we stated society should seek to achieve. Society is not for the benefit of the whole, it is for the benefit of the guys up top.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I think you are hitting me with too much at once, Jeff. Let's stop for a little bit, maybe even call it a night. I really need to let this stuff sink in.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Okay.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: You'd better stay here tonight. You've been drinking for quite a while now, and you look like you are ripped out of your mind.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: It's the only way to live.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Alright then. Let's crash out and we can continue this discussion tomorrow.</div></div>Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-66227589984491997342011-11-01T07:45:00.000-04:002011-11-01T07:45:48.251-04:00On the Purpose of Man Part 2<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitNylsTB12fdOTeY26FFjjSMilZjceSt1cK5iCs70UW39UYZMAVmwvkpBkr5mDbXeD8hC0Vd-M-Jr5ZWA2l61FPLnx7XG6sMX5dVWUFN4Cvm2Opq2fTQzj7OiDxWxHh4Bd4KATOjaZefo/s1600/Ascent+of+Man+Public+Domain.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ida="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitNylsTB12fdOTeY26FFjjSMilZjceSt1cK5iCs70UW39UYZMAVmwvkpBkr5mDbXeD8hC0Vd-M-Jr5ZWA2l61FPLnx7XG6sMX5dVWUFN4Cvm2Opq2fTQzj7OiDxWxHh4Bd4KATOjaZefo/s1600/Ascent+of+Man+Public+Domain.JPG" /></a></div><div align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>The Dialogues of Jeff & Kim: On the Purpose of Man Part 2</b></div><div align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">by Alraune</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Our young couple is just beginning a brief exercise in personal enjoyment when Kim interrupts.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Wait a minute! I think I want to tackle the issue of what it means to prolong your life so that you can have as many positive experiences in this life as possible for as long as possible.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Ok. I'd love to hear it. This means I get to be the critic, right?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Yeah sure... I mean, I think I agree that our purpose in this life, barring any metaphysical explanation, is to have as many positive experiences as possible. Actually, I kind of like that, because you sort of rationalized the old saying, "If it feels good, do it." Now I can give people an explanation for my philosophy on life both from my heart and from my mind. I think I like that.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Well you're welcome. I didn't arrive at that conclusion because I wanted too, but because it was the best I could do outside of metaphysical explanations. Granted it sounds alright, but you have to admit it seems sort of pointless in the grand scope of things if we don't turn to metaphysics to give the "what" a deeper meaning through the reason "why".</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Agreed. However, I think we should take this as far as we can go without getting metaphysical because it keeps us honest, and we don't bring any preconceived prejudices to our questions. Like what you were saying, how both religionists and physicalists alike seem to base their philosophies of what this life is for and how one should act upon their preconceived notions on what exactly death is and whether or not there is an afterlife or such a thing as universal and equal justice.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yes. I agree. It is people who are overzealous about their belief concerning what happens at death or afterward who seem to kill the most people without hesitation. Consider the crusades, the inquisition, modern terrorism, the Darwinian eugenics of Hitler, eugenic concepts which force sterilization or killing on individuals and groups in general, greedy corporations, etc. It's people playing God because they think they know what's going to happen at death or in the hereafter who screw us all over in this life. People should be free to believe whatever they want concerning death and the hereafter, but once those unprovable beliefs start adversely affecting the rest of us, then we got problems. So long as the question is open-ended, we should all live like it is.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim. Yeah. So anyway, you got me thinking about what it means to prolong your life, because I knew you were going to bring up eugenics and stuff.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I have too. I could care less if people think they can breed their family into a better breed of horse, but when they start saying that the rest of us need to die or be sterilized (like they do to africans and other minority groups, and also poor white folk) because we are wasting the resources they are entitled to because they are somehow "more fit," then I have a major problem with their psychotic conclusions, especially since I understand societies, how they are run, and what they are formed for.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: As I was trying to say before you interrupted me with another one of your rants about "the man" and how they are trying to kill us all...</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: And they are.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Ok, Jeff. Can I finish a thought?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Sure.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I don't think eugenic policies that encroach on the lives of others are right, but I do think there might be something to be said for the survival of the fittest concept. Maybe not the mentality, but the concept.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Go on.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Well, everything really does have a "survival of the fittest" type push behind it. I mean, if you are a dumbass you're going to get yourself killed, that will be the end of your genetic line if you didn't have any offspring. If you don't watch out for yourself, same thing. So, it would seem that it is at least a philosophy in play concerning extending your own life and the life of your genetic legacy, which is sort of self-directed.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I agree so far.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: And I also see how some might think that getting rid of the competition and the so-called "bottom feeders" will help extend their lives and increase the amount of positive experiences they have.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Careful you are wondering into the land of the psychotic murderers.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Yes. However, there is something wrong with such people (as you said before) because they are trying to have positive experiences by unnecessarily providing others with negative experiences, and also they are violating the "sharing" of positive experiences concept that we were talking about.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yeah, they're crazy alright. If the people they want eliminated are really all that inferior (such as myself), I say let's let natural concrete forces decided, not a handful of inbred egomaniacs with a whacked out metaphysical philosophy who believe they have a right to rule because they happen to be more downright evil (not necessarily clever or intelligent as they would like to think) than the rest of us. Being more intelligent, more evil, or more clever does not equate to more fit, but rather<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—</span>as is the case with the eugenic-loving types I speak of<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—less of a correctly functioning human whose natural intelligence and cunning happen to make them extremely dangerous individuals who often turn into mass murderers that have a fetish for justifying all the death and suffering they promote cloaked under the banner of a misguided metaphysical outlook that in all of their intelligence they are too stupid to realize is actually metaphysical. That being, that they are so whacked-out that they either assume they know there is no afterlife, or there is no judgement in it, or they are so screwed-up in the head that they don't care if there is any universal justice. Such people would have you believe the majority are less fit because they are naive, but I say the majority of people are mentally healthy and thus fit, and what appears to the sick to be naivete, which should be taken advantage of, is actually the healthy human behavior that these inbred scum lack. Most people don't think their leaders would do them evil because their not supposed too, and all healthy and well functioning humans know that, but those broken and malfunctioning egomaniacs look down at them like they are stupid rather than asking themselves if maybe what they are perceiving as stupidity is actually their own flaw in that they find pleasure in seeing others suffer and thus are capable of conceiving of cruel and terrible things which the rest of us would never entertain.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Okay Jeff, did you get it all out now?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: I'm just getting warmed up. And I suppose many of the types I am describing would suggest I throw meaningless words and concepts out there such as "justice" and "well-functioning" – people such as Jacques Ellul who wrote <i>The Technological Society</i> back in the 1960s, who talked about the Brave New World some very very sick technocrats would like to see us all living in because they are stuck in a primitive "survival of the fittest" mentality. But I'm ranting...</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Yes you are, and you will have to elaborate, but hold it for now. Ok, so prolonging your life means being fit to survive (<i>eg.</i> be smart, stay healthy, etc.), but not knock as many others out of the game as possible, because it's not a game or competition, but rather an experience.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Well, if it is not a competition, then how do you explain various things such as some plants growing talling than others, blocking out the sunlight, and consequently killing the other plants?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Are you saying the plants did that on purpose?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Well, your Darwinian eugenicists would anyways. I'd say those plants weren't out to ruin the lives of the other plants, but rather were simply more enthusiastic about having a positive experience. Although I am not sure how you are going to explain away the inability of those plants to share because I don't have that answer myself.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Well, for starters how about you can only share what you do not require yourself, if you share more than that, then you fail to survive yourself. How is that for starters?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Very good point.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Thank you. Which goes back to what we were saying a conversation or so ago, and which gets to my point: the prolonging of life in such a manner as to adversely affect others via the justification of survival of the fittest ends when you reach the point of sustainability. Once you reach a point of sustainability you no longer have a drive (or you do not an adequate justification for one) to put your positive experiences over that of others, and if you are well-functioning and intelligent, your drive should then be stronger to want to share your positive experiences with others, since we all know that we all require each other in order to continue to have positive experiences (everything supports the other in this world).</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Yes.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: So prolonging your life means doing what is actually necessary to sustain it, not what you think might be necessary (like killing off the bottom feeders so you have food). The keyword being <i>necessary</i>, that is you don't step on others unless you have absolutely no choice.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: So you are saying that so long as there is another route which you're capable of taking which does not immediately hinder your sustainment, you should, if you are well-functioning, seek the alternative route to any which might encroach upon others?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: That's exactly what I am saying! And the more focused you are on having and sharing positive experiences, in contrast to personal survival, the more "fit" you will be to think up and act in ways to sustain yourself without causing the negative experiences of others.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Wow! I think I might agree with you, and I think we can find plenty of examples of this nature. Most animals, as we said before, don't fight simply for the sake of fighting, in fact if they are not sick they try to avoid conflicts unless they believe it is absolutely necessary.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Yes. And we have now exposed another major problem among societies and individuals, which is that they fail to cease surviving upon sustainment, and hence we have greed and the like.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: They are stuck in their lower and less evolved mindset.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: No, I wouldn't say that because I think all life "gets it." I'd just say such people are, as we said, "sick." They are so focused on their survival that they forget what it is all about, which is, as we said, to live as long of a life as possible and enjoy it in as positive a way as possible, but to also share the positive aspects of life with others.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Well, some would just say they are experiencing those positive things with their loved ones and they are justified in screwing the rest.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: True, some would say that, but that doesn't mean their position on the matter is correct.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: How so?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: As I said, we all need each other. At the heart of things we are all really one. I know that sounds a bit New Agey, but it is true.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Yeah, but you're not saying we need to give up our individuality to be one.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: No. I am not.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Well, that's the difference, and it's why I disagree with the direction that movement is going in. We might all be one, and I agree, but we are also ourselves.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: True.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: And you know? That's why I say we are all hypocrites. I say that because life is one big contradiction where we have to find the perfect balance between one extreme or the other in order to live as happily and as healthy as possible. We need to be individuals and communities, looking out for #1, but sharing with as many others as we can, trying to live positive, but forced to ocassionaly be the cause of the negative, etc. It's one big mind screw if you don't get the fact that that is how things are supposed to be.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: I couldn't agree with you more. I wouldn't go so far as to call all people hypocrites, but I do understand and concur with what you are saying.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: So what have we established here, then?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: That the purpose of life is to prolong it by sustaining it in the least intrusive manner possible so that we all can have as many positive experiences as possible while this life lasts, part of which is to share those positive experiences with as many others as possible, as a means by which to extend our own quantity and quality of positive experiences.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: So then you are saying that you are primarily defining the prolonging of life for the purpose of experiencing life as "the least intrusive manner of necessary self-sustainment"?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Yes. Though I would not separate my definition of the prolonging of life from your concept of the purpose of life, but rather use it to more correctly define one portion of your philosophy. In other words, I would say that <strong>"the purpose of this life is to sustain our existence in the least intrusive manner necessary in order to attain the greatest possible abundance of personal and communal experiences of a positive nature."</strong></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: I like it, very good. And it's only...Let me see...Thirty-three words. Thirty-three words to live by, and it fits right in with my take on society, cultures, and civilization in general. I think you could even use that statement to express what true (not religiously dogmatic) morality and immorality are. That is, morality would be that which is least negative and most positive for the individual and community as a whole, although it requires the individual to actually think about what is necessary and what is not and to maintain a focus upon intending and trying to create the most positive outcome. Are we asking too much of the individual? I mean, asking them to actually think and care and all?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: I'd like to think not. We just need to quit projecting our own opinions about what happens at death and afterwards onto others and start worrying more about living with one another in the here and now. It is perfectly alright to form an opinion about such matters, even express them, but if that is all you think about and you base your life upon, so that the way you treat others is inconsistant with the reality, then well...</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: You are the living dead.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Exactly. And as the living dead you are wasting your own life and usually ruining the lives of others. We could be putting all of that energy into finding new ways to be less and less intrusive and creating more and more peace and happiness.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Yeah. Maybe people would be less worried about acquiring money and possessions to propel themselves and their genetic line forward and oppress the little man, and more worried about having fun, loving others, and lifting people up? Maybe instead of talking about reducing the world's population we'd be talking about expanding out into the stars to have more positive experiences and to discover more wonderous things? We wouldn't be competing anymore than we had too, and instead we'd be cooperating as much as we possibly could.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Sounds plausible, but didn't you basically assert that there is not a basic good in humanity?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Wow! You're going back a few conversations, but you are right, I did say that. That is precisely why the things we are talking about are not happening.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Then how can you expect them to happen?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: We have to change the entire system. It's not that people are bad, it is that they are taught to survive and thrive in a bad system. It's this Cultural Mandate crap and all the other stuff, and the very structure of society and its misguided purpose.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: How so?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Did you ever read Plato's <i>Republic</i>?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Parts of it anyways.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Well you should read the entire thing. And don't get some so-called intellectual to explain it to you, just read the thing for what it says. It's really not that difficult to read and understand. My point being that it sheds quite a bit of light on how our society operates and where it is going, but I'd really only call it an introduction to the whole scam. That's why I said not to rely on someone who has been schooled by the system to explain what the text is really supposed to mean, because they'll give you the official "spin" they have been taught, but if you keep digging and combining what you learn with what you have personally experienced you will very quickly understand just what sort of "jig" is up. But the issue goes much deeper than that, you have to start asking questions about what the purpose of society and civilization itself is. Once you understand that, then you'll understand why I call what we have a scam.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Well why not enlighten me?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: I intend too give you my understanding, but I really do emphasize the importance of studying such things on your own. It is probably one of the most important issues for anyone to take the time to fully understand, yet most don't even bother. Most are just born into this way of life and they take it as the gospel truth without even blinking. They think this is all they know and this is how they know to survive so they never bother really looking at what makes things tick and why we have this set-up we call "the system". And they wonder why the world is so screwed up and everyone is stressed out, but they just try to make things better from within that framework, never even considering that the entire framework is the problem.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Don't we all have a general understanding of what this system is for though? I mean, progress, Jeff – hello! We have electricity and everyone gets food at the grocery store; we have running water, etc.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Please don't do that to me.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Do what?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: You are repeating what you heard and were told. I know that because they told me the same thing in school and on the television and in the books.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Well, wouldn't you call running water, plumbing and medicine progress?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Sure I would. But how did you get those things?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Through the progress of society.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Yeah exactly. You got running water and your plumbing and your medicine and your automobile because someone died so you could have it. Someone lost their life and their freedom so you could have it. Someone spent sixty hours a week pushing a button repeatedly for fifty years and missed out on most of their life including many experiences with their children and grandchildren so you could have a hot shower. Not to mention all the bull they had to put up with from cradle to grave that would have most likely been a fraction of the bull put up with three hundred years ago – the everyday bull that comes with this way of doing things. My point being, not that progress is bad, but that the system we use to attain it is. It benefits a few at the expense of the many. It's not right and we all know it isn't.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Well no system is perfect and we have to have the negatives in order to get the positives. We'll get it straightened out sooner or later.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: No we won't.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: How do you know that?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Because you need to understand how the entire thing is designed, that is how I know that. It is not designed for the benefit of the many, Kim. Our society, all modern societies are designed for the benefit of a few. And once more, if you are one of the many who does not like all the bologna, then you are the bad guy. You are deemed some sort of danger to the few. Your running water is given to you to keep you healthy enough to work and to keep you quiet. That is all! It's not for you the person, it is for you the worker and the consumer. If you think it's there to make you happy and provide you with progress, then try shutting it off once. They have codes and laws against that you know. It's not for you, it's for the few who need the resources (including human resources) of the many.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: I get the feeling I am going to regret this, but I will entertain your thoughts. Go ahead!</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Well first I think I am going to need one of those mass produced beers, provided to me in one of those mass produced glasses.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: I thought our system was bad?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: There you go again. I didn't say the "stuff" it makes is necessarily bad. I'm saying the way we get it and who it is intended to benefit is very likely at the heart of the issue concerning happiness for all of humanity and maybe even all life.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Well that beer sure seems like it is benefiting you.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: You gotta think bigger than me Kim, bigger than me. I'm just a consumer. You think I'd be allowed to benefit myself by whipping up a nice batch of grain alcohol for my personal enjoyment?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: No. That would be illegal.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: Precisely. I drink what I am told to drink. Sure, I can choose between any number of given choices, but it has to be those choices and there is a reason for that.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: So you don't kill yourself or add a burden to society by accidentally poisoning yourself.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Jeff: The first answer has nothing to do with it. I could accidentally kill myself a thousand ways and you don't see them taken from me. It has nothing to do with me and my welfare, Kim. But the second part of your answer is partly correctly. It is for the benefit of society, but I still maintain that the purpose of society is not for the benefit of you or me or anyone we likely know, or even for the vast majority. But how about that beer?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Kim: Ok. I want to hear this then.</span></div></div>Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-28612232192687081572011-10-25T03:01:00.000-04:002011-10-25T03:01:45.294-04:00On the Purpose of Man: The Dialogues of Jeff & Kim<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEoB8zh8BXiLH5S0CoHwYQnfHgBzDbohtu6kzi-kSO-oPVaEbWxbTTRGjDg0Z-wYLN2NjZeWyfVftSTTkenqu4DJZkOuz21RimgUfjxtPoVJFp32Z0WtMdtKRaurGtk-v72MnjHVo2eEk/s1600/Da+Vinici+Man.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" ida="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEoB8zh8BXiLH5S0CoHwYQnfHgBzDbohtu6kzi-kSO-oPVaEbWxbTTRGjDg0Z-wYLN2NjZeWyfVftSTTkenqu4DJZkOuz21RimgUfjxtPoVJFp32Z0WtMdtKRaurGtk-v72MnjHVo2eEk/s320/Da+Vinici+Man.jpg" width="235" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">Photo by: <b>Luc Viatour / www.Lucnix.be</b></div><div align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>The Dialogues of Jeff and Kim: On the Purpose of Man</b></div><div align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">by Alraune</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Our young lay-philosopher, Jeff, has just returned from his trip to the store. He enters the apartment and is immediately hit by the strong but pleasant odor of jasmine incense. Kim, an herbalist, is sitting on the living room couch, huddled over the coffee table thumbing through some plant matter. Jeff immediately heads to the kitchen and places the beer he just purchased in the refrigerator.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So are you ready to hit me with your big thoughts on what is good and what manner of society is correct?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Well, first off I wouldn't call them big thoughts. Secondly, you know that I am not perfect and I certainly do not claim to know everything or have any of the answers. Third, all I want to do is contribute some thoughts. I don't intend to solve anything, I just want to add my thoughts to the discussion.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Yes. Yes. I know. I was just kidding, but please do tell.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Okay, but first we have to discuss what our purpose is.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: You mean as a society?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: No. Well, yes. I mean society, but right now I mean as individuals.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Our purpose in life is what we make it. I thought this is what the philosophers pretty much agreed upon some time ago?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yes, but I am talking about how we arrive at the objective conclusion that the meaning of life is subjective. Therein lies the true understanding of the purpose of humankind.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I see. I guess I never really thought about that.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: You're not alone, most people do not.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So what is your reasoning?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Well, let me ask you. What do you think the meaning of life is?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: To experience.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Very good. I agree. But how do we know that?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Because that is what we do.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Ha ha. Really funny. That is not an answer. But you are correct. So far as I can tell the reason it seems like our main or possibly sole purpose is to experience life is because it is what we are engineered to do. Whether you believe in a Creator, a higher force, or strict physicalism it does not matter. We are still "designed" to observe and report, as it were. It really doesn't matter whether you believe it was natural selection or an intelligent designer, we can still clearly observe what we are engineered to do. So we don't really need to answer any metaphysical question before answering one of the more important individual questions: <i>What is my purpose?</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: How do you know we are designed for that?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Well, we are essentially beings having a sensory experience which we observe, record, analyze, and incorporate. Every moment of every day we are observing something, experiencing something, processing something, and so on. We are basically observing or experiencing, and reporting.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Hmm. I guess I never really thought about it that way; it seems pretty sound to me. We are engineered to experience, but how does this pertain to our discussion and why does it matter?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Because if we are engineered to experience it means that it is our primary purpose and possibly our only purpose. It also tells you that one of our "jobs," if you will, is to preserve data. We know that because there really isn't all that much sense or efficiency in experiencing things and not saving those experiences in some way for some reason. Whether you believe we are to pass those experiences on as best we can in the physical realm, the information is going back to some central computer or Creator, or even if you think it is a little of both, it still seems foolish to not save those experiences for some longer term or higher purpose.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: But why not just for ourselves? I mean for our physical existence. Then again, why not for some sort of eternal consciousness or spirit?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: It could be for either or both. It really doesn't matter because when you get down to it, whether you are a physicalist, an idealist, or a spiritualist, you really only have two purposes: to experience and to live as long as possible in order to experience as much as possible.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: That whole death thing certainly does place a bit of a limitation on experience.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Unless death is just another part of the experience.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So if the purpose of each human is to live their life and experience it, then why all the disagreement?<br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Actually the purpose of all life, not just humans, would be to live life and experience it, but as to your question I would say that people do not disagree over the overall purpose of life, but rather what happens after this life is over and precisely how we ought to direct our experiences, which is where the subjective nature of the purpose of humankind comes in.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So you mean that in reality people are killing one another and generally disagreeing over the purpose and meaning of death rather than life?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yes. That is what I think is going on when you really get down to the basic issues at hand.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Religion.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Oh no! Don't just blame it on the religionists. Those who believe death is it and there is nothing else are just as guilty. There have been plenty of people who believe death is it and there is nothing after that who kill others and ruin lives precisely because they are convinced there is nothing after death and hence no equal judgement for all. They are just as guilty of doing ill to others based upon a mere belief as any religionist. Sometimes they are actually more dangerous because they not only believe some people can get away with doing bad things, but that doing such things actually benefits their genetic survival because they can "cheat" death by passing off what they plundered from others to their offspring. So please don't fall into the trap that it is only religion and religious people who are the perpetrators of all the evils in the world – that is the biggest lie currently being sold. In my opinion, it is those who have an actual concrete belief about what happens after death and who live their lives based upon that belief in such a way as to adversely impact others who are a huge part of society's problems.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So anyone who has an opinion on death and afterlife is evil?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: No, I didn't say that. I said that anyone who uses their opinion concerning death and afterlife as an excuse or justification for the negative treatment of others (<i>ie.</i> stepping on or screwing others over) is a large part of society's problems whether they be a religionist or not.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: You do realize many atheists would argue that they do not have a belief on death, but they are rather stating known facts?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Parlor tricks. A fact is nothing more than an established belief perceived to hold true in accordance with a specific interpretation. All reason begins with the first fact, the first principle, and the first condition, none of which can be proven by an objective means, but are simply taken as universal truths (<i>ie.</i> beliefs) necessary to conduct a rational inquiry. Any honest intellectual knows that. Don't believe people who try to convince you a fact is an absolute truth or even a half truth because that is not what a fact is. A fact is merely a degree of belief, which means what? It means it is still a belief, it is only of a different flavor than what is commonly referred to as "just a belief". We can only know what the limitations of our sensory perceptions and our minds allow us to know. Granted, we can know a lot through that means of experience, but we are still limited by it. There could still be some sort of transformation or transition which takes place upon death which we are incapable of perceiving or processing and honest people who are not religionists know this.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So you are saying we don't actually know anything, we only believe we do.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: You're damn right that's what I am saying! Although I am qualifying that statement by saying that some beliefs are more universally accepted than others.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So I only believe that if I jump off a cliff I will fall due to gravity?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yes. You would be believing you understand the fundamental forces of nature and that those forces are all which exists which actually impact what will happen, and that there is no other force at work. You would essentially be believing you have it all figured out and there is nothing more to figure out there other than what you think you know about gravity and what makes you fall.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I think I see what you are saying. It is more of a question of belief about the finality of knowledge than whether or not something actually is.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Precisely. A claim of the finality of knowledge on a specific subject is nothing more than a belief. My thinking on what I mean goes a bit deeper than that, but since we are already off topic I'll let it go there for now. In any event, my point was that if someone believes they definitively know there is or is not an afterlife, and their beliefs about that impact others in an adverse way, then they are one of the largest problems society has, and it is not just the religionists. That is an incorrect assessment to blame spiritual people for the world's problems. In fact, some spiritual people are much more obsessed with life than death.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So you established that the purpose of each individual is to experience life and to try to sustain that life experience for as long as possible.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yes. That is what it appears we were engineered to do.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So what does it mean to experience, and is there a particular way we are to do so? Also, exactly what does prolonging our life experience entail? How far are we to go to make that happen? You've done a good job convincing me of what our purpose is (probably because I already figured it in a less complex way), but I'm really lost on the how and the why.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Now we are starting to move into the territory of society and its nature and purpose because I see humans as social creatures. The fact is that eventhough some of us, such as myself, insist on independence and lots of alone time, we all like to experience things with others. It is perfectly natural for us to ask others, "Did you see that?", or "Do you want to do this?", or even "Hey baby. Can I buy you a drink? What do you say we go back to my place?"</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Can you carry on any conversation without alluding to sex in some way?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Nope. I figure it is one of the better experiences of life, so naturally it is always on my mind.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Why is that?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: That it's always on my mind?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: No. That it is one of the better things in life?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Well, your strict physicalists would say it is because it ensures the survival of the species, essentially stating that if it didn't feel good we wouldn't even want to do such things. I take the opposite route and say that it feels good because we do it, essentially going on the idea that we were engineered to experience and experience requires interaction.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Yes, but some things we experience do not feel good.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: But such experiences do make you feel something and feeling is part of experiencing.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Yes, but some things which we experience don't make you feel anything, like looking at a blank piece of paper.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: You are still interacting with that piece of paper though, only it is through your vision rather than your sense of touch. If you touch it you will feel something.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Okay, supposing I agree that experience is interaction and that interaction is actually our main driving force and not things which feel good, that still doesn't explain why sex feels good.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Sometimes it does not. Do you suppose someone enjoys being raped?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Certainly not!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Then your answer is that positive interaction feels good, negative interaction<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—</span>like being punched in the face<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—</span>feels bad, and some interactions are neutral.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Yes, but then you still have to define what is positive or negative. You can't weasle your way out of the question by providing new definitions for good and bad.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: The experience of a positive, negative, or neutral interaction would be purely subjective, so I cannot answer that.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: You mean, you don't have an answer for me? Not even some bullshit response in an attempt to make it look like you have an answer to everything?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: No, I cannot answer that. The perception of the interaction which you experience is completely subjective.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Let me a get a pen and write this down. What time is it? <i>Tuesday at 9:09 PM – Jeff admits he doesn't know everything</i>.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Ha ha ha. Just because you think that I think I know everything does not mean that I think that I think I know everything. You are projecting your perceptions of me onto me. How many times do I have to tell you I don't think I have any answers, I just like to throw my thoughts out there. I don't think any one individual has the answers and I am suspicious of anyone who claims such.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Oh, I'm just teasing you. Relax!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Anyway... Since our primary purpose is to experience and live, then I figure our main objective in life ought to be to experience as much positive interaction as possible for as long as possible.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: But why positive? Why not negative or all interaction?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Because it is also our natural desire to experience positive interaction, which means that we are engineered to want positive interaction. Of course, we also want new interactions, but I figure that is only because we are driven to find more and more of the positive interactions and to discard or steer clear of the negative ones. The neutral ones we just sort of pick up along the way.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: A serial killer who gets his kicks out of murdering others might find that to be a positive experience for them, so I see a hole in your logic.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: My answer to that would be that they are wired wrong and their brains got messed up somewhere along the way because it is not natural to want to have a positive interaction for yourself and negative interaction for whomever you targetted. It is natural to want to share a positive interaction.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: But what about anger? Anger is natural and sometimes two people want to fight. In that case they both want to experience a negative interaction.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I don't believe you thought that statement through. You make it sound like they just wanted to fight for the sake of fighting and that such an attitude is natural. I disagree. Again, I think they want to fight because they both believe they are going to get something positive out of the interaction while inflicting something negative upon the other. Their anger is not caused by a desire for a negative interaction, but a desire for a positive one, at least in their eyes. Something is haywire in their brains too, although probably only temporarily in comparison to the serial killer.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So in every case they are all driven by positive interaction, at the base level? Interesting. Then maybe you are right and the questions I raise are more moral issues than arguments against your hypothesis that our purpose is to experience positive interactions? But you said it is natural to want to share positive interactions and not to want them all to yourself. How do you justify that statement?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I didn't say that. Be careful how you reword me. I said it is not natural to want a positive interaction for yourself by causing a negative interaction for another. You will notice that the way I put it leaves open the possibility that it is natural to want a positive interaction all to yourself. As I said, we are social creatures, but we are also individualistic and enjoy our alone time, which means it is natural to want positive experiences all to yourself, at least some of the time.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Okay, so our purpose is to try to live a long life and experience as many positive interactions as we can both by ourselves and shared with others. That doesn't sound that bad, although it still seems kind of pointless without answering the question of "why" we should be experiencing these things in the first place, especially if we only die and lose all of that information anyway. But to stay clear of the metaphysical issues, I suppose I only really have one question left: What exactly does prolonging our life experience entail?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: That is easy. Stay alive, stay healthy, stay happy, acquire your daily necessities, reproduce to prolong your genetic line, and leave a legacy (leave part of your experience behind and recorded in some manner to be shared with others).</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: You stated that way too simplistically. I think I'll ask again, only this time tell me what it does not entail.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: It does not entail suppressing others for personal gain or the benefit of your offspring. It does not entail grabbing power for the sake of power. It does not entail killing without necessity. It does not mean it is necessary to eliminate the perceived competition. It does not mean it is necessary to rule over others or control them.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I take it you are talking about social and moral issues again.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Precisely. Now that we understand what the purpose of our individual life is we are equipped to discuss what the purpose of a society is. But we'll hold it right there for now because right now it is time to experience some of the more positive things in life.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I'll get you another beer.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I'll put on some music. Sublime or Bob Marley?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Why not just put it on shuffle?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Because I don't like Jopplin, she sounds like a dying moose.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Leave Janis alone!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I can't help it, if it looks like a woman and sounds like a dead moose, it must be a woman who sounds like a dead moose. It's either that or a dead moose impersonating a woman. Take your pick!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I said stop it. Just think of it as your personal negative subjective experience.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: (mumbling) More like my personal subjective Hell.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: What was that?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I said the music selection looks swell!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Sure you did. Everybody uses the word "swell" nowadays.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Maybe I was momentarily caught in a timeline split?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: LOL! Just stop it.</div></div>Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6356606352961580707.post-64507141593238118282011-10-15T17:09:00.000-04:002011-10-15T17:09:48.203-04:00On Society & Morals: The Dialogues of Jeff & Kim<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>The Dialogues of Jeff & Kim: On Society & Morals</b></div><div align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">by Alraune</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Our conversation begins in a small apartment somewhere in Pennsylvania. A young man and woman, both in their twenties, are sitting at a round oak kitchen table. It is daylight outside, but the evening has set. The two had just finished playing rummy and chatting about metaphysics. The young woman, named Kim, is shuffling a worn deck of cards while the man leans back in the wooden chair in which he is seated and stairs out the kitchen window onto the busy street below.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: What are you thinking about, Jeff?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I was thinking about how there are people who say we make our own world. And if that is so, and I think the world is a messed up place<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—</span>like how that guy just cursed out that lady down there<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">—</span>then what does that say about me?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Well, what if we don't make our own world? What if someone or something else is making it? What would that say about that someone or something else?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: And if we all make our world, what does that say about us?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I guess no one is perfect, and we are all messed up.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: But we all know it, and yet some are more messed up than others. And still some think they are barely messed up and the bulk of our problems are the fault of those who are more messed up.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Well, doesn't the killer and the warmonger do more wrong to our world than the liar?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I think my gut reaction would be “yes,” but any sort of reasoning would inevitably conclude that's probably not true.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim. Are you saying a little girl who lies to her mother is just as bad as a psychopath who kills hundreds of thousands of people? You can't be serious! Besides, maybe if we could stop the big problems we'd have time to correct the little ones.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: But the little ones add up.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Yes, but they are nowhere near as destructive as some.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I don't know. A thousand little bugs make one big tick. Imagine if everyone or even 25% of people lied to everyone on a regular basis. Could they not wreak more havoc than most bullets or bombs?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I just don't believe lying is as bad as killing. Maybe in some instances, like huge lies where someone lies to the fireman and tells him there is no one in the building, or if the majority are lying the majority of the time, but certainly not always.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Likewise, killing is not always the greater evil. We kill to eat, life must feed on life. And we kill for self defense. Killing for the preservation of life is considered good, for the one who's life it preserves. But can you really be all that certain a little “white lie” is as harmless as you think?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: What if I told you that you were one of the most attractive men I've ever seen, but I was only telling you that to make you feel good about yourself (no offense), would that be so bad?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Well, supposing I took you seriously, so that I thought more highly of myself than I ought too. And suppose I went out after a much more attractive woman than yourself (no offense), and I was shot down in a really mean and rude manner so that I developed some sort of complex, or depression, or worse. Would any of that be your fault?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: No. It would be the ignorant woman who did that to you, who must have been much uglier inside than myself. You see, I was trying to be nice, but she was not. I couldn't have known the future, so I can't be held responsible for what you did with the information I provided you, or how that caused others to affect you.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I see. Push it off on me and the other woman. You had no part in it.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I didn't say I had no part in it, but that I cannot be held responsible for what ocurred because I cannot tell the future. Not to mention, I would not be the only cause. If anything I was merely an indirect cause among many others.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Ok, but do you see my point then?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: No. I do not.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: A thousand little bugs make one big tick. You might be a good bug, just doing your “buggy thing,” maybe even trying to help out a little, but you're still a bug.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: First off, don't call me a bug. Second off, even good intentions that are not lies can sometimes go horribly wrong. Supposing you told your best friend you saw his girlfriend cheating on him. You did not lie, and you did the socially acceptable thing and told him (him being your best friend and all), but then he went and beat her and the guy up. Would that not be at least partially your fault, using your logic?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: No. Because in that instance I was the only one actually doing the right thing. He did the wrong thing and his girlfriend and the other guy did the wrong thing. The truth, by definition, cannot be the wrong thing. Lying would have been the wrong thing for me to do. Besides, what good would I have done by lying or holding my tongue? At least there was the possibility of some good in me telling the truth and caring enough about my friend to do so.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I see. So it's not just the intention which counts with you, but right or wrong. And how do you know what is right and what is wrong?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Experience!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I'm waiting...</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Like I said, “experience.” It is right for me to tell you the porch is icy so you do not fall and hurt yourself. It is right to do that which saves pain, sorrow, suffering, death, and generally protects happiness and well-being.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So how would my telling you that you are more attractive than you actually are be wrong under that definition? And how would telling your friend his girlfriend is cheating on him be right by that definition?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Immediate necessity. It would not have been an immediate necessity for you to tell me I was very attractive in order to save me from loss of well-being. On the other hand, it would have been an immediate necessity to tell my friend his girlfriend was cheating on him to potentially save him pain and suffering. She could have given him a disease!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Ok, so you are saying that right and wrong is something you learn by experience, and that to do right is to save yourself or others from a loss of well-being by acting out of an immediate necessity to do so.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Precisely.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: But what about his girlfriend? Surely you did her wrong because you caused her a loss of well-being.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Ah, I knew you were going to bring that up!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Of course.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Well obviously, given the fact that we must kill to eat or preserve our own lives in certain situations, then I would say that an immediate and personal care is also a part of immediate necessity.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: In other words, if you care for someone and you do not want their well-being to be endangered, you would do what you learned from experience to be the correct thing to do under such a circumstance to prevent a loss of well-being provided it was an immediate necessity.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yes. I would do unto them what I wanted done unto me.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: But what if I would have wanted you to lie to me and tell me I was the most attractive woman you ever saw, even though I know that to not be the truth? Would I then, by your definition, be guilty of doing you wrong by telling you what I would have wanted to hear myself?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I think you make a good point, and the answer is that morality cannot be totally subjective, otherwise problems such as you mention would arise.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: If it is even a problem. You are trying to say that my little “white lie” can cause big problems. You called me a bug, remember.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Oh yes, I seem to have forgotten about that. And there is your answer! Morality is both a subjective thing such as: <i>Do unto others as you want done to yourself</i>, and a form of social order in which you do what is best for society. In other words, don't be a bunch of fleas biting the dog! If everybody is telling little “white lies”, then nobody is telling the truth and society is bogged down and hindered in its progression.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: There you go again you jerk!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: What?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: You called me a bug again!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Ah, sorry about that. Don't worry, I'm a bug too. We all are! And if one of us little bugs gets too annoying society swats us and squishes us, just like bugs.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Well, you might be a bug anyway, but if you are right, then how does society make such a judgement? Besides treating others as we would want to be treated how do we, as a society, decide what is right or wrong for its progression? And can one outweigh the other? For instance, supposing you were a social and political activist who the majority could all agree on a subjective and personal level really was no threat and certainly not deserving of imprisonment, but your ideas were a threat to the current social structure? In such circumstances it seems that society always wins and the individual is done away with. Just look at Christ, Ghandi, Mandella, and Martin Luther King, Jr., or on the other side of the coin: Hitler, Mao, or Stalin.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I think you are confusing the force of government with society in many of your examples, but I get your point. Although we need to be careful not to confuse government with society.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: But why? Isn't government what establishes and maintains social order?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Hence why the world is messed up.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So what, now you want anarchy?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: No, but I don't think a government should be telling me what to do anymore than I would want another person telling me what to do.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Maybe that's the problem? Everybody has an opinion, even governments and whole societies.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: No opinions are not the problem, it is when they are enforced or hindered with force which is the problem.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I think you might be right.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Of course I am.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: About what? That I am a bug?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I said I was sorry. I didn't mean it that way. Would you let it go already?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I'll let it go for now, just don't let it happen again.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Agreed. Now, where were we?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Forcing or hindering opinions.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Ah yes.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: But what if one is of the opinion that they should hurt another group?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: You mean like a government?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: No, I mean like a hate-group.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Oh, you can see my obvious confusion.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: There you go again. You really do want anarchy don't you?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: No, just peace.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So what of it?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I believe they should be allowed to voice their opinion, but that they should be dealt with if they try to force their opinion on others by hurting others or hindering their well-being.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: But what if their opinion hurts someone's well-being, like their feelings?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: That's not a good enough reason to force them to do anything.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: But isn't their opinion dangerous, or potentially so?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yes, and that is the chance a free society is supposed to be willing to take. Otherwise, any government or majority could say anything is potentially dangerous and before long no one would have any freedom, and no opinion. At least not any opinion that ever mattered, in which case why have one?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: But we still haven't resolved when it is that the moral opinion of society should supercede that of the individual, or even if so.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: The society is an organism like the individual, and like the individual it will ultimately place itself above all others if it comes down to it even if it means breaking the Golden Rule.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: You mean eventhough no well functioning human being would want to be killed by another for self preservation they would still kill if they had to in order to preserve their own life, such as where self preservation overrides the Golden Rule in the case of eating or self defense. You mean a society will do that to?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yes. Eventhough it does not appear to be an organism like you or I would normally think of, it is still an organism and behaves exactly like one.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Well then it seems as if everything is really just “survival of the fittest” then. Why do we even bother?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I think we bother because there is something else about our humanity that we are trying to figure out, something which rises above the animalistic survival-of-the-fittest mentality such as in the case of one who gives their life for another.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Self-sacrifice for a loved-one or for society is noble, but when have you ever known a society to be willing to sacrifice itself? And what does it really get you except dead? Is a child whose mother died saving her from a burning building better off than a dead child and a living mother? Who will raise her? How could she possibly not be messed up for the rest of her life? And what of sacrificing your child to save your own life (due to medical complications), is it any less noble to save yourself, whom you also love and others love? Maybe the mother has children already who need her?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: So you think sacrifice of the self is the same as sacrificing another, and it's really just a different expression of survival?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Yes. All it is really saying is, “Ok. I know we all have to eat, so I'll tell you what, how about you eat me today instead of fighting over it?” I mean, even if a mother dies saving her child, and especially if she knew it was going to turn out that way, wasn't she really just doing it to preserve her offspring? So in the end, she was really just doing it for herself eventhough we'd love to think she was some super noble and loving mother, she was only doing what she thought was in her own interest of self-preservation.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Wow! And all of this coming from a mother. I'll never look at my own mother the same again! So a loving mother is nothing more than a woman who knows her time has come and gone so she offers to let her young eat her rather than eating her young. How depressing is that?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Hey, if it really is all survival-of-the-fittest then that is the reality, and “yes,” it is depressing. So maybe we bother with things like the Golden Rule because it is better to lie to ourselves in order to preserve our own happiness and well-being? I mean who could really find happiness knowing that that mysterious force we call love is nothing more than the depressing situation I described above?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I think you just described the ultimate problem with the world and why it is so messed up.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: I did?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yes. We all know we would not want to be used by another for its own preservation, yet we must and do use others for our own preservation. Even societies are built on that premise where it uses all of its members to preserve itself. We are all walking in a constant state of hypocrisy from which there is no escape if we love our own lives. All of our morals are really just “niceties” we do to make ourselves feel less hypocritical because in the end we are all just killers.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So now I am a killer because I want to live. Is there no difference between killing for fun and killing for necessity?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yes. And the difference we created is what makes our existence bearable, and it also helps to preserve our own lives by maintaining a sense of order where a bunch of psychopaths are not running around killing for sport.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Wow! And you said I was depressing. I get your point, but I don't agree with it.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: How so?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Well, I just don't believe that the only difference between me and some guy who hacks people up and eats them for breakfast is that I am well behaved. For starters, I do not eat people.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Good point, and I was hoping you would say that, otherwise I would have had to of ended this conversation and ran to a public area for my own self-preservation.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: But you do look tasty. I think I have some salt and ketchup packets in my purse.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I make a better lollipop than a cheesburger.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Behave yourself, and get back to why you think I am a psychopathic cannibal bug, yet are perfectly willing to make corny passes at me.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Oh that's easy! I'm a man. We'll make a pass at anything if the mood is right.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Gee thanks. You sure know how to charm a lady. So now I'm just anything too. You're a real Romeo there, Jeff.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Why is it that everything I say to you is taken as an insult?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Because it is.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Ok, let's drop it and get back to the discussion.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: As I was saying (and some of your comments make me wonder why), I believe there is a basic good in humanity, so I just don't buy your estimation that we are all somehow walking hypocritical killers.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: I hear that a lot. What does that even mean? Where is this basic good? There are wars everywhere, the majority of the world's population is in poverty, corporate banks are out to make a buck and rob the little man at every turn, children are kidnapped and worse, women and men are kidnapped and worse, governments are killing people every day in the name of “civility”, an enormous number of people are doped up on some sort of prescription drugs because there is supposedly something wrong with everyone's mind or body or something or other, and the list could go on for days. Where is this basic good you are talking about?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Well, you don't have to fear for your life every time you leave your house do you? You can basically enjoy yourself and basically live your life, right?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Living is not necessarily “good” living, and “basically enjoy” means what? That I can get up at 5am, be stuck in traffic, put up with people who hate their job, grab a cheeseburger for lunch, put up with more people who hate their job, get stuck in traffic again, go home take a hot shower, drink a beer, eat a steak, read a book and then go to bed only to do it again for five sometimes six days?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So what do you want, a free ride?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: See. You complain that I insult you, but so far you've called me a jerk, an anarchist, and now a free-loader.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: Well all is fair in love and war.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Yes it seems so, and “no” I do not want a free ride, but I do not believe what passes for a “basically good” life is basically good. I think it is tolerable for most people, and some can't take it, which is evidence that it can't be all that good. Look at the suicide, homocide and crime rates in a society and let that be your judge as to whether or not life is “basically good” and there is a “basic good” in the hearts of humanity. That's probably why our society is so quick to put everyone on meds, so they can mask how shitty it really is.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kim: So then what do you believe is good and what is your grand idea?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jeff: Grab some papers and I'll go get some beer. This is going to take awhile.</div></div>Alraunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482052327102977680noreply@blogger.com0