Questions

Adam-

It saddens me when deep questions are tossed about in the manner of base conversation. Do not take this to mean I think less of you; no, rather I consider you to be more than your manner might lead some to believe. Do consider framing your inquiries more formally for the practice would serve you well in life.

You asked for proof. I offer none. Your belief or disbelief is your own affair, immaterial to me. Take what you wish form these words, or leave them unread if you prefer.

On to the assorted topics raised by you and others.

I have written more than once on the topics of Good, Evil, Faith and Man so I shall not recapitulate those writings here. As to your hypotheticals, I fail to see what relevance they have to the question of faith. A world populated by human beings is a world prone to the faults and failings of the creatures there dwelling. The notion one could create a society where all are unassailably Good bears a striking resemblance to the fantasy world of ?pure communism? I touched upon before- it cannot exist and is therefore useless as a point of argument.

As for definitions- my own are quite mundane: Evil is that which impedes humanity first, and that which harms individuals second. Good is that which stands in opposition to Evil. Evil attempts to present itself as Good- it is the art of rationalization. Good always recognizes Evil- it may be forced to accept it, but it never attempts to call Evil by any other name. Note that the Good can manifest evil actions, but Evil never manifests good actions, for actions in the service of evil are evil in and of themselves. Rooted in the sickness, they are the sickness. In the simplest possible terms, Evil is the essence of narcissism- self-serving above all other things.

Faith takes many forms, a majority of which bear no resemblance to what most call religion. One has faith in her friends, in the society surrounding her, the civilization within which she exists- indeed such faith is an absolute necessity in the assorted formulae of civilization. Religious faith, whether we choose to believe or not, is an aspect of this, but not the only one. With this in mind I submit if you are an American it is nearly impossible to ignore the impact of religious faith on your world view and behavior. You may not believe, but the aspects of religious faith within which your culture is steeped make their mark upon you nonetheless.

You touch upon the crux of all life?s struggles when you ask are contradictions necessary to life. Must there be both good and evil? Must there be conflict and pressure? I can only reply this is the way of the world. Man faces conflict and contradiction because conflict and contradiction serve to define Man. It is in his dealing with such forces that the individual, and through him society, is brought to the fullest possible potential. This is an ancient theme in philosophy for very good reason- it is undeniably true

You enquire as to my whereabouts as Christianity burst upon the western world. I was meandering about the western reaches of the Roman Empire, my center being what is called Lyon today. My very first encounter with that faith was recently recounted in these pages, though I knew nothing of what I had encountered at that time. As such, there was no great revelation experienced- the Christians were little more than another odd sect Jews. Did Christianity intrigue me? Christ offered his followers eternal life- how could I fail to take an intense interest in that? Even after I understood this immortality required first death I remained fascinated, but I never truly believed. I was then and remain today a spiritual child of pagan and animist roots. Still, early Christians offered me succor, though none ever knew my true nature, and I spent many decades in their embrace. They have influenced me, mostly in positive ways.

On the subject of the religious underpinnings of an understanding of good and evil, I am afraid I cannot be dispositive. My own understanding is built upon a framework of centuries of experiences while you are forced to absorb your teachings and frame your beliefs in a handful of decades. I know what I know, but I cannot know for you. This is part of the conflict and contradiction that drives mankind as a race- that each generation is forced to relearn what has been learned before. Challenging old beliefs is as old as Man himself and your very civilization is built upon the wreckage of those conflicts, all those hard-won lessons bought with coin of blood and suffering.

In regards to slavery my attitudes towards it have taken a slow turn for in my youth (for lack of a better term) it was an accepted institution and unremarkable for all that. Slaves filled an important niche in society and were generally valued assets rather than mere receptacles for abuse. Even such as me, often nothing more than a toy, still possessed value for the functions I served. I believe my distaste for the institution arose from the confluence of two forces: the moral educational precepts of monotheistic Judeo-Christian teachings with their roots in Hellenistic philosophies, and the technological progress of Man himself. One teaches all persons are possessed of a unique and irreplaceable aspect; the other simply erased any economic justification for the practice. By the time the Americans fought their great struggle for the soul and unity of their nation I could not accept that chattel slavery could be justified in any form; at least, not in this modern world.

My dislike for Marxism and Socialism are rooted in the destruction they have wrought sans any tangible benefit to the world. They are rooted in poison, and thus are poison regardless of the noble purposes they claim. That they render their subjects slaves to the state is just another indictment against them, not the only one.

Posted by

Filed in Philosophy | Comments (4)

Answers

The genesis of the query I posed below is the confluence of events in my personal life. I find myself under pressure to take actions that contradict every rule I have chosen to live by since coming to understand the destructive nature of my existence. It has been my experience that when people come to know me and understand the reality of what I am they become irrational, some more so than others. I have often attributed this to circumstance, as it is so often the case that my only proof is the passage of years- by the time one becomes convinced of the truth he is facing the end of his days. It can seem unfair and even cruel to be faced with accepting that while death claims him I stand unchanging and unmolested by what he once held to be a universal fate.

In reading the answers given I can see that most do not fully comprehend the ramifications of the decisions I face. This is not an indictment, it merely reaffirms what I already knew: I am alone in this. I know what it means to make decisions and then live with the consequences for centuries afterwards. I take due caution when it is my own fate in question. What am I to do when it is the very future of Man that is at risk? Can I justify being less cautious when the consequences have the potential to be so very disastrous? Add to this the notion that should I simply choose to set this aside and take no action whatsoever Man simply carries on as he always has, none the wiser, making his own path through the centuries. No extra doom is upon you for my choice in that circumstance.

Given that last, I suppose the very fact I am torn over this is quite telling in itself.

Posted by

Filed in Philosophy | Comments (9)

Questions

On the occasion of my 3531st birthday*, I would like to offer up the following for your consideration:

First, regardless of your conclusions regarding my veracity, or lack thereof, I would like you to approach this with the assumption that I have been telling the truth, or as much of it as I can, regarding myself and my life.

Question #1:

What obligations, if any, do I have to mankind as a whole?

Question #2:

Would it be wise to allow myself to be examined in pursuit of determining what I am, and why I am what I am?

Question #3:

Finally, which is the more selfish act: To allow mankind to march forward on a path of its own making, or to fundamentally change the definition of what Man is, merely to assuage my own loneliness?

*-Yes, this is just a guess on my part.

Posted by

Filed in Philosophy | Comments (5)

The Hope Of Others

I receive e-mail. Some messages are dismissive, a very small percentage of those evincing outrage at the thought of my existence, either as fact or farce. There are notes from those few people with whom I maintain semi-regular correspondence. Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, there are those who seem to find some small sliver of hope in my scribblings here. To them I can only reply- I do not understand.

I have never accomplished anything of note. I did not rescue Jews from the Holocaust. I did not spirit escaped slaves along the Underground Railroad. I did not hold the plague at bay, nor lead any peoples to either greatness or destruction. I never eased life?s burdens upon Men. I have inspired no poets, tortured no romantics, discovered no transcendental truths? in short, there are no great acts I might point to with pride. The bulk of my life has been spent in the underside of humanity, amongst the poor, or the low, or the vile. What pride I might allow myself is writ upon the ledgers of the mundane.

I have acted to change things, to shape my surroundings to suit my liking, but those times are best left without comment. My capacity for monstrous behavior haunts me, and it is no small factor in the confusion that now surrounds me. It would be so simple to force matters in a direction more acceptable, but I cannot escape the fear such a notion brings upon me.

I compare the vast majority of my life against the last eleven decades and it leaves me somewhat at a loss. The sudden abandonment of the lifestyle that served my purposes so well for so long has unsettled me- I am uncertain of my direction, my place in these times. This journal is little more than the latest manifestation of the confusion that has ruled me since I cast aside the shadows. That recent events have driven home the folly of such a life only compounds my foolishness- faced with the certainty I should return to those dark and comfortable spaces I once called mine I instead choose stubborn denial.

That some find hope in this... it is yet more proof that no one can truly understand the workings of the inner human being.

Posted by

Filed in ImmortalityPhilosophyRegrets | Comments (3)

The Sword, Arm, and Shield of Civilization

In the comments to my invitation to ask questions Charles first offered an observation from Iraq, and then posed his query:

I read your stories. Even with all the intermittent shelling, we have an internet cafe nearby where most of us soldiers go to cruise the internet cafe when we're not under cover.

I'm told, by chaplains and other "knowledgeable people", that we are in ancient Mesopotamia, with mounds nearby that were once cities named Ur and Sumer and Babylon. These cities are supposed to date back 3500 years or so. They tell me that this is where "it" all began, whatever "it" was. Civilization, I guess.

Zarqawi dumped a headless body nearby and several Iraqi NG wannabes just got their heads blown off just for being with us. Not a good legacy for the first civilized nation.

I wonder why, after all the tragedy and humiliation you have been through, why you did not try to end your own life.

I dealt with the suicide question in depth in this post. In condensed form my reply is that I have simply never lost hope to the degree that I would ever think of ending my own life in anything more than a speculative manner.

Why maintain hope in the face of all I have seen and experienced? Over long centuries I have seen mankind crawl up out of ignorance and fear, following a path that certainly does not lack for horrific setbacks and lapses, but does indeed seem to lead inexorably towards something better. This gives me hope, which easily supplants any notion of despair that might drive me towards self-destruction.

I also take heart in the very things that you mentioned above. Not that there are murders and shelling and danger, but that there are determined and capable warriors in place whose purpose is to put a stop to the chaos. Those Iraqi National Guard trainees- they understood the danger they faced just by choosing to step forward. They stepped forward regardless, for they are a civilized and devoted people, willing to stand to in the face of a fanatical and bestial foe. Even after decades under the yoke of a tyrant, they understood the necessity of taking matters in to their own hands, they placed their lives on the line, and those lives were taken, just as so many others were before. Doubtless more shall queue in line to replace them, for the Iraqis may be unhappy with the state of affairs, they may even resent the presence of foreign troops, but they understand that failure is unthinkable.

I take hope in the actions of your people this past week. Presented with a stark choice, couched in the most extreme terms, they chose to persevere. Like those Iraqi men, your people understand the dangers; they comprehend the consequences of failure and rejected those whose resolve was less than firm. I take hope in the realization that despite the enormous emotional and ideological fractures revealed in your recent election your nation has once again shown the world that those who lose elections in the United States do not set cities aflame, nor are they rounded up for imprisonment. Those who come up short in the American political drama simply step back, pick up the pieces and begin to prepare for the next election. I sometimes wonder if your people can comprehend the profound statement that makes?

I take hope from you and your people. I am an unabashed fan of Western Civilization in general, and the American Experiment in particular. I see your people as the best, brightest hope for mankind. That this sounds hyperbolic does not make it any less so. What other nation would send her soldiers on a mission such as yours? The United States stood upon the ramparts of Europe for fifty years, willingly subjected herself to the threat of nuclear annihilation, all to preserve the liberal societies of Western Europe from the abhorrent tyranny of Soviet socialism. Furthermore, despite the fractious relationships with some powers of Europe, she would unhesitatingly do so again. Your people truly are the guarantors of peace and civilization in the modern world. That some do not appreciate this, or even feel threatened by it is natural- the weak fear the powerful, for in the past the powerful were always to be feared.

The world is changing. Civilization has changed profoundly since the long past days of those ancient cities you named. Look at yourself and your comrades and consider what those ancient Kings would have thought. Strip away the technology, the weaponry and consider that should you confront them with sword and shield they could still have no true understanding of you, for the ideas, the ethos that brought you to that place would be incomprehensible to them. They had more in common with Saddam Hussein than with The United States, or Great Britain, or Australia, or Poland, or Spain. The notion that a people would send soldiers to such a far off land and spend blood and treasure in the cause of freedom rather than the expansion of power would be so very far from their realm of understanding as to be nonsense at best, madness at worst.

Consider that you have come from one of the youngest, most liberal and liberated nations on Earth to bring freedom to the Cradle of Civilization. Forgive me if I appear strident, for these thoughts must be stated with emphatic clarity. You and your fellows, your comrades and allies- you are the Sword, Arm and Shield of Civilization. That cannot fail to bring hope to my heart.

Thank-you, Charles. Thank-you for your service, and for the hope you bring.

Godspeed,

Zsallia

Posted by

Filed in Philosophy | Comments (1)

Purity of Service

Diogenes is both eloquent and poignant. I could not have done more than he has done.

Posted by

Filed in Philosophy | Comments (3)

The Nature Of Evil

Mark Alger, a regular reader and commenter here of late, has some provocative notions regarding the nature of evil, the proper perspectives required to recognize and confront it, and what is and is not justified in seeing evil defeated. I happen to agree with him up to a point, our differences being subtle, but important. You might enjoy reading his piece while I organize my own thoughts on the matter.

Posted by

Filed in Philosophy | Comments (0)

Save The World

Mr. E Poet has done me a grave injustice, positing a question near and dear to my heart and then failing to have me note it until I was ready to depart on the little adventure mentioned the other day. I am not one prone to immediate reaction or quick reply; however, in this case I have many, many years of rumination to fall back upon.

Is the world worth saving? Are the people of the world worth saving?

I am a strong believer in the interconnectedness of things, both in physical terms and in the more metaphysical sense. I view mankind as a whole, even though I must perforce deal with individuals at every turn, and as such I feel there is something worthwhile in the species. The climb up from ignorance and savagery has been breathtaking to behold and I have noted before that I see such things as more than a manifestation of the genetic imperative. I strongly believe there is a destiny that awaits mankind should the race survive to attain it.

Beyond that simple statement, the issue becomes rather more complex. The realities of the calculus of human interaction are brutally direct: some prosper, others do not. This is true of what I like to refer to as social processes of evolution as well: some societies prosper and others do not. Some societies are sick and they evince symptoms of that sickness in various ways. Corollary to that, and in concert with Mr. E?s commentary, healthy societies carry symptoms of sickness and sick societies show signs of health. Nobody has yet defined a Law of Nature whereby determining one from the other is required to be simple and straightforward. Such realities are grist for those who work the mill of ?the world is going to hell? with such gusto.

I make my judgments based on samples, both of those I meet daily and those I encounter through their on-line personalities. I troll nightclubs and libraries for more than sex and good reading. I have no burning need for classes in symbolic logic or ?Physics for Poets?, nor am I driven to sweat away at exercise clubs for my health, rather I make these efforts as a means to understanding. I go to yard sales, AA meetings, poetry readings, rock concerts, churches, grocery stores, shopping malls? in short, any place where people do the things that make up daily life. When taken by the notion to feel the pulse of society I wallow in those places people frequent rather than looking exclusively to news and journals and commentaries. I ask no pointed questions, take no surveys, and offer no carefully provocative opinions. I merely listen, remember, and ponder.

What do I take from all of this? Simply that to ask if the world is worth saving is the wrong question. The world will go forward regardless. Society will evolve in to what it will, directed by the ebb and flow of its peoples and their own sense of culture. If one is moved to ?save the world? one should do what comes naturally. Some are driven to take an active role in those endeavours they feel best suited to making the world around them a better place to live in, be it a cleaner world, a safer world or a world of greater wealth and plenty. Others are motivated to turn those energies inward, concentrating on family and locale. Saving the world can be as simple as raising your children to be critical thinkers who are aware of their own connection to those about them.

What will be saved? Humanity is moving towards something. That this something is difficult to define is immaterial as the process moves forward apace regardless. It is simplistic to see segments of the world?s populace in desperation and proclaim human society a failure: evolution of societies, just like evolution of species, often leaves wreckage in its path. To witness such and be moved to ameliorate suffering is noble. To witness such and proclaim humanity a failure is foolish. To witness such and demand that successful societies be reduced to penury in an attempt to enforce some ephemeral form of equality of outcome is worse than foolish, it is criminal. It is treason against the species.

This history of human evolution is littered with the remnants of failed experiments. The predecessors to Cro-Magnon man did not settle in to sleep one night and awake upon the morn a new species. The evolved, improved Man slowly drove out and destroyed the creature that had come before and Mother Nature, were it such a cohesive entity, shed not a tear in the passing. Throughout history the societies created by Man have each preyed upon the weaker, less dynamic structures that predated them. The United States of America is an indisputable example of just such a phenomenon- a society seemingly designed to draw in the best, brightest, most driven and adventurous souls from the world over and forge them in to a somewhat unified entity that has grown in a virtual eye-blink in to the most materially, militarily and culturally powerful nation on Earth. If this sounds like cheerleading for the American experiment, well, to a degree it is, but I am uniquely disposed towards understanding that what exists today is in itself temporary- something will evolve out of the United States of America, or it will be supplanted by a more dynamic, more efficient, more driven society in the future.

In the science of Humanity little, if anything, is permanent.

Save the world by living in it and doing what you feel driven to do. Save the world by raising your children to be thinking, critical beings. Save the world by drawing bright lines to proscribe what is tolerable and what is not, and enforce them. Save the world by never losing hope, by refusing to surrender to those forces that whisper defeat and despair. Beyond that, the world and the people in it will carry on without you, perhaps even despite you, moving along paths determined by forces we can only dimly perceive and merely pretend to understand.

One final warning: beware those who purport to have all of this figured out, for they are lying, or deluded, or both.

Posted by

Filed in Philosophy | Comments (4)

Life

Life is more than a mere collection of events and happenings. There are those who would argue against such a notion, those who believe that a human being?s journey through most of a century of time is little more than a process of genetic replication and propagation. Man as animal, lacking anything of the spiritual, moves through the world at the mercy of his instinctive needs and desires, rendering all intellectual and moral postulation as mere devices to either enhance his own prospects or reign in those about him. In this view, there is no meaning in life. This denial of meaning is the mark of a diseased soul.

No one (at least no one of any note) denies that the rational creature that is Man is a work in progress. From birth unto death Man grows, building upon the previous days, being shaped by his triumphs and his failures, nourishing his pride, husbanding his shame, all hopefully driven towards making him if not a better person, at least a happier one. Such changes through life are profound even amongst the most mundane. I speculate with some justification that any person past the age of forty or so can look back upon his youth and see a virtual stranger. It is not that one undergoes some great metamorphosis; rather it is the accumulation of experiences that transform the understanding of what is important and what is not.

The eighteen-year-old youth has fresh perspectives seemingly unpolluted by the weight of years. His intellect is new and vibrant and he revels in the ability to wrest meaning from the abstract. It is understandable that he might view those who have made these same mental transformations decades before as somewhat stultified, for they have in essence abandoned the wild optimism of youth in favor of an understanding of what is possible. It requires little of imagination or empathy to understand how the youthful mind can reject the counsel of those perceived to be ?set in their ways?. It is the function of the youthful mind to prod and press against such notions, for being young and undisciplined he must somehow form an understanding of what is real and what is worthy, versus what is false and despicable. This is a process prone to error and tragedy. Such is life.

The older Man is a creature whose life has given him perspective. He remembers the idealism of his youth. If he is of the fortunate, he retains that idealism even as he recognizes it is perforce tempered by his refined perception of what is both real and important. He can look back upon his youthful enthusiasms and be both proud and somewhat amused by them. Some will have persisted, others will have given way to cold reality, but all will have formed a part of the creature he is. When he looks upon the new generations following behind he can be wistful for their energy, concerned at their stridency and appalled at their na?vet?, but if he has acquired wisdom he can also accept that they shall make the same journeys as has he, and perhaps they shall bring some portion of their new thought and new ideas forward, as he believes he has done, and add to the tapestry that is the living society of Man?s existence. The desire to resist sudden and sweeping change is a part of this process for the more experienced are mindful of the destructive nature of new ideas. It occasions that such resistance can become habitual, lacking a basis in experience or wisdom, and flowing instead from an unfortunate ossification of attitudes and desires. Such, also, is life.

It is within the intellectual space bounded by the juxtaposition of these two forces that Man defines what he is. The interaction of these drives is what transforms a mere collection of experiences in to something that can transcend the mundane aspects of existence, taking what some would insist on viewing as a mere confluence of happenstance and deriving from it that most precious of all things: meaning. The Man who believes life has meaning is a primal force in the world. The Man who rejects such a notion is for all intents and purposes, dead.

Man can know such meaning through myriad channels. Religion could hold no sway in human society were there not a fundamental need for meaning. The true atheist can find meaning in his devotion to Man as a species, or through pursuit of knowledge; he does not need religion to give his life meaning, but he desires meaning all the same. For many, it is the simple act of looking backward upon their lives and seeing the tortured path they followed from their youth- that in itself conveys meaning upon them. Human beings seek meaning as surely as they seek food, water and companionship. It is a necessary component of the soul of Man.

Posted by

Filed in Philosophy | Comments (0)

God

In the comments to this post, Mr. Renick takes me to task for my inhuman and murderous ways, then asks:

"By the way, do you even believe in God? He may judge you one day you know."

Mr. Renick,

What am I to believe in? What would you have me believe in?

God. If I assume you mean by God anything resembling the all-knowing, all-seeing creator of the universe depicted in the Bible, Talmud and Koran, then I am afraid I must disappoint, for I have no real ability to relate to that concept in any meaningful way. I worshipped many gods in my first two thousand years. I was worshipped as a minor goddess on and off for a pair of centuries. I have seen the religion complex from both sides and I am left feeling drained and unimpressed.

I know that religion offers much to those who believe. Faith is an immensely powerful force in the lives of Men. It can motivate entire nations to greatness, and even when we accept that the converse is also undeniably true we can still sift through the results and reasonably conclude that belief in God is a Good thing.

I am unimpressed by those who hold religion as maleficent influence in the affairs of Man. Yes, I am aware of the Crusades. I am aware of the Inquisitions, the Heresies and the auto-da-f?. I witnessed many such in my time and had reason to suspect that I might be on the receiving end of such un-tender mercilessness. Nevertheless, this was not the doing of religion- it was the handiwork of Men who used religion as an excuse. Lacking God, they would have found some other handy tool to flog the populace in to a frenzy of fear and murder.

I am no atheist. I do not pretend to great knowledge in the spiritual realms inhabited by such as you. I am denied such things. Your fears are not mine. Your failings are your own. That which I carry as an aching weight upon my heart would burn you to ashes in but a moment. That I might bear such burdens is by virtue of long practice and I undertake it without much in the way of joy or satisfaction. My life slowly becomes such that I wonder at my ultimate purpose. Perhaps I merely seek that one final act of contrition, that thing which might set the scales to balanced and allow me to fairly contemplate my own end in the sure and certain knowledge that what great harms I have done are finally, mercifully, put to paid.

God. If He exists for such as I, perhaps he might be so kind as to answer a simple question:

What did I do? What made You so terribly angry with me?

Posted by

Filed in ImmortalityPhilosophy | Comments (8)

Suicide

Why continue on?

Suicide is an odd construct amongst mortals. There are those societies and cultures that abhor and condemn it. Others are less judgmental. Still others glorify suicide in pursuit of some temporal victory. Regardless of which cultural construct one chooses to operate within I find the idea of taking your own life somewhat foolish given that death offers little but the unknown, and is quite likely the utter cessation of existence. In that case, suicide is the destruction of an entire subjective universe and hardly justifiable under most circumstances.

I understand seeking to end one?s own suffering. Those situations where life is merely the prolonging of an ever-escalating burden of agonies does indeed cry out for the rational to have the choice to bring existence to an end, but from my perspective your existence is so very brief, and you are so often not rational?

I have never seriously considered suicide. By that I mean to say I have never come to the point of actually laying in place those things I might need to affect a permanent end to my existence. This begs the obvious question: why not?

The issue is devoid of simple explanations.

On a personal level, while I carry a certain burden of pain as the result of my immortality it has yet to fully overwhelm me. I have succumbed to it in the past, let it form as a hot kernel of rage that fires the engine of depravity and destruction; however, in the end I learned what that rage was, what it meant. I shoved the genie back in to the bottle as it were, and moved beyond the days of anger and hate. It is both the advantage and the curse of my existence that I am afforded the opportunity to live past my accumulated evils. In this case it becomes somewhat comforting to view the coming days as an opportunity to right my wrongs and atone for my sins. They are legion, and not so easily put to paid.

To be amongst you causes me pain, this I freely admit. As the centuries move past I cannot help but come to view your lives as fleeting things, mere vignettes scattered in and about the slow drama that is my life. You often seem random and disconnected, even dissonant in your utter lack of relation to the difficult truths and comforting lies that construct my life among you. Yet it is by my own free choice that I live amongst you. I am of no meager resource, it is well within my means to live in blissful isolation, to hold the mortal world at bay and sample it but sparingly, if at all. If the truth is to be told such isolation might be the precursor to a decision to seek an ending, but it is something I seek only on occasion these days. My most recent sabbatical lasted less than twenty years.

I have noted before that in balance I am an optimist; that I look on my life, and on the relative progress of Man, and I find reason for hope. It seems to me that such hope is proof against the desire for self-destruction. I have loved, and the inevitable loss of that love to the relentless march of time pains me as well. Yet here I am amongst you, and despite my fears, the trepidations surrounding my current course of action, I find hope in the idea that I may yet love again. That when I do it is possible that my new love shall know me fully for what I am before our lives intertwine. That I might fall into that delusion that is love without the burden of secrets held close against fear. I do not dwell upon this, but neither do I dismiss it.

There is yet one final reason why I have not sought to end my life and this one is a matter of both technique and moral responsibility. In short, it is a question of fear. Not fear of death, for that holds no dread for me. Rather, it is fear of failure. It is not enough to contemplate suicide, or to act upon it. Were I to make a serious attempt at it I must be certain to succeed. In order to be certain of success I must seek complete destruction. Anything less leaves the slight possibility, perhaps vanishingly small, yet still quite real, that I might be condemning some new and undefined entity to the same struggle I have faced lo these thirty-five centuries.

This I cannot permit.

Posted by

Filed in ImmortalityPhilosophy | Comments (4)

Invitation to Despair

Having been absent some short while I feel the need to revisit something; however, I am uncertain of my ability to express this properly. In no small way a major purpose of this forum has been to seek the best, most complete method of saying what follows.

Note that I hold no faith. Note furthermore that I reject no faith. My existence is such that I am denied the easy definitions Men place upon the indefinable.

I am not as you, destined to spend perhaps a century upon this plane, a full lifetime of pleasures, pains, fears and triumphs. This span I shall count but in passing. This does not make of me something greater than thee, merely something different.

There is naught one such as I may call companionship, for it is the nature of mortals that they must perish. In words more direct, by the time you become truly interesting to me, you die. It is my fate to place my hopes and desires within such fragile containers and hope beyond reason that some thread, some connection, might persist in to the coming days: some inkling of understanding that has as its heart a beacon of hope rather than a desire for power, a plea for justice and mercy rather than a plot for dominance.

It is Death that separates us. Death has parted me from all I have come to know and love, but it further sets a wall between you and I, forcing either a painful revelation or the keeping of secrets both dear and dire. It has transpired that I shared the truth of myself with some who in the end could not accept what I am or that this ?gift? I cannot share. Those are the most painful of all for long experience can inure me to the pain of losing those I hold dear, but the burden of knowing I have caused suffering by the mere knowledge of my existence? how do I make amends for existing? How do I make amends for desiring the comfort of others about me? For being so weak as to show all of who and what I am?

Is this the infinitesimal mark of evil, that I should thrust myself in to the world of those whose lives might be carefree but for my need? Is this a right, something I deserve, or is it a cruel selfishness? Am I to see myself as blessed, or damned? I despair of kenning the difference. My knowledge is but of Men, not of Gods.

Posted by

Filed in ImmortalityPhilosophyRegrets | Comments (6)

Trauma and Man

On occasion western civilization seems bent upon engaging in a startling, and perhaps quite dangerous bit of psychic engineering. I would find it odd, but for the fact that people generally prefer the safe to the arduous, the certain to the speculative. It is the unusual ones, those who eschew the known for the unknowable, who chart most of the progress in the record of the advancement of species. That they also form the foundation of much misery and failure is the inevitable price to be paid. Evolution, both of creatures, and their societies, is not a game for the faint of heart.

The human animal is born in pain and fear. It is perhaps an accidental mercy that the memory of birth is so feeble, so deeply buried, that it does not haunt the dreams of every living man and woman every night of their lives. It becomes clear that in birth, Man faces His first great trauma. What surprises me when I choose to muse upon it is that Man seems desirous of eliminating that which forms the bedrock of His experience of life. Lacking trauma, what would drive the creature that is Man? That is the experiment the West seems to be setting forth. I wonder at its wisdom for the mind of Man seems to thrive on trauma. What will be made of Him should He somehow circumvent the hardening found in that kiln for the soul?

It is not some conscious endeavor, nor is it particularly well under way. It moves in fits and starts, being seen in efforts to shield the youthful against any and all duress or hardship born of failure. It is seen in the penchant for demanding that some greater entity stand in to assure that no one should be offended, distressed or discomfited by either malice or simple happenstance. Nor is this trend guaranteed to continue for reality is a mistress most harsh and given to stilling such foolishness in the womb.

Nonetheless, it does seem to be a process that could build a certain momentum. It bears watching.

Posted by

Filed in Philosophy | Comments (4)

Money

Money is an odd thing. It is such a measure of power or worth, yet it is intrinsically nothing, particularly in the present day western world. The possession of monetary wealth is nothing more than a representation upon a digital ledger in some bank computer, yet it confers so much upon those who control it.

I am wealthy by any reasonable standard one might care to apply; yet I am powerless. I own my fate, but nothing more. Do not misunderstand- I believe that to own one?s fate is a precious thing, and I remember when (oh-so-very recently) this was not so, and it was the accumulation of money that initially made this possible. Yet when I calculate the sum total of the wealth I either own or control, that value is meaningless to me. I do not feel powerful regardless of what the numbers imply. I cannot relate to that sort of thing- it is an innate failing on my part.

I understand that money affords me freedom to ignore certain restraints. My apartment, for instance- I pay about six thousand dollars a month to call it home. I do not love it, it has no true hold on my affections- it is simply convenient to the places I like to visit, and I enjoy the view. Due to my account balance I may avail myself of this convenience. Six thousand dollars might seem a great sum, but it is meaningless to me- all it represents is a short walk to the rail station and an ocean view. I know that these things are desirable and hence command a high price, but how can that price be paid in something that has no intrinsic value?

I remember the first time I was sold for a handful of coins rather than bartered for real things that could be touched and measured- it was the first time I felt shame at my place in the world. I did not understand money then, and I still fail to fully comprehend it now. I understand that I need it. I comprehend how to earn it through labor or create it through investment. I understand its nature as fuel to the engines of capitalism, but when I attempt to put that knowledge in to some concrete form, to make it real, make it visceral so that I can feel the truth of it as I do other things, I fail.

I am sufficiently knowledgeable to manoeuvre within the framework defined by money, but I cannot believe in the basic precepts that make this possible.

This frustrates me. I cannot escape the notion that this is something I must overcome, and soon.

Posted by

Filed in Philosophy | Comments (1)

The Desert

The desert offers solitude, and a simple mode of existence: mere survival. Granted this is a somewhat moot point for me, but it acts as further guarantor of my privacy, for the desert is both swift and merciless in its dealings with fools.

Modern society has effected sufficient intrusion that it attempts to protect those so unwise as to venture in to the desert unprepared. This is not an act of altruism rather it is simple efficiency. Every preempted lost hiker represents concrete savings in search time and potential bad publicity. That it also saves lives is a secondary, albeit welcome benefit. As a result of this well-developed attitude towards tourists I elected to abandon any idea of walking to my chosen spot, opting instead to pay a young man to fly me out and return to collect me a few days later. Profligate waste, but necessary.

I could have locked myself away in my apartment. I have access to other places, properties I either own outright or have an interest in through membership in assorted foundations and organizations. There is a particular monastery where people are welcome to come and find the solace of introspection amid the grounding rhythms of a simpler, less hectic life. There are numerous parks, forests, jungles, and mountains? all are accessible to anyone who might seek a few days or weeks outside the sphere of the modern.

I prefer the desert. It is something about the hardscrabble nature of the flora and fauna, and the stark beauty of the landscape that suits me when I need to be shuck of mankind. It is dangerous for me- I could set out for a week or two and stay for a decade or longer. Even this little expedition- after three days I found myself musing on the notion of heading deeper in to the wild, finding a cave and sitting out the next fifty years. Fortunately (or not, depending on how you choose to view it) I had left far too many loose ends to merely walk away. It was deliberate on my part for I know myself well enough to anticipate that urge. I may yet indulge it, but not this day.

It was a desire to take some time, put things in to perspective, time away from my normal haunts, away from e-mail and computers and the web, away from the lawyers and that bloody fool of an accountant who is determined to prevent me from doing as I will with my own money. Away from all the yammering, and posturing, and postulating? I needed years, but I allowed merely days. I suppose it sufficed.

I am in love with the night sky- one of the things I truly despise about living in the North East is the lack of any truly clear, dark sky. Civilization?s fascination with light renders the canopy of the heavens a pale mockery of itself. Ever since my earliest memories I have been fascinated with the stars. I ran to the desert so that I could lie beneath them in their glory and seek? something. Balance, I suppose, though that is a poor descriptor.

I needed to know I was doing the right thing. As important, or perhaps even more so, was I doing it for the right reasons? Somehow sitting beneath the stars smoking Camels seemed the proper avenue for pursuing that thought. Warm, sunny days; cool, clear nights with a sliver of moon and a dazzling array of stars- there were no answers, but there certainly was peace.

Posted by

Filed in InterludesPhilosophyThe Present | Comments (1)

Evolution vs. Creation

Mr. E asks: can one argue the predisposition to love as being a more likely attestation of evolution or of creation?

You may argue whatever you like, but since you are asking my opinion the short answer is ?no?.

I am afraid that I am about to disappoint a lot of people with my thoughts on this subject, as they are by no means original nor terribly unique.

It seems to me that the notion that Creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive is indefensible. Allow me to synthesize the arguments in extremely simple terms. The Creationist argues that Evolution strips Man of his unique spiritual nature, denying him the grace offered by his creator. The Evolutionist argues that Creation strips man of his critical nature, rendering the evidence of science at best a carefully constructed set of fallacies, at worst as a construct of the Father of Lies.

Where can we go from here? How can we reconcile these two viewpoints?

We need to decide if Man as an intelligent creature is unique. Consider the implications if we were to discover that Man is alone in the Universe as a critical and self-aware creature. This is not idle speculation for if we decide that science will answer this question, so far the answer is that we cannot prove that he is not. Before you all tell me- yes, I understand that proving a negative is logically impossible when all possible scenarios are outside the realm of testability; however, lacking evidence of extraterrestrial intelligences we cannot discount the possibility that Man may indeed be unique.

There was a time not very long ago when writers of speculative fiction used a certain hypothetical formula to suggest that the idea of Earth as the only inhabitable or inhabited planet in this galaxy was patently absurd. I believe the calculation was similar to this: There are approximately 400 billion stars in this galaxy. If one one-tenth of one percent of them has any kind of planetary system, and one-tenth of one percent of those has a possibly habitable planet, this results in 400,000 possibilities. Expand this to include the billions of galaxies that comprise the Universe and it seems absurd to think that there is no life anywhere else in the Universe.

It seems reasonable, yes? The problem with this calculation is that it makes broad assumptions that are quite unwarranted regarding the nature of stars in general and the observable requirements for the existence of life. Where just Earth-like planets are concerned it turns out that the possibilities are becoming more and more limited as Man?s understanding of those requirements expands. We can all speculate on the possibilities of forms of life that might exist outside the sphere of the carbon-based water band; however, such speculations themselves face their own limits as the unique nature of carbon becomes more and more apparent. Proponents of alternate-chemistry life forms refer to this ?carbon chauvinism?, but a catchy phrase does little to lessen the reality that carbon does seem to be unparalleled both in its ability to form long chains of complex molecules and its ubiquitous nature in the Universe.

What we face here is a lack of sufficient discreet subjects to form a baseline of scientific knowledge. You and I have only a single instance of an inhabited planet from which to draw conclusions. We have only a single race of beings possessed of the gift of rational thought and a demonstrated ability to manipulate their environment. Given these limitations science is unable to provide concrete answers to questions such as mankind?s status in the Universe. Hints and trends and possibilities yes, but no certain answers. Nothing even close.

So, science has nothing to say regarding the uniqueness or lack thereof of Man, but it has plenty to tell us about his development. We have growing mounds of evidence that Man is the product of an evolutionary process set in motion by a confluence of near random and highly unlikely circumstances. While there are those among us who would argue that the picture is by no means complete I think most of us probably can agree that the image is there for any who are willing to see it.

And here we are, right back where we started. Science has plenty to say about evolution, but very little to say about Creation. And here is where I generally get myself excommunicated, assuming of course that the Catholic Church would have a creature such as me in its fold.

The idea that God, if he exists, created the Universe in seven days is nothing more than metaphor. Any creation myth is metaphor, a construct of minds too primitive, too ignorant to have any understanding of the nature of the world and the Universe beyond that which served their very practical needs. They had imagination and they had a thirst to know, but they had no tools sufficient unto the task of answering their questions. So they fell back on myth, on metaphor, because they had to have an answer. Men are quite stubborn that way, you know.

I have no difficulty eschewing the Creation as described in Genesis in favor of a far more complex, far more miraculous act where God sets the Universe in motion several billions of years ago, setting the stage for the eventual ascent of Man from the primordial ooze of a tiny planet in one spiral arm of an unremarkable galaxy amongst billions of galaxies. That seems a much more impressive feat than simply willing it all in to existence over a week. It also puts to rest the need for God or the Devil to have put in place all the evidence of evolution, geology, chemistry, biology, physics, and astrophysics for Man to discover and puzzle over as some test of faith. Any God I might be tempted to believe in would be above that kind of foolishness. In this context since Evolution is merely part of God?s plan it cannot separate Man from God?s grace, and accepting that Evolution is God?s plan in no way robs Man of his critical nature since science becomes the primary tool Man uses to read the Gospel According to Physics. Finally, since we cannot prove that Man is not unique in the Universe our critical nature requires that we at the very least consider that Man indeed may indeed be unique. We do not have to accept it as fact, but we must admit that it is possible. Failure to do so in the face of a lack of any evidence to the contrary risks replacing one myth with another.

All of this leads me to the conclusion that asking whether Man?s predisposition to love is more indicative of a Creation origin or an Evolution origin is an exercise in futility. My opinion is that they are one and the same.

Bearing in mind, of course, that I have no firm opinion on the existence of God to begin with. And of course my own existence within the framework of this argument could be somewhat problematic. My faith rests on my observation of Man and my belief that Man does indeed have a destiny that is beyond mere propagation. Whether or not Man fulfills that destiny is pretty much up to you.

Posted by

Filed in Philosophy | Comments (1)

Mr. E Asked A Question

In response to Mr. E?s comment on a previous post:

If I were insane, how would I know? You and I could sit over coffee and have a nice chat and at the end of it you might be tempted to tell me you were fairly certain I was off my rocker, but would I be able to believe you? In my case I have lots of history to look back on and that gives me some perspective on myself. I can look back and say ?Oh, my! I was certainly not thinking too clearly, was I?? It is all relative, after all.

So what about love? I have offered a few paragraphs here to describe my understanding of the nature of love and its effect on Man and I know I have mentioned that there is a difference between this love to which Man is predisposed and the Romantic Love that is the source of such joy, such excess and such sorrow. I understand that first love- I rely upon it when I try to understand you and everybody else surrounding me. The second love, let me spell it Love for clarity?s sake, is something I try to avoid. It is dangerous to me. It is madness most raw.

Just so that you do not begin to think I am talking nonsense, please understand that what follows applies strictly to me and not to others.

Love is an invitation to pain and despair. When I allow myself to fall in Love I am guaranteeing myself a painful ending, one that is not possible, but inevitable. Tell me, please, what is rational about willingly inviting such horror in to my life? Given that, is it at all surprising that I have only had Love in my life four times?

Each time, I fooled myself in some way.

The first time was easy- when I confessed to him that his slave was immortal, he nodded and pronounced me Diana for he had encountered me as a huntress in the wilderness. Somehow my lack of chastity did not deter him in his conviction. When over the next few years our mutual foolishness made itself clear he ordered me bound hand and foot and forced me to watch as he opened his veins and bled to death. He believed he was doing the right thing.

I was none too eager to repeat that experience, but I did, three more times, the last being my Jeremy, whom I have discussed at some length. Each time I told myself that I could grasp those brief years of delirium, that the pain waiting at the end would be bearable, that this time I was far too mature to allow the inevitable to scar me so. Each time I was wrong. Oh, to be certain with the passage of time the pain eased, to be replaced with a certain rueful recognition of my own foolishness, but the memory of those times?

Only the last time came close to breaking the pattern, but I begin to suspect that there is more to play from that episode in my life. Jeremy is not through with me yet.

So, Love lures me with the promise of decades of joy and blinds me to a century of pain in payment. Self-delusion indeed. Do not seek to find flaws here, instead recognize that what I say of myself does not apply to all- it cannot for reasons I do believe I have made explicit.

Posted by

Filed in ImmortalityPhilosophy | Comments (1)

The Beast

I encountered a new blog yesterday, and I find it quite intriguing. He moves me, deeply, because his writing is so intensely personal. Go visit The Beast.

UPDATE:

Having had time to review everything I do believe I have been timid in my recommendation. Allow me to redress that now: Travis seems to be unwittingly engaged in the task of defining the art of being Man. That his words are so wrenchingly personal is testimony to his courage and generosity. I wept when reading his offerings, and not out of joy, or sorrow, or pity, but out of gratitude that he chose to share so much of himself. I am willing to consider that it is perhaps just a personal preference on my part, but I believe that not to be the case. I believe Travis and The Yeti and Etherian could have quite the correspondence. Would that I were a fly on the wall?

Posted by

Filed in Friends FoundPhilosophy | Comments (1)

Love, Hope and Mankind

Regarding Love, Hope and the nature of Man. What follows is a synthesis of two letters which are my end of an on-going correspondence with another blogger, whom I quote here only briefly as I never requested his permission to post his letters entire.

It pains me to think that my tales here might be cause for consternation amongst others- I have always assumed that I would be taken as a fanciful diversion. That I allow mystery to surround myself could be defensive, or a necessary part of the fantasy. Either way, it serves my needs and I will never make a definitive statement on it.

Regarding the nature of Man: the view of Man as animal, slave to a genetic imperative and playing at games of morality and civilization has always seemed a desperate ploy to legitimize the despicable in their own eyes. I have read your site, watching you cast out questions of moral weight, and I have refrained from commenting as I felt that by the very premise of my identity I would be somehow impure, contaminating the flow of the debate.

Modern (and by that term I refer to post-Renaissance) morality seems overly concerned with concepts of life, death, and the right of one being to place bonds of obligation, consensual or otherwise, upon another. This has become immensely intensified in the past century, as the religious and political spheres have separated to some degree. In America it is quite acute and has been for some time. This serves to de-focus the understanding of morality and how it relates to everyday life and the choices made by sentient beings. By casting morality in political terms it becomes simpler to eschew it.

Let us consider love. You recently questioned your readers regarding the relationship between sex and love, with somewhat predictable results. The problem, from my perspective, is that you muddied the real question (What is Love?) by casting it in the context of sex. A recipe for unsatisfying results. I would have asked simply this: what does love mean to you?

Let me see if I can offer a cogent answer to that question.

Love, in its simplest form is a recognition that others matter. That their tragedies are your tragedies, that their triumphs are your triumphs, that their sorrows and joys are yours as well. Love is the fundamental connection between human beings, beyond all other things. It takes many forms and it hides in many places. Suggest to your local police officer that he engages in his profession out of a fundamental love for his fellow man and he may scoff, but inside he will recognize that there is a grain of truth to it. These are small relationships. Should we be tempted to blend emotion and physics we might call this the Gravitational Force of Humanity. This small love is what makes it possible to live in towns and cities, and to pass strangers on the street without fear or confrontation. This small love fails sometimes, tragically, but overall it seems to prevail.

Let me approach this from another perspective: do you on a daily basis desire to harm others? Do you seek to place your fortunes always above those who surround you? Would you deliberately harm a man who was looking you in the eye for petty personal gain? I submit to you that a significant majority of people would not. I understand that there have been psychological tests and experiments that might seem to bear out the opposite, but put the question in the terms in which I have stated it and ask yourself honestly what the answer would be? Then ask yourself the most important question: why?

The answer is again, love. Not that you love the man you might harm, but that you yourself seek to be loved and that such an act could not only harm the love you feel from others, but that which you feel for yourself. Self-love is powerful- just ask anyone who lets it get out of control. Look at those who do abuse others, those who would take the advantage that casual harm might gain them. Look at those who clearly place themselves above others in all things. They have common traits, not the least of which being that they find themselves surrounded by people who pretend to love them, people who are motivated by the same thoughtless need for themselves as the man or woman who has clawed his way to the top across the shattered lives of his betters.

What to make of this? Nothing more than that mankind seems to be as hard-wired for love as he is for procreation. If there is no hope for you in that statement then I doubt we could profitably continue this discussion.

Love manifests itself in many ways. Sacrifice, either of a lifetime or of life itself, is the most visible manifestation. The religious leader who gives up the chance for a wife and family in order to answer to a higher calling- he acts out of love for his faith, and that is by extension a love of Man. The clich?d soldier throwing himself upon the hand grenade to save his fellows, is that not an expression of love? The doctor who daily grinds against the depredations of nature upon the human body, what motivates him? If you think lucre is all, then you do not know many doctors. And what of engineers, electricians, carpenters, dressmakers, pastry chefs, cobblers, stevedores, drovers? it is the satisfaction of being part of an overall good that drives them far more than simple greed or need. It is the understanding of that basic connection that lets one take satisfaction in a job well done, regardless if that job entails shaping the foundations of a nation or merely stacking those bails in the barn.

In the end, just about every profession practiced by men is a manifestation of that overreaching force of love: none of it direct or even truly presenting itself openly to be seen, but I submit that it is utterly essential to making civilization work. When that love is sundered, civilizations fall.

Romantic Love is a construct of modern civilization, a mixture of the carnal with this smaller ?l? love I have been discussing. That it can usurp all common sense, bring down the mighty or elevate the base shows how powerful it can be, but it is not the driving force of civilization. It is not at the heart of what it is to be Man. It is the advent and the elevation of Romantic Love that provides the despicable with their wedge to separate Man from Morality- pointing to this beautiful confluence of the carnal and the spiritual and calling it the mere satisfaction of genetic imperatives. If one must find the Devil whispering in the eaves, this is where he lurks: it is that which points to the underside of civilization, those dark and festering swamps where Man and love often fail, and calls that the norm, the nature of Man- there is the true voice of evil, the antithesis of love.

My point is that love is deeply written into the smaller parts of day-to-day life. Love is a basic function of human existence. As such it lends credence to the idea that there is an overall purpose to that existence. Not proof, just another hopeful sign.

I oft am concerned by the reactions I engender in folk, even when I cloak myself in the guise of the ordinary. I dislike the way my existence can warp the lives of those who stray close. Another scientific metaphor: my life as naked singularity for the human spirit.

Enough of that.

The question of my existence seems almost inconsequential to this discussion. I feel certain that the notions I presented could as easily have been born of a life in which one?s own demons had been unleashed, confronted and eventually overcome. This is germane to the reason I noted for declining commenting on your posts directly- the stated nature of my existence tends to distort the discussion. Either my words carry added import due to my immortality, or they are rendered suspect by my charade: a classic example of Catch 22, and another reason why I am enjoined against ever answering the question in an even remotely dispositive manner. Mystery makes me what I am in the virtual world. This pains me, but my choices in this matter are nil.

I hide from the world, my only exposure a web site upon which I spin tales and occasionally opine on the nature of Man. What would be the reaction were I to become publicly known as a verifiably ?immortal? being? That my freedom would be forfeit is a given. That my destruction would be sought is to be expected for my existence would threaten too many hide-bound ideologies. You would likely be surprised to see how many people considered rational and thoughtful and committed to the scientific pursuit of knowledge would become irrational when presented with the certainty of my existence. I would become a symbol and a tool claimed by every faction as proof against others, or denounced as an incarnation of evil, some diabolical manifestation to be eradicated as a test of faith.

Could the Devil not dangle eternal life upon the mortal Earth as a lure to damnation? Do not misunderstand- I do not believe in the Devil, or in Evil as some coherent force, rather I use the terms because they are easy and recognizable, despite their ability to fracture the discussion. Nonetheless I believe my point is valid: there are those who do believe in Evil as an active force and my existence would be an intolerable outrage to them. I know this from bitter experience. Furthermore, there are those who would stop at nothing to possess what I have, my warnings as to being careful what one wishes for notwithstanding.

All in all, I am again left with no choice.

It was noted that I dwelt on the darkness without considering the balance of light; however, I believe my position is consistent with the idea that love counters evil, that hope counters fear. I find it odd that in my recent spate of bitter unhappiness I still seem more disposed towards taking a kindly and optimistic view of both the nature of Man and His prospects, than are you. Perhaps I misunderstand? My comment that you should be able to find hope in the statement that Man is as predisposed to love as he is to procreation was offered in the smug assurance that there would be no disagreement with the premise. That you might disagree with the fact is another issue entirely, for I am in no position to expect that anyone should accept my words as indisputable. My arrogance does have its limits.

You said:

As for the nature of man, I must disagree. There are many people who might justify their actions on the basis of simply being animals. The question is not their intentions- but rather what ?despicable? could possibly mean if there is no greater purpose. If we are animals, then all we can do is follow our instincts. If we are hardwired towards behaviors, then how can we follow a construct of morality that is not completely based on pure utilitarianism or genetic success?

The argument becomes circular, and for most the only escape from the circle is faith. Faith is a lovely thing to behold for it provides courage in the face of hopelessness and stands as a bulwark against fear. In the age of ignorance it was sufficient unto itself; however, in the modern arena of ideas the critical thinker cannot easily dismiss the evidence of science. Being a person of faith the fear is that science is merely a tool of damnation, seducing one away from that which has served him so well for so long. It is a frightening dilemma and for those who fall prey to the idea that Man is naught but a somewhat more ingenious animal the slide in to darkness can be short and steep.

That there are those who justify their perfidy on the basis of the animal nature of Man does not lend credence to the notion. If Man is naught but a clever beast why does he possess a sense of right and wrong? For he certainly does. What purpose does it serve? Is it truly just a construct designed to give institutions such as the Church or the Prince control over the populace? How so? Why would a moral sense be required when the threat of death is as easily at hand? It seems to me that the question to be asked is not why so many are capable of such evil, but why any one man would eschew the practice of evil when all around him embrace it? Furthermore, why would any nation elect to abstain from the Empire of Power, why would any collection of peoples elect not to slaughter their foes en masse upon victory in war? Ask not why there is Evil, for the answer to that is the submission of men to the notion that their acts have no consequence beyond the pleasure they obtain and need no justification other than the ability to commit them. I include in this those who commit evil in the name of their faith. Ask instead, why is there Good? That is the difficult question, and the one worthy of the thinking Man.

Hope for Man can be found in a single man, and be valid for all Men. The Christians out there would be nodding in agreement; however, I see Jesus only as an example of something I see manifest all about me. Hope for Man does not require that all men be capable of choosing Good over Evil, just that some are, or even one. For if one can, others can, and that is the essence of Hope.

Posted by

Filed in LovePhilosophy | Comments (1)

Costs

Only fools expect that good deeds exact no cost.

Americans must recognise such costs, and count them in the pantheon of Nike. Should you fail to comprehend, the loss is surely yours. Embrace your Heroes. In the end, what else have you?

Posted by

Filed in Philosophy | Comments (0)

A Conversation With Loren

A conversation between Loren and me:

I have allowed Loren?s words to stand uncommented upon by myself for a pair of days, waiting to see if anyone else had something to say. The silence is deafening, but not entirely surprising. In the end, this is my forum and hence the responsibility for all posted on the open pages is mine and mine alone, as is any obligation for response.

I must admit that when Loren and I began correspondence I was relatively dismissive of him, as was he of me. In my position I am not permitted the luxury of trust. As open as this forum is it is still fairly secure in its own right as I can expect everyone who views it to see it as fiction at best, delusion at worst. I am satisfied with this.

Loren has a keen mind. He delves beneath the surface of the accepted reality and produces insights both exceeding strange and tantalizingly familiar. Despite this, I had not even begun to entertain any kind of hope regarding him. Time and patience are my most potent tools and I abandon them for no one. Still, my heart sank when I read the post he submitted to me and encountered a key phrase: ?inverted faith.?

I have encountered such notions before. Where they are the musings of individuals they are mostly harmless, though they often lead to much personal horror and despair. Where those in positions of power propagate them the result has always, I repeat, always led to widespread and indiscriminate death and destruction. The assorted Heresies of the Catholic Church are but a taste of the wreckage foisted upon humanity by the idea that what is accepted as good is actually evil, and what is feared as evil is actually good.

This actually corresponds neatly with my own problems with organized religion: that any one faith could be so arrogant as to claim that it alone has intimate knowledge of the mind of God would be hilarious were not so many graves dug as a result. Take the word of one who has lived through such times- there is no greater horror than finding oneself in the midst of two religious ideologies at war. Anyone paying attention to the on-going slaughter generated by Islamic reactionaries should have at hand the barest hint of what I mean.

So, I reject the notion that what passes as religious faith today is some perversion of the true relationship between Man and his Creator. It may be wrong, if you choose to be vituperative you may wish to call it ignorant, but to suppose that is in and of itself evil is? arrogant. Forgive me, Loren, but that is what I taste in your words.

Over thirty-five centuries I have listened as one faith after another, one civilization after another has prophesied the immanent End of Days. This is what Loren apparently refers to in his closing statement. I have no foreknowledge of such things, but I can say with some certainty that the ever-upward progress of humanity since descending from the trees can come to a halt. After that halt, there is only one direction in which to go. Humanity has suffered many setbacks throughout its history, but there has always been some culture, some civilization waiting in the wings to carry the torch of cultural progress forward. With the growth of an increasingly interconnected global community the danger is of a collapse from which nothing can arise but anarchy and despair. I personally believe the chance of such a collapse is relatively lower now than it has been in several decades, but that is no guarantee. I am no Oracle. The End can come, but it does not have to, and I reject categorically that all of this is the work of some benevolent (or malevolent) alien race.

Loren's reply:

Greetings!

You're being harsh? There's nothing here to be offended about as far as I'm concerned. My use of the word "inversion" with respect to Christianity has little to do with religion as a concept and much more to do with litteral fact within the given context. Allow me to explain: Judaic religions are by definition inversions of the religious systems and belief-structures of elder times. In no negative or positive sense.

Your comments are perceptive in every way, but you're sort of making a mute point since I simply don't disagree with you. I don't think I do anyway.

Human history at a social scientific level is, among other things, a series of revolts against past established orders - within religion as within politics etc. So it happens that (for the sake of our subject) older Sumerian faiths are sort of "up-side-down" as compared to the faiths of today - i.e. the entities praised as good before are today litterally held as "the devil". Names are different, naturally, pluralistic states have become singular (and vice versa) but the underlying themes remain.

I hope I have at least clarified this. As for them "aliens" and so forth, I think it's safe to say that only that which has been verified is worth believing in. The term itself is hampered by the perspective of those who coins it - wouldn't you agree?

Imagine humanity leaving this planet a thousand years from now, how do they deal with the somewhat more developed lesser primates upon stopping by in a million years or so? I'd be pretty faced if a gorilla in a suit ran away screaming "impending doom!" upon seeing me walking down the street - I would also be rather numbed by historical lessons posed by such folk, and I think I would laugh myself to death at their half-blind half-guess theories regarding who I was.

But that's just me. And I know I'm a pretty bad guy. Sorry for any disappointment I have caused you.

I think those are the relevant perspectives here, for whatever reasonings such as these are relevant at all - since the only interesting perspectives would be unknown ones. Essentially, the scope of those that simply "know better" beyond reproach or discussion.

"Our" perspective, if you will, regardless of our life-spans and the finer details of our existence, is all but too well known to us - anything superior to us (be it by age, technology, or even divinity for lack of better words) must be met in its own light for dealing.

Everything is relative, no? A demonstrating question to pose is whether existence is manufactured as a scientist would pet a herd of rats in a laboratory, or in the ways parents would nurture a group of children, or the manners by which life-forms usually Seem to be alone at the whims and chances of chaos-math and basic universal physics.

In my experience, one not seldom finds exactly what one is looking/wishing for in conducting investigations such as these. Which is why one so rarely hear of devout religious people "changing their minds".

So you do not believe in "aliens"? Good for you. Neither do I. I find it pointless to name things for which one has little or no conceptual understanding. Hell, as I've made clear before, I'm having a hard time fingering a definition of my self - let alone you yourself. Still, for the sake of argument, with your accutely original qualities (for which the only verification to date is my own) let's look at the possibilities here:

Would a singular mutation randomly grant an extreme minority of a given population such extreme qualities as the ability to live virtually forever?

Maybe. Why don't you ask yourself. Experience is something you've got and experience counts a long way when it comes to wisdom.

So what seems to be more likely here?

A vastly more advanced race (that's really all we're talking about here, "aliens", "gods", "demons", are just examples of rationalized words used to describe things for primates when "spelling everything out" would just be futile or even destructive to the 'cause of the explanation) gives evolution a little nudge and then lets time take its part in the process - or genetic mutations spawn a species big-headed enough to argue existence into serious questioning simply because "the real world" didn't seem to offer enough stuff to be remotely interesting.

From Sumerian gateways and lengthy incantations using cannabis and self-starvation as boosters, to Christian angels with flaming swords and golden trumpets, I sometimes sit back and marvel at how incredibly bored humanity must be with herself on a cultural collective level.

I find my misanthropy warranted. We have dwelt on this before.

As for pretty much everything else you mention, I'm right with you though probably a bit more extreme. Religion is protection for slaves and petty masters - synonymous to the word stagnation and yet none the less crucial for keeping order in less than educated collectives.

And I do agree that Christianity's notions are amongst the more insane ones. The very word "catholic" translates "universal" - I'd say they are destined to take water well over their heads (again, again, and again...)

Still, with the clarifications and ramblings above taken into account I sense nothing in your comments that doesn't fall to my liking. You are after all the one individual on this forum who has both the authority and the alledged experience to separate the weed from the crops, in a matter of speaking.

Finally, whether your faith in me as a person is restored or not, everyone is cursed with their own opinions and ideas. I for one think the medium of our correspondance does much more to confuse things than the other way around - be it secure or not.

Security is not really the issue, by the way - the issue is mostly dealing with at least half-serious topics in manners that easily puts them on the same level as all the other mindless gibberish on this global network of ours.

Then again, you're correct, the diffidence with respect to truth and verity amongst mortals certainly serves as our protection. As long as I don't exist, I can say whatever the hell I want - and so can you.

Best wishes,
Loren

And finally, my reply to Loren:

Consider this matter closed between us. I believe I committed the sin of allowing my own past experiences too deeply to color your words. Modern science refers to this as projection and it occurs to me that they may indeed be on to something. I spent a large portion of my life in thrall to the adherents of the Christian and Moorish ideologies. I witnessed vast slaughter between them, as well as the internecine warfare and purges within the Christian faith as various heresies were propagated and brutally suppressed. Prior to those times the clashes of cultists were only lesser evils for being smaller in scale, not for lacking fervor or blood lust. When I read your initial offering it brought those times front and center in my mind. I sent my message to you because I felt that I was indeed missing some aspect of your analysis and I was hoping for clarification. You delivered an admirable recapitulation, such that I rather enjoyed being shown the error of my analysis.

I dislike the written word for correspondence- my forte is the interpersonal, close physical contact, and the ability to discern an individual?s internal dialogue through body language and intonation. The written word lacks this entirely; however, it is useful in that it forces me to be as precise as I possibly can as I attempt in my own meandering way to tell the tale of my life.

As to your misanthropy, I may yet come to rely upon it. I certainly do not hold it against you and I do not think of you as a ?bad? person. I do look forward to conversing with you again.

Posted by

Filed in ImmortalityPhilosophy | Comments (3)

A Response To The Yeti

I am flattered when anyone takes the time to speculate rationally regarding the nature of my existence, particularly when one goes to the lengths The Yeti obviously did in his missive to me. That having been said, I hope he does not take what I have to say about it as dismissive or disrespectful.

I have several problems with the theoretical premise and it begins in the very first paragraph. Cro-Magnon man likely did not suddenly arrive 35,000 years ago. The same mitochondria DNA evidence that excludes Neanderthals from the ancestry of modern man also pushes the emergence date for modern human beings back to as far as 200,000 years ago

Ignoring that for the moment (because evidence of this type is still in a state of flux) we have to understand that none of the ?facts? are fully established. What archeologists present for both peer and public consumption are at best highly educated guesses and attempting to draw hard conclusions based upon those data, or for that matter attempting to categorically refute such theories is an exercise in futility.

Given the above, I am not going to argue the scientific merits of what The Yeti has proposed. I will point out that he and the authors he references seem to suffer from the common human predilections towards compression of history. ?Suddenly, civilization appears in Sumer.? While Sumer and Pre-Dynastic Egypt certainly pre-date my memories I can assure you there was nothing ?sudden? about their rise. Modern humans? major advantage over Neanderthals seems to be an innate ability to deal in abstract concepts, particularly numbers, symbols and historical trends. When these abilities developed and were honed, the rise of civilization would seem to be a natural consequence. But it did not happen suddenly, of that I am certain.

The point I am attempting to make with the verbiage above is that the entire record of evolution and the birth of civilization are still too rife with holes to be bent to any one purpose or another.

Whenever I am confronted with theories about anything to do with human beings, or theoretical intelligences, I always fall back on a basic tool of analysis: motivation.

What motivated the hypothesized aliens to come to Earth? Mining metals is suggested, but it seems to me that any race capable of space travel, even if only within the Solar System, could much more profitably mine metals from the asteroids. Consider: once out of the gravity well of their own world, why descend in to another just to collect raw materials that are so much easier to obtain in space? If they can travel from their planet to Earth they can travel to the asteroids and reap the cornucopia of materials available there. As such, the idea that such beings would go to such lengths solely for metals seems unlikely. If they desired a race of slaves it seems to me they have been dangerously neglectful, as their beasts of burden have developed some interesting habits and abilities likely to make them unsuitable for coerced labor.

Perhaps these aliens acted out of mere altruism? They came across proto-humans and saw potential there, so they meddled in order to give them an evolutionary nudge in the proper direction? There is little to be gained in speculation on this point as we can easily imagine that such actions were taken and the theorized benefactors of humanity then moved on to let Homo Sapiens find its own way towards full sentience. Unless we uncover 100,000-year-old genetic laboratories buried under the ice cap of Antarctica (or elsewhere) there is no empirical method of proving or disproving such a theory and no profit in debating it.

But where does this leave me?

Am I a failed genetic experiment? A pet left behind and forgotten by my masters when they left this world? An autonomous monitor, unaware of my underlying purpose? I am viscerally inclined to reject all of these possibilities; however, honesty requires that I not do so. By my own admission I have no knowledge of my origins, or even of my true age. I claim thirty-five centuries, but this is merely an informed guess- perhaps I am far, far older, but my memories were erased when I suffered that head wound so very long ago? Short of submitting to full genetic analysis I am unlikely to come to any definitive answers in the near future.

Posted by

Filed in ImmortalityPhilosophyThe Past | Comments (3)

The Yeti Offers His Thoughts

The Yeti writes, offering the following theories and speculations. The links are my own, just to provide some background. I have comments to make; however, I will offer them seperately.

Man's ancestor apes are now placed at a staggering 25 million years ago. Hominids appeared about 14 million years ago. 3 million years created the first Homo species, followed by Australopithecus. 1,000,000 years later, we have the first evidence of Homo Erectus. And finally, after another 900,000 years, primitive man, known as Neanderthal. The difference between Australopithecus and Neanderthal is noticeable only in evolutionary terms. They used the same crude stone tools, and had no civilization that we would recognize.
Suddenly, Cro-Magnon man appeared 35,000 years ago. Discoveries in the last two decades have shown that Cro-Magnon is a different offshoot than Neanderthal. Originally, it was thought that Cro-Magnon was our progenitor. Now we know that there truly is a missing link.

And then suddenly, civilization appears in Sumer. I've been reading a lot of my old texts and some of the new articles out. There's a lot of study that simply does not make sense - and can't be fit into the accepted view of civilization. So why did I bring this up.

Because the accepted views of mankind?s origins are not complete. And you maintain that you truly do live a different life than any we've heard of.

If what you say is true, perhaps so is some of the research done by Sichin and Velikovsky and Fromm.

Allow me to throw something out there. Ralph Solecki had evidence that man had actually entered a regressive period through time. Then, inexplicably, "thinking man", Homo sapiens sapiens appears, with a high level of cultural sophistication in relation to what had been a regressive culture. Almost as if man had received a boost.

Do these names sound familiar? Anu, Enki, Enlil, Ninlil, Ea and Ishkur. They're the name of Sumerian Gods. They also have a significant role in what I'm going to suggest.

The theory is that real live aliens came down and utilized prehistoric man as labor to mine metals. They used their knowledge of genetics to create "man" in their own image, using the "clay" of prehistoric man.

This would explain the regression of man, as different types of men would procreate like animals, and be abandoned by their creators.

Enki was the God if the Underworld, and it seems he was in Africa working the mines, away from the original landing places in Mesopotamia.

We know that every culture has Gods and Kings, and all of the ancient literature, from the Iliad, to the Egyptians, to the Bible, to the epic of Gilgamesh to the Indonesian legends all talk of Gods intermarrying the females of man.

Even in Genesis, the sons of Adam left the Garden and went out to procreate with men.

Anyway - that's a lot of information. But the specific understanding, is that Enki was the great protector of man. And also responsible for disobeying Enlil, giving man the secrets of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which were assumed to be increased intelligence and the power to procreate.

Some texts, including that of Berossus, talk of genetic manipulation that included men with two heads, with animal parts, and also, something that we could easily describe as cherubim and seraphim. Manlike creatures, created to serve the Gods, without the power of reproduction, but with other skills according to their need. Say, recreation and a gene that prevents the aging gene from turning on and destroying cells?

Sumerian texts describe men created by Enki and Ninhursag (a type of Female mother Goddess), including one that could not hold back his urine, a woman who could not give birth, and four others, including those who were old too soon, and another with neither male or female organs.

The animals did not work well, but perhaps this explains the artwork and statuary of the time. The Gods realized that they had to mix the ape-men of the time with their own genetic material. And this was Homo-Sapiens created - millions of years ahead of when evolution would allow them to, and without branches leading from Homo Erectus to Homo sapiens.

Straight forward readings of the Bible, the Greek legends and the Egyptian ones actually make sense. It's only when we claim that they had to be myths and legends that they suddenly become convoluted and no longer fit the historical record.

Knowing that this is possible, or probable, or at least no more strange than a woman who claims she is 3500 years old - could it be that you are literally a creation of the same gods that created man, made in their image (God always seems to speak in plural), but bred for a different purpose? The Nefilim, which is the name Sitchin gives them, return every 3600 years, based on the non-elliptical orbit of the Twelfth Planet. In the last six months, we have confirmed the existence of a large body in an non-elliptical orbit that affects Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.

Now - obviously this is pretty far out. And it is not "accepted."

Then again, how would the human race react to finding out we domesticated pets and workers? How would this affect our religion, and our government?

This is the information that is supposed to reside in the secret societies of the Masons.

Interesting, No?

Try finding a copy of the Twelfth Planet, by Zecharii Sitchin. Then look into studies of current astronomy on Planet X, theorized in the 1980's, and recently in the news.

Fascinating. I eagerly await a reply.

Posted by

Filed in ImmortalityPhilosophyThe Past | Comments (4)

Destiny

What destiny awaits mankind? This is a question that often occupies my mind and I can see no purpose to avoiding it.

Destiny and spirituality seem to be linked for most people. If one contemplates fate, one is often drawn to further consideration of the nature of God, or the problematic existence of any deity or deities. I have commented upon this before and I restate here that I fall firmly in to the camp of ?I Do Not Know.? I have no intention of abandoning that position here tonight so please understand that what follows is nothing more than rambling.

Honest atheists understand they cannot disprove the existence of God. With that in mind I have to wonder if we have not all been somewhat misguided regarding the plan of some theoretical supernatural being. For instance, why would a creature capable of creating all of what we know to be reality care one whit about the morality or lack thereof of any given act? What motivates Him? I know that the devout response is to admonish, ?Who are you to question God?? but that tends to offend my critical nature. I do believe that this incongruity often precipitates questioning of the existence of a deity- once the question is asked it becomes increasingly clear to those so predisposed that God seems to be standing by whilst all sorts of chicanery is propagated in His name or against those who believe in Him. Once that becomes firmly entrenched in the mind it is a quick step to rejecting the existence of any God on strictly empirical grounds and coming to believe that whatever destiny awaits a man it will be one of his own making and not the result of some divine plan.

This is always where I begin to have questions.

I do not believe that God, if He exists, takes a personal interest in me; however, if God does exist, perhaps He takes an interest in mankind as a whole. In this case God has no interest in men. God?s interest is in Man, the complex totality of humanity. In that case the destiny of Man would be tied to the future progression of the species, rather than to the subjective successes or failures of its individual parts. This is essentially what I was referring to in an earlier post when I mused on the existence of a ?racial soul?.

Let me be perfectly clear on this point: I do not expect anything I might say here to be taken terribly seriously. I am no theologian.

That said I do not come to such speculation lightly, instead it is the result of three-and-one-half millennia of observing the human condition. Mankind has shown a drive to expand, to improve and to manipulate that is so innate that it moves me to speculate it is by design. Of course there are examples of human cultures that do not appear to be driven in the manner I describe; however, said cultures appear to have no part to play in any grand scheme of overall human development. Just like myself, they are an evolutionary dead-end.

The judgment that some extant cultures are essentially ?dead? may seem harsh, particularly if one is deeply ensconced in the ?equal validity / equal value? meme that defines part of the multicultural values craze currently infecting the west, but one must understand that reality usually is harsh. Ask any existing members of the homo erectus branch of hominids what they think of homo sapiens sapiens? but of course, you cannot: homo erectus was an evolutionary back water once the new hominids arrived in town. Cultures locked in stasis face the same fate. They may totter on for decades, even centuries, but eventually they become extinct.

My take on all of this is simple: cultural evolution, just like species evolution, is not about fairness and equality. Instead it is about progress towards a goal, a destiny. It is quite likely that when humanity makes the next great evolutionary step, be it as a species or as a culture, only a portion of humanity will actually be involved. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how it could be any other way. When that happens, the remainder will be as homo erectus: obsolete and left behind.

Of course there is a corollary position to be argued, that being that cultural evolution does not always have to produce something better. Evolution of species is rife with examples of plants or animals developing in to specific niches in the environment, becoming tightly bound to the conditions that drive their evolution. When sudden change comes the highly evolved species are suddenly too specialized to adapt. The niche disappears, and with it the species. Specialization equates to rigidity, which in turn seems to limit adaptability, or as author Robert Heinlein so aptly put it: ?Specialization is for insects.? The same is true of cultures. New cultures can arise which at first appear to be an improvement, but eventually prove to be unsustainable for being either too rigid, or flawed in conception, or both. Old cultures that have endured for centuries, even millennia, can also be shouldered aside by changes to which they cannot or will not adapt.

What has all of this to do with destiny? Humanity seems to have some greater goal in its collective future. What that goal ultimately is cannot be known; however, some of the upcoming steps can be seen vaguely. One thing is certain: to remain tied to this globe is a dead end for the race of Man. This is not a matter of resources, or environmental degradation or any of the assorted causes of the day embraced by one activist group or another, rather it is a question of probabilities. Any number of calamities might befall the Earth, all having absolutely nothing to do with the presence of human beings. I will name just three here:

Impact of celestial debris
Solar Irregularity
Supernova

We know that large asteroids have impacted this planet in the past, the most popularly known instance being the speculation that an asteroid strike was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. While many see this threat as the province of fiction any person whose worldview is rooted in reality knows that the possibility is quite real. Solar irregularity would be things such as flares, or sudden changes in the sun?s output- I include this only because I have seen it mentioned from time to time both in fiction and in science journals, most of which would put this threat far below that of an impact event, at least over the next few million years. Supernovae are a problem in that the energy output by a nearby (in celestial terms) exploding star could very easily sterilize this solar system.

All of these scenarios are predicated upon very low probability events; however, if you project out past the foreseeable future and in to the very far future the chances go up measurably. Proceed far enough and you come as close to certainty as the assorted theories of probability will allow. Hence the determination that to remain tied solely to planet Earth is to accept a racial death sentence.

The ultimate destiny of Man may be shrouded in mystery, but I am certain that God, if He exists, expects Man to reach for the stars.

Posted by

Filed in PhilosophyThe Future | Comments (0)

The Yeti Speaks

Comments from The Yeti, and my responses:

On your peculiar regenerative condition.

It indeed sounds like you do not die, but rather consume fuel, which would not make you human. You could perhaps be an intelligence inhabiting a human form that was reduced to a simple parasitic state in the distant past. It would explain your comments on how you thought you were rather stupid when you first remember consciousness.

There are plenty of science fiction stories from the 60's that theorize this kind of possibility. I could look them up if you are interested.

Other possibilities - that you are what was once perceived as a minor God, as you thought yourself for a while. The Scientologists teach that precursors to human beings were invaded by alien spirits. Perhaps they are not entirely wrong, and only a few people were. Those few are destined to wander?

You raise some interesting points; however, I am not quite prepared to abandon any claim to humanity just yet. The idea that I consume fuel and that this would be sufficient to distinguish me from humankind seems a bit rash. Let me propose that you allow me to lock you in my basement and feed you nothing but water for three weeks. I daresay you would come out of it alive, but with a noticeable loss of body mass. Would I be justified in saying that you consumed your own mass as fuel?

Do not misunderstand- I freely admit that my continued existence is in and of itself sufficient to raise suspicions as to my humanity. Add to this that I apparently cannot reproduce and I have to conclude that if this is a mutation it is a singularly unsuccessful one. While immortality might seem a desirable goal for an individual it appears it would be terribly inhibiting to a species, an evolutionary dead end.

Or perhaps anyone like you truly does just learn to lay low. With the vast amount of experience gained over time, they would seem god-like to others. Or demonic, as you have found.

Jesus Christ? Mohammed? Buddha?

Of course one might begin to remember what happens to those who step forward to show a new way for humanity. Christ the Almighty has risen? How hard would that be for you to pull off?

Or perhaps myths and scary stories.

Vlad the Impaler? Zombies? Werewolves?

No doubt a person with your peculiar talents would easily inspire stories among illiterate peasants. But what might it do to a philosopher with an ability to write and on whose writings portions of societies are created.

Why did I ?lay low? for so long? It was not a conscious choice at first, just a seemingly fortuitous set of coincidences which led me to move from one situation to another in a way that served to protect me from scrutiny by those too primitive to understand my nature. I am willing to entertain the idea that at some subconscious level I was aware of the danger presented by staying too long in any one place; however, by my reckoning it was some four hundred years or more before I came to fully understand and accept my condition. This implies more than just subliminal understanding, almost a programmed response. I dislike the idea that I might be some semi-autonomous device gone slightly awry.

As to myths, scary stories, etc inspired by me, I tend to doubt I have had such influences. I recently recounted probably the most public and untidy of my exits from society and that failed to generate much in the way of folklore. Of course since I make a habit of avoiding returning to places I have dwelt in the past it is possible that I did leave such things in my wake without being aware of it. Still, I tend to discount it for as I have noted before I have steadfastly avoided bringing attention to myself. Even in those rare circumstances where people began to suspect something was odd and acted against me it was never a momentous event. In most cases I was simply banished. On occasion it was worse.

What would Voltaire, or Emerson, or Thoreau have done with this knowledge.

And if there are more of your kind, is there some impulse that leads itself to eventually outing yourself to the world - like you have just done on your blog?

You count on hiding out in the open - and I'll respect your choice whatever it may be and never ask you, the suspense of not knowing of course being a fantastic creative engine on its own for me. Well done, Methuselah's Daughter. Here's to another 3500 years.
-TheYeti

As to what impulse has led to this ?outing? of myself, who can truly tell? Perhaps it is a subconscious urge to self-destruction. It is certainly frightening to be so open (and believe me, I am being deliberately obfuscatory in both my replies and my recounting of events), and in all honesty I can only see bad things coming of it. Yet still, here I am.

Posted by

Filed in ImmortalityPhilosophyThe Past | Comments (0)

God, Gods, and Destiny

I am not a terribly spiritual individual and I suspect that is a natural consequence of my unnatural condition. After reading some of the more methodical and non-proselytizing descriptions of atheism I find myself forced to admit that I am not an atheist, either. It is not that I believe in a God or assorted gods which hold supernatural sway over the events, debacles and progress of humanity, rather it is that from my perspective mankind does indeed seem to be moving towards something and that in itself begs the questions: towards what, and why?

Those two questions never cease to fascinate me. From a purely Darwinian perspective I suppose one could argue that the seeming progression of the species is simply a factor of homo sapiens sapiens which led it to become the dominant large land mammal on the planet. Indeed, Occam?s Razor would seem to demand such a conclusion as it very neatly obviates the need for any further consideration of the topic. Mankind moves forward because moving forward makes mankind what it is. Simple, neat and understandable.

Yet still?

I have seen good and evil in Man. I have seen peasants stand and fight and die in the face of impossible odds. I have seen warriors leave the field of battle on a whim. I have seen the innocent triumph and I have seen them slaughtered without thought or cause or care. I have seen the religious lift the dumb and pitiful from the depths of despair and I have had the religious condemn the pious to the sword. I have seen the face of evil upon the land, crushing the hopes of generations only to fall in the end to the inevitable march of human progress. In short, I have seen torturous manifestations of this thing people have created which we call civilization and overall the trend is towards the better.

This does not mean that I suffer under the delusion that the entire world is now at a better place than earlier in history, nor do I suppose that things are perfect, nor do I presume to claim that Western Civilization is the best course to follow, though I might be tempted to wager on the last assuming I could find another who would be around in half a millennia to settle the bet.

So, how does this lead me astray from a purely mechanist view of the world? It is simply that I feel that the past lingers with humanity far more than as a mere collection of facts. Race memory? I would hesitate to call it such. Perhaps I am foolish enough to believe in something such as the soul, or perhaps something even more metaphysical. Can an entire species share a common ?soul??

I do not spend sleepless hours in such consideration, but when I do turn my thoughts in this direction I always end the same way: questions, and no answers.

Posted by

Filed in Philosophy | Comments (5)

Mercy

What constitutes mercy? Under what circumstances does mercy become an ill-afforded luxury? Is there intrinsic value in sacrificing soldiers in order to retain a moral imperative? Does that value persist if exercising mercy may prolong the combat and prevent an immediate peaceable solution, post conflict? These two posts on Weekend Pundit and The Truth Laid Bear have turned my thoughts to this topic.

One of the overarching concerns of the Coalition has been to minimize civilian casualties as well as to avoid wholesale slaughter of Iraqi troops. The feeling is that most of the rank and file of the armed forces would just as soon go home as die fighting a futile war to preserve the reign of the tyrant Saddam. On the surface this seems a reasonable expectation, but as has been clearly demonstrated, the situation in Iraq is far more complex: it defies simple pronouncements and therefore confounds simple solutions. Offering troops the opportunity to surrender in a situation where the Coalition cannot guarantee they can be prevented from rejoining the battle, willingly or otherwise, renders the practice virtually meaningless and ultimately foolhardy. The desire to show mercy in these cases is counter to the objective of de-mobilizing the regular Iraqi Army.

Despite the above, mercy is ultimately the best weapon the west can wield against the reactionaries, both religious and socialist. The cost is high in the short term, both in blood and treasure and there will be absolutely no short-term reward. That bears repeating: There will be NO short-term reward. Those whose cultures are too diseased to see anything other than weakness in the willingness to forgo killing, just this one time, will exploit acts of mercy. A policy of mercy requires an acceptance of the vulnerability it imposes and an understanding that the ultimate reward will not be realized in days, or weeks, or months, but likely in decades.

Mercy does not require prostration to those who would abuse it. The hand that firmly clutches the sword can deliver mercy, often times far more effectively than the hand that refuses to wield one. Mercy is possessed of more meaning when it comes from a position of strength and determination and it is most effective when it constitutes a central pillar of a policy of reconstruction and reconciliation. Mercy can be given with the full intent to severely punish those who abuse it, but one must be willing to accept the cost, and must be willing to follow through with consequences.

An interesting (and admittedly not perfect) parallel to this can be found in the history of crime and punishment in the United States during the third quarter of the twentieth century. Increasingly the experts in criminal behavior were putting forth he idea that there were underlying causes that went beyond simplistic explanations that some people were simply ?bad seed?. Doctors became involved in attempts to truly rehabilitate those involved in a life of crime. Attempts were made to determine root causes, tie anti-social behavior to childhood traumas, find ways to allow the alienated to express the rage the experts were certain lay at the core of their misbehavior. Adjunct to this there were moves to loosen the penal system, to allow experts to pronounce on the worthiness of the rehabilitated. In short, there was an attempt to make a systematic application of mercy in an attempt to turn the tide against the undercurrents of criminal behavior.

The attempts to make mercy a more central part of the criminal justice system are generally considered to have been a failure. Central to this assessment is the idea that mercy had transformed the penal system in to a revolving door through which offenders were cycled through the system and released in to society when ?experts? decided they were ready. Ten years in prison no longer meant ten years in prison. Mercy had been expanded to a point where it ceased to have any true meaning. It is almost tragic that the experience was perceived as such a failure by the public because those who attempted it had the right idea, but lacked the science to back them up. Today the west understands far more about the biochemistry of mental illness, but routinely locks up the mentally ill in holding pens where the emphasis is solely on punishment and lip service (if any) is paid to the idea of rehabilitation, but that is a topic for another day.

The lesson is that mercy was applied without a firm understanding of how it should work and with a popular perception that there was no great consequence to abusing the mercy one was shown. The result was a failure that the United States struggles with to this very day.

Military strength can crush armies. Economic prosperity can entice. But only mercy can begin to cure the disease of fundamentalist reactionary resentment. The reactionaries will not respect mercy shown by those whom they perceive to be weak- hence 300,000 soldiers march on Baghdad. The west has the strength to crush them. The west must also have the strength to offer the firm hand of mercy; the kind of mercy that is a second chance, not a third or a fourth or a fifth. Mercy that offers not blind forgiveness, but the chance for redemption. THAT is the great task of western society.

Posted by

Filed in PhilosophyPolitics | Comments (0)

Humanity

I am generally able to avoi